Another shot at Sarah

I also ran across this:

On Tuesday night, CNN's Larry King had comedian Sarah Silverman on his program and, towards the end of the show, Silverman made a crack about whether Sarah Palin should pose for Playboy. Silverman said "I think she should go for it" and King responded, "Agreed."

As might be expected, the comment has irked some.

Lulu Flores, president of the National Women's Political Caucus, told POLITICO that King's comments were, “waaaaayyy inappropriate.”

Referring to King's recent divorce filings to end his 8th marriage, Laura Ingraham said, "Larry, when you're in a hole, stop digging."

"Larry should pose for 'Viagra Monthly'," said Ann Coulter.

Since this is going to be kicked around on talk radio all day I figured I'd have a go at it first.

First of all I was somewhat shocked that the president of the "national Women's Political Caucus" would speak out in defense of Sarah Palin. Then I thought that it might be an organization for conservative women but a check of their website shows that they are truly bipartisan, having members ranging from Michelle Bachmann all the way to Sheila Jackson Lee.

In other words they are doing what the National Organization of Women only pretends to do - support the aspirations of ALL women.

As for the comments themselves. . . so what?

Silverman is a comedienne and a liberal and in the bubble universe occupied by left-wing Hollywood personalities there is no safer target than Sarah Palin. As the one person on the right that the left senses has the most potential to become the next Ronald Reagan Palin terrifies "progressives" with IQ's in the high double to triple digits to the point of losing control of their bowels and bladders.

This fact is sensed (if not well understood) by "progressives" with IQ's in the low double to single digits - folks like David Letterman and Sarah Silverman - who dimly realize that they can elevate themselves and generate buzz among "people who matter" (defined either as people who can get them work or people whom they wish to sleep with) by taking shots at the great bogeyman who gives their leftie friends who went to school on the long bus night sweats.

As for the unfortunate Larry King, whose Alzheimer's Disease is not so fully progressed that he can't have a moment of near lucidity once in a while, we have to make some allowances. In those days when he was possessed of his full mental faculties, such as they were, he would have most likely had the sense to stay away from such a remark. Now that it's all he can do to show up for work with his Depends on under his trousers we do need to cut him some slack.

It isn't like his falling ratings are going to let CNN justify keeping him on the air for much longer anyway.

The "Next Reagan"?

Bruce Walker has a piece up on American Thinker about who he thinks the GOP should choose as its nominee in 2012.

If Republicans could, surely they would nominate Ronald Reagan for president in 2012. As it appears increasingly likely that Republicans -- conservative Republicans -- will control Congress after the 2012 elections, the only missing element in the political equation is a strong, conservative president like Ronald Reagan. In the mix of possible candidates for 2012, there are some potentially promising people.

Sarah Palin, rightly beloved by nearly all conservatives for her honesty, her advocacy, and her spunk, will figure into any list of candidates. Mitt Romney, who decently withdrew from the race before he lost in 2008, ought to be on the short list as well. Mike Huckabee will be some conservatives' favorite as well. Tim Pawlenty has decided that America really needs him to be president, and other Republicans will too.

Already we see that Mr. Walker isn't up on the current situation. Romney just took himself out of the running by endorsing John McCain against J.D. Hayworth (Palin had no choice in this and Republican voters are smart enough to understand that).

Huckabee was removed from serious consideration late last year when another of the violent felons whose prison sentence Huckabee commuted while governor of Arkansas murdered police officers in California. The incident reminded the electorate once again of how profligate Huckabee was in granting clemency, pardons and commutations to men who should never under any circumstances been allowed out of prison. Huckabee did this more than all the governors of the states surrounding Arkansas combined and the murdered cops in CA are not the only innocent people to pay the ultimate price for Huckabee's insane desire to empty the prisons of societies most dangerous and violent bottom-feeders.

As for Tim Pawlenty remember when there was all that press speculation about McCain choosing Pawlenty as his running mate back in 2008? Remember how the consensus opinion in the GOP was that if McCain picked another RINO like himself it would doom what little chance he might have of winning? Pawlenty is still the same man now that he was then and if McCain's humiliating defeat to a know-nothing, done-nothing empty suit like B. Hussein Obama as well as the recent conservative ascendancy seen in everything from the Tea Party movement to the GOP's seizure of the "Ted Kennedy" seat in the Senate teaches us nothing else it is that the "era of McCain" is over (if it ever "was" in the first place)

With deepest respect for Sarah, none of these candidates is another Reagan. Many people have decided that we simply will not find another Reagan for a long time. I think otherwise. During the 2008 nomination season, I wrote several articles proposing a Republican not yet in the race as the Next Reagan. The stars were not aligned right then for him, but all that may be different in 2012. What do we want in our Next Reagan?

First, we want someone whose conservatism is beyond question -- someone who campaigned hard for Doug Hoffman, for example, even while the RNC was supporting the RINO. Second, we want someone of absolute integrity -- someone who is willing to stand all alone if he thinks he is right. Third, we want someone who does not "need" politics -- someone who was a great success in life before entering politics. Fourth, we want someone disassociated from the failures of Obama and also of Bush -- someone who grasped America's disgust with Washington long before the Beltway insiders. Fifth, we want a "grownup" -- someone who is in every sense of the word mature, sober, and serious. Sixth, we want a great communicator -- someone, like Reagan, who works well in every medium of communication. Seventh, we want someone who is universally perceived as a good man -- just like Reagan. One Republican in 2008 met all those criteria, and in 2012, he stands out at least as clearly as anyone as our Next Reagan: Fred Thompson.

First of all everything he says about Mr. Thompson is true, but with the exception of the masculine gender pronouns (he, him, man) it is also true of Mrs. Palin.

Some might quibble about whether Mrs. Palin was a "great success" in life before she entered politics but I challenge anyone to read her autobiography and not be impressed with her life prior to her entrance into politics.

(1) When conservatives began to despair of any true conservative in 2008, gradually, many began deducing that Thompson was the only one who fit the bill. Across the board, in a very thoughtful way, Fred Thompson represents conservative values. When Doug Hoffman ran for Congress, Thompson went to upstate New York to help.

What Mr. Walker says about the way conservative voters felt in 2008 is true. I was there after all. Anyone who was a reader of this blog back then knows how enthusiastically I supported Fred Thompson. And it is also true that Fred followed Sarah Palin's led and supported Doug Hoffman.

(2) No one questions Thompson's integrity. His career was founded on a willingness to fearlessly confront corruption in Tennessee. As a young Republican Senate staffer, Thompson boldly opposed the crimes of Nixon. And as pundits have noted, there are many Senate votes of 99 to 1 in which Fred was that single "no."

It is true that Mr. Thompson was first brought to the public's attention as a young attorney in Tennessee when he brought down a corrupt Democrat governor and that he played a part in the Watergate affair. His voting record in the Senate is very very good. If fact the only problem any conservative might have with it would be those few occasions when he allowed himself to be persuaded by his "good friend" John McCain.

Of course Sarah Palin also built her career on fighting corruption and in her case she had the courage and integrity to take on corruption within her own party.

And this brings us back to that "integrity thing". You see as much as I admire Fred Thompson we do have to admit that there is a stain upon his integrity. You see we found out after the fact that when Fred was holding himself out as a candidate for the presidency he was never serious about it. He was actually angling for an invitation to be someone's vice presidential pick. When he began doing well in the polls he had to make some attempt to seriously campaign but it was clear that his heart was never in it. That fact was never more clearly revealed than in the fact that his single best performance of the campaign was the speech in which he withdrew from the race. And to cap it off his performance on the campaign trail was so lackluster that he would up taking himself out of the running as anyone's VP choice.

(3) Thompson, a star of film and television and a retired senator, does not "need" political power. He is famous, rich, and popular without it. He has a beautiful, loving wife and delightful children. His only reason for seeking the presidency would be his love of America.

Again, everything said about Mr. Thompson here is also and equally true about Governor Palin. Her book sales have made her wealthy and she is able to command large speaking fees. Her online presence and contract with Fox News give her a forum for her views and she has more requests from political candidates who want her to campaign for them than she can possibly assent to. Her family is close and loving and offers her as much joy and fulfillment as Mr. Thompson's could possible offer him. Sarah Palin believes that political power and high office are not things that one seeks out of ambition but are duties that one is called to fulfill.

(4) Thompson gave up his Senate seat soon after Bush began as president. He has not held elective office since 2002. He left Washington in disgust for its machinations, Republican as well as Democrat.

Sarah Palin did not leave Juneau because of her disgust with "its machinations, Republican as wall as Democrat". She rolled up her sleeves and cleaned up the corruption. She left office only after accomplishing everything she had set out to do.

(5) Thompson, like Reagan, is not young. He would be just about as old on inauguration day in 2013 as Reagan when he was sworn into office. Thompson, like Reagan, grew up poor in a small town and worked many jobs and lived in the real world. Thompson is learned in the best sense of the word: He knows exactly why be believes what he believes, but he is also an excellent listener. He is a grownup.

Compare Sarah Palin's upbringing in rural Alaska, where if you didn't hunt you didn't eat, to Mr. Thompson's. Look at some of the jobs she has held. Waitress, journalist - both print and television, commercial fisherman (a business that she and her husband continue to own and operate).

Now compare Mr. Thompson's appearance today to Ronald Reagan's appearance in 1980. Ronald Reagan was an elderly man but he looked vigorous and healthy. The lines on Reagan's face made him look distinguished and wise. Fred Thompson on the other hand simply looks old, even decrepit. It isn't fair. It isn't right. But it is true that in the television age appearance matters to a very great degree. It is true that by 2012 the public might be angry enough at Obama to vote for a man who has aged poorly and looks much older than his actual years, but why take the chance on someone who has already proven himself to be a poor candidate?

(6) Thompson is not only a star of film and television, but Paul Harvey chose Thompson to stand in on his radio show -- a great compliment to Thompson's voice. He has spent decades in all areas of communication and mastered them well.

True, but none of that did him any good in the 2008 primaries. Think about it people. Fred Thompson couldn't even beat JOHN MCCAIN in an election in which most of the people voting were conservative Republicans! That has got to tell you something! In fact let's make it a rule. If you couldn't even beat JOHN MCCAIN is a Republican primary then you shouldn't be allowed to enter ever again.

(7) No one, including his ex-wife, has a bad word to say about Thompson. The left can criticize him only as being "too old, too conservative, and too dumb." This, recall, is precisely what they said about Reagan.

Again, how is this different from Sarah? The left says that she is stupid. The left called Reagan an "amiable dunce". They said that Reagan was a dangerous extremest who would start WWIII with the Soviet Union. They say that Sarah is a warmonger who can't wait to nuke Iran.

If you go back to the beginning of Mr. Walker's essay he says that Romney, Pawlenty, Palin and Huckabee are not the "next Reagan" but that Fred Thompson is. Read Mr. Walker's entire piece over at AT without my comments and then answer this.

In what way does Mr. Walker think that Reagan and Thompson are similar?

They are both men, Republicans, both were once actors, both grew up poor in small towns and both are honest men.

What does Mr. Walker have to say about policy?

Basically nothing. In Mr. Walkers view to be the "next Reagan" one must only have a superficial surface resemblance to Reagan. You have to have grown up in a small town, been an actor and be an old man.

Now I don't think that Mr. Walker is indifferent to policy and I don't think that he is overly concerned with a candidate's personal story. It's just that Mr. Walker loves Fred Thompson.

Mr. Walker is so in love with Fred Thompson that he is blind to both Mr. Thompson's deficiencies as a candidate and to Governor Palin's strengths. That blindness causes Mr. Walker to miss both how much Sarah Palin's personal story tracks with Ronald Reagan's and, for that matter with Fred Thompson's, and how poorly Mr. Thompson campaigned in 2008.

Does Mr. Walker really believe that four more years of age will make Fred Thompson a more attractive and energetic candidate in 2012?

We're damaging their calm

Over the past few days I have read a number of references to the notes that Sarah Palin had written on her hand during her speech and Q&A session at the Nashville Tea Party conference.

Comments like, "Sarah Palin reads notes from her hand, woo woo. Sarah Palin reads notes from her hand, woo woo", which was posted on YouTube to this:

So, you think Sarah Palin is embarrassed by the crib-notes-on-the-palm incident?

You're kidding, right?

Which was written by Alex Baldwin on the Huffington Post.

Then there was the observation by someone that Mrs. Palin used note cares for her speech, then went on to inform us that note cards are the analog version of a teleprompter.

Someone, I think it was a Marine Corps (this is pronounced kôr, in case the president is reading) general said that when you see that you have kicked the enemy in a sensitive spot you should keep on kicking them there.

Clearly Barack Obama's extreme difficulty speaking coherently without a teleprompter is a sensitive spot for the left.

The fact is that when you cut him off from the 'prompter without a massive amount of preparation he starts stuttering, stammering and eventually gibbering about things like visiting all the 57 states in the Union.

In other words he sounds like a man with considerably less intelligence than George W Bush (who couldn't pronounce "nuclear" but who also never talked about "breathalizing inhalators").

The attempt to characterize Palin's note cards as simply the low tech version of Obama's teleprompter falls flat because the two things are not the same.

If Palin had taken the stage with her speech already typed up on 81/2 x 11 paper and had read it word for word that would be the analog version of a teleprompter.

But what Palin did was jot down a few words on 3 x 5 index cards on order to remind herself of the major points she wanted to make and the order she wanted to make them in. Then she depended upon her knowledge of the issues that she was speaking about and the ability to think logically and organize her thoughts then speak her thoughts clearly in order to give her speech.

On the other hand what Obama does is have his speech written for him by someone else then fed to him word for word on a teleprompter so all he has to do is read each word then pronounce it with his undeniable gift for sounding good (as long as he doesn't have to engage his mind and involve it in the speaking process).

In other words Barack Obama's great talent in life is to be a loudspeaker made out of meat.

No wonder the left finds this to be such a sore spot.

Like the man said, we've kicked them in a soft spot so we should keep kicking.

Sarah at the Tea Party

This is 40 minutes long, but worth the time.

About damn time

PHOENIX (AP) - Former Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth says he's planning to run against John McCain for his U.S. Senate seat.

Hayworth told The Associated Press late Friday that he stepped down as host of his radio program on KFYI-AM, a conservative radio talk show in Phoenix. Legally, he wouldn't be able to host the program and be an active candidate.

Hayworth was ousted from his Congressional seat in 2007 after 12 years in office by Democrat Harry Mitchell, and has hosted the radio show for the past few years.

Hayworth says he's not formally announcing a run for the Senate seat, but that "we're moving forward to challenge John McCain."

He added that he's had a wonderful time at KFYI, but "it's time to enter public life again."

This story dovetails well with two postings on American Thinker, one in the articles section from yesterday and one in the blog from today:

John McCain: Palin's Political Bridge to Nowhere

Sarah Palin's decision to campaign for John McCain's reelection bid is dismaying some of her staunchest allies and defenders on the web.

This serves as a much-uninvited buzz-kill to conservatives, who finally had the beam of hope shone on them Tuesday night. Grassroots conservatism made a historic comeback with Scott Brown, who defeated Martha Coakley for Edward Kennedy's Senate seat in the very liberal state of Massachusetts.

Aside from her personal allegiance to John McCain, it is incomprehensible what Palin thinks this will do for the country or her political career, which has made her one of the main inspirations of grassroots enthusiasm.

Why has Sarah Palin agreed to campaign for McCain?

Go figure. Why would Sarah Palin agree to stump for McCain in Arizona? She must have learned through hellfire that loyalty in politics is an oxymoron, yet, she can't let it go. She is the real deal. An honest Sarah bemuses the political elites, but at the same time plays right into their power grabbing hands.

Here's the deal on why Mrs. Palin is supporting John McCain in his (hopefully unsuccessful) bid for reelection.

Sarah Palin is a gracious lady who will not turn her back on a friend no matter what the cost.

She recognizes that if it were not John McCain choosing her to be his running mate that the average American's response to hearing her mentioned as a possible presidential candidate would be, "Sarah who?".

When her autobiography was attacked by former members of the McCain campaign John stepped up and pronounced it a "very accurate" account.

I'm sure that Governor Palin also understands that if she does not honor Senator McCain's request that she campaign for him that she will be attacked by her detractors as disloyal and ungrateful and the attacks will have enough of a ring of truth about them to stick.

I agree with those who say that it is time for Mr. McCain to return home to Arizona and enjoy what I hope will be a long and healthy retirement. I look forward to being able to look at him and see only a war hero and not a RINO lose cannon.

I really doubt that this will harm Mrs. Palin in any way.

Palin closes in on Obama

From the Los Angeles Times:

Lordy, Lordy, Lordy, look what the pollsters just brought in.

A pair of new surveys revealing that Democrat President Obama is still declining and has hit a new low in job approval among Americans just 56 weeks after they elected him with a decided margin.

And -- wait for it -- Republican Sarah Palin is successfully selling a whole lot more than books out there on the road. Even among those not lining up in 10-degree weather to catch a glimpse of pretty much the only political celebrity the GOP has these days.

First, el jefe. Facing double-digit unemployment, rising spending, deficits and Afghan war casualties plus a keystone but stalled healthcare reform effort that caused a rare Sunday presidential visit to Capitol Hill, Obama recently fell below 50% job approval for the first time.

Then, last week's deft dance of rhetoric over sending reinforcements to Afghanistan but, on the other foot, bringing them home quickly maybe gave him a brief boost. That, however, collapsed with equal rapidity.

Obama's new Gallup Poll job approval number is 47%. Last month it was 53%.

Regular Ticket readers will recall how in this space in late November we pointed out that Obama's closely-watched job approval slide was coinciding with Palin's little-noticed rise in favorability. And it appeared they might cross somewhere in the 40s.

Well, ex-Sen. Obama, meet ex-Gov. Palin.

The new CNN/Opinion Research Poll shows Palin now at 46% favorable, just one point below her fellow basketball fan.

(The same poll, btw, has bad news for Dick Cheney-haters; the outspoken former VP has climbed out of the 29% basement back up to 39% now. How do you suppose he's done that without a new book? But that's another story.)

Not that either Palin or Obama will admit caring about such trivial things as disparate political polls....

Now would all the people who have been saying things like "sure Palin's great, but she's just too unpopular" shut the frak up!

If you don't think she would make a good president fine, just say so. But stop this "she can't win" whine. Like I've told you all along when the people get to meet her, unfiltered by McCain campaign staffers who hated her because she is conservative, they will love her.

Let's remember something. Come 2012 anyone who will not vote for Sarah Palin because she is "too conservative" will wind up voting for Barack Obama anyway no matter who the Republicans run. Colin Powell and a whole raft of so-called "moderates" proved that. When the Republican party nominated exactly the kind of moderate candidate they had been telling us to nominate they repaid the GOP by voting for Obama.

40% of the people in this country identify themselves as conservative. 20% identify themselves as liberal. That means that to win a presidential election Democrats have to convince 30% plus 1 either that they really aren't all that liberal or that being liberal is the way to go.

Republicans, on the other hand, only have to convince 10% plus 1 that conservatism better serves the nation - provided that they can convince the conservative base that their candidate is genuinely conservative.

Which is easier, to persuade 30% of a lie or 10% of the truth?

High-Tech Rape?

Robin of Berkley has an excellent piece up on American Thinker today which shins the spotlight on one of the nastier aspects of the continuing plague of Palin Derangement Syndrome which is gripping the Left, especially its propaganda organs - otherwise known as the mainstream media. Robin's point here reminded me of Clarance Thomas' characterization of the attempt to sabotage his Supreme Court appointment with baseless charges of sexual misconduct as a "high-tech lynching".

The Wilding of Sarah Palin

By Robin of Berkeley

When I was in college, I read a book that changed my life. It was Susan Brownmiller's tome, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, which explained rape as an act of power, not just lust. What I found particularly chilling was the chapter on war -- how rape is used to terrorize a population and destroy the enemy's spirit.

While edifying, the book magnified the vulnerability I already felt as a female. Fear of rape became a constant dread, and I sought a solution that would help shield me from danger.

The answer: seek safe harbor within the Democratic Party. I even became an activist for feminist causes, including violence against women. Liberalism would protect me from the big bad conservatives who wished me harm.

Like most feminists, it was a no brainer to become a Democrat. Liberal men, not conservatives, were the ones devoted to women's issues. They marched at my side in support of abortion rights. They were enthusiastic about women succeeding in the workplace.

As time went on, I had many experiences that should have made me rethink my certainty. But I remained nestled in cognitive dissonance -- therapy jargon for not wanting to see what I didn't want to see.

One clue: the miscreants who were brutalizing me didn't exactly look Reagan-esque. In middle and high schools, they were minority kids enraged about forced busing. On the streets of New York City and Berkeley, they were derelicts and hoodlums.

Another red flag: while liberal men did indeed hold up those picket signs, they didn't do anything else to protect me. In fact, their social programs enabled bad behavior and bred chaos in urban America. And when I was accosted by thugs, those leftist men were missing in action.

What else should have tipped me off? Perhaps the fact that so many men in ultra left Berkeley are sleaze bags. Rarely a week goes by that I don't hear stories from my young female clients about middle aged men preying on them. With the rationale of moral relativism, these creeps feel they can do anything they please.

What finally woke me up were the utterances of bitch, witch, and monster toward Hillary Clinton and her supporters early last year. I was shocked into reality: the trash talk wasn't coming from conservatives but from male and female liberals.

I finally beheld what my eyes had refused to see: that leftists are Mr. and Ms. Misogyny. Both the males and the females don't care a whit about women.

Women are continually sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. If under Radical Islam women are enshrouded and stoned and beheaded, so be it.

My other epiphanies:those pony tailed guys were not marching for abortion rights because they cherished women's reproductive freedom. It was to keep women available for free and easy sex.

And the eagerness for women to make good money? If women work hard, leftist men don't have to.

Then along came Sarah, and the attacks became particularly heinous. And I realized something even more chilling about the Left. Leftists not only sacrifice and disrespect women.

It's far worse than that: many are perpetuators.

The Left's behavior towards Palin is not politics as usual. By their laser focus on her body and her sexuality, leftists are defiling her.

They are wilding her. And they do this with the full knowledge and complicity of the White House.

The Left has declared war on Palin because she threatens their existence. Democrats need women dependent and scared so that women, like blacks, will vote for liberals.

A strong, self sufficient woman, Palin eschews their protection. Drop her off in the Alaskan bush, and she'll survive just fine, thank you very much. Palin doesn't need or want anything from liberals, not hate crimes legislation that coddles her, not abortion, which she abhors.

Palin is a woman of deep and abiding faith. She takes no marching orders from messiah like wannabes, like Obama.

And so the Left must try to destroy her. And they are doing this in the most malicious of ways:

By symbolically raping her.

Just like a perpetuator, they dehumanize her by objectifying her body. They undress her with their eyes.

They turn her into a piece of ass.

Liberals do this by calling her a c___t, ogling her legs, demeaning her with names like "sexy flight attendant," and "Trailer Park Barbie," and exposing her flesh on the cover of Newsweek.

And from The Atlantic Magazine's Andrew Sullivan: "Sarah Palin's vagina is the font of all evil in the galaxy."

Nothing is off limits, not actress Sandra Bernhard's wish that Palin be gang raped or the sexualizing of Palin's daughters.

As every woman knows, leering looks, lurid words, and veiled threats are intended to evoke terror. Sexual violence is a form of terrorism.

The American Left has a long history of defiling people to control and break them. The hard core 60‘s leftists were masters of guerilla warfare, like the Symbionese Liberation Army repeatedly raping Patty Hearst. Huey P. Newton sent a male Black Panther to the hospital, bloodied and damaged, from a punishment of sodomy.

The extreme Left still considers themselves warriors, righteous soldiers for their Marxist cause. With Palin, they use sexual violence as part of their military arsenal.

Palin is not the only intended victim. As the book, Against Our Will described, the brutality is also aimed at men. By forcing men to witness Palin's violation, the Left tries to emasculate conservative men by rendering them powerless.

The wilding of any woman is reprehensible. But defiling a mother of five, with a babe in her arms, and a grandmother, is particularly obscene. It is, of course, Palin's unapologetic motherhood that provides fuel to the leftist fire.

Because, as a mother, and a fertile woman, Palin is as close to the sacred as a person gets. She is not just politically pro life. Palin's whole being emanates life, in stark contrast to the darkness of the left, the life despoilers.

These "progressives" are so alienated from the sacred that they perceive nothing as sacred. And they will destroy anyone whose goodness shines a mirror on their pathology. The spiritually barren must annihilate the vital and the fertile.

It has been almost two years since I woke up and broke up with liberalism. During these many months, I've discovered that everything I believed was wrong.

But the biggest shock of all has been realizing that the Democratic Party is hardly an oasis for women. Now that it has been infiltrated by the hard Left, it's a dangerous place for women, children, and other living things.

In the wilding of Sarah Palin, the Left shows its true colors. Rather than a shelter for the vulnerable, leftists will mow down any man, woman, or child who gets in their way. Not a movement of hope and change, it is a cauldron of hate.

From Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it.

In these dark times, with spiritually bankrupt people at the helm, thank God we have bright lights like Sarah Palin to illuminate the darkness.

A frequent AT contributor, Robin is a psychotherapist and a recovering liberal in Berkeley.

Conservatives have long remarked on the hypocrisy of the left which supposedly champions women's rights yet can't think of any way to express disagreement with Michelle Malkin's political views other than to call her an "Asian whore".

I think that Robin is spot on in her analysis. As hysterical as the left could get in it's attacks on George W Bush there never was a sexual component in them. Yet with Gov. Palin they have enormous trouble coming off the sexual component of their attacks. And left-wing women seem just as eager to participate in this high-tech rape as left-wing men.

I looked at the comments to this on AT since I was curious to see how leftists would respond (and there are always leftists lurking on AT and other conservative sites) yet no one had the guts to weigh in on this issue.

It seems that Robin shined the light on a truth so ugly that even the most delusionaly committed leftist wackjob can't bring him/herself to engage with it directly.

However I did see this comment by someone identified as Mabelee:

You are right in saying that "rape" is aimed at men, too, to terrorize them by making them watch. Look at the number of prominent conservative men who have announced that Palin is not a serious contender for the presidency simply because of the bashing she's taken from the left. They see her as "spoiled goods". Wow! This is all making sense now. Sarah isn't letting the left define who she is and I won't let them define who she is either.

This is an excellent observation. The Republican establishment hates Sarah Palin because she is not one of them. Their ideal Republican is someone like John McCain or Bob Dole. They hate Gov. Palin for the same reason they hated (and in their hearts continue to hate) Ronald Reagan.

But there are many more Republicans who distance themselves from Mrs. Palin because they figure that she has been so damaged by the attacks that she cannot recover politically or because they don't want to get a dose of what the left is dishing out against Sarah by publicly identifying with her.

To that first group I point out that Sarah Palin's poll numbers are moving up not just among Republicans but among Independents and even Democrats. As the people have more opportunities to get to know her they are finding out how wrong the media caricatures were. Eventually you are going to be in the embarrassing position of having to run along behind the Palin bandwagon shouting "me too, me too!".

To that second group of Republican "men" who are simply too gutless to come out in support of someone who is currently being slimed by the left and it's attack-dog media I have only this to say. You are utterly and absolutely beneath contempt. You are nothing but a worthless pack of geldings who should be stripped naked and whipped through the streets of your home towns then be clothed in burkas and sent to Somalia where you can live out your worthless lives as junior "wives" of Islamic warlords or pirates.

To the left I have this to say. What you say about Sarah Palin or anything else does not bother me in the least. It has been more than a decade since I have recognized any common humanity with you. Your words have no more power than the barking of a flea-bitten mange covered stray mongrel dog rooting around in the city dump. At best you can occasionally rise to the level of a pack of monkeys screaming and throwing feces at something that frightens them.

But under no circumstances do I consider any thought or opinion you might now or ever have to be of the slightest interest or import. Nothing you might ever have to say about anything can be of the slightest consequence to any civilized participant in the human race. The only reason that you can not be hunted down and exterminated like the malignant vermin you are is the unhappy fact that you possess DNA which identifies you as biologically "human" and so entitles you to ghe same protections under law which real people enjoy.

Conservatives, and other actual human beings, should take the left's hysterics about Palin as a sign that she is the best person to undo their evil, since if she really were nothing but a stupid c--t they would largely ignore her - after all when was the last time you heard a leftist rant against Peggy Noonan?

Sarah, we hardly knew ye ;-)

I went to Amazon.com this morning to check on my pre-ordered copy of Sarah Palin's autobiography and while there I looked at some of the other Palin books.

All of the books that came up on the first page were, or seemed to be, positive except one. So I clicked on that one to see what they might have to say that was critical of Gov. Palin.

This is from the publisher's description of 101 Things You - and John McCain Didn't Know About Sarah Palin.

Hunter. Hockey mom. Live action figure.
Sarah Palin is living proof that politics does indeed make strange bedfellows. In 101 Things You--and John McCain--Didn't Know about Sarah Palin, readers learn the (alleged) truth about the (reputed) Republican darling from Alaska who's taken the nation by (ice) storm. In this hilarious, irreverent look at the world's most infamous Miss Congeniality, comedian and WTF? (ISBN 1605500313) author Gregory Bergman reveals more than one hundred bizarre, obscure facts about the bizarre, obscure governor from Wasilla, including:

#10 Sarah Palin supports funding for abstinence-only programs in schools. Just call her Grandma.

#22 "First Dude" Todd Palin, aka Sarah's husband, works for British Petroleum. Maybe he can bring gas prices down for good.

#55 Sarah Palin's future son-in-law Levi Johnston is a self-proclaimed "f-king redneck." "First Grandbaby" Billy Bob Johnston?

#100 In 2007, Sarah Palin offered $150 to every hunter who hacked off the left foreleg of a wolf shot from a plane. Talk about wolves being thrown, uh, to the wolves.

These are the four things the publisher considered most outrageous to hang out there and hook people into buying the book to see just what a wackjob Mrs. Palin is!

The author, Gregory Bergman has obviously never been outside the city limits of Manhattan, Washington DC or Los Angeles - unless you count the time he has spent in the air flying from one to the other.

Miss Ann is talking

That means that YOU are listening!

THE GRATING COMMUNICATOR
by Ann Coulter
October 21, 2009

The Obama administration has attacked Fox News in order to prevent government corruption stories broken on Fox from bleeding into the other media, which are all-consumed with daily updates on Levi Johnston's Playgirl spread and Carrie Prejean's breast implants.

That's understandable. But I think the administration should have picked someone other than David Axelrod to deliver the claim that Fox News is "not really news," inasmuch as Axelrod was behind the leak of scurrilous allegations in Jack Ryan's sealed divorce papers when he was running for a Senate seat against Obama. Talk about vicious personal gossip.

Now that Fox has been branded an untouchable, the teacher's-pet media are jubilant.

In Newsweek, Jacob Weisberg wrote a column saying liberals should refuse to appear on Fox News, pointedly concluding, "And no, I don't want to come on 'The O'Reilly Factor' to discuss it." Considering that Weisberg is a 107-pound weasel with a speech impediment, this is on the order of Weisberg's announcing that he's not interested in appearing in the next "Ocean's Eleven" movie with George Clooney.

The strangest thing about all the invective against Fox is that it is happening in a world that contains MSNBC. At least Fox News primetime hosts, and many of their guests, know something about politics. MSNBC's primetime lineup presents an array of people who sound like earnest college kids who just walked up to a Common Cause table, and the sum-total of what they know about politics is what they read in the brochures.

In the past week, both Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann have rolled out the Willie Horton ad, claiming that it marked the beginning of vicious personal attacks in politics, as opposed to what it was: The most devastatingly relevant campaign commercial in all of American history.

You can always astonish college kids by telling them the true story of Willie Horton. Among the jaw-dropping facts are:

-- In the '80s, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that a prison furlough policy had to be extended to convicted murderers, who were ineligible for parole.

-- Even the Massachusetts Legislature, which contained about three Republicans, realized this was insane, and quickly passed a bill excluding first-degree murderers from the weekend furlough program. But in a desperate bid for the ACLU's Brain-Dead Liberal of the Year Award, Gov. Michael Dukakis vetoed the bill.

-- Horton, who was later released under this program, was in prison for carving up a teenager at a gas station and then stuffing his body into a garbage can. (He had already been convicted of attempted murder in South Carolina -- through no fault of his own, the victim survived.)

-- Even after Horton used his Dukakis-granted furlough to rape and torture a Maryland couple in their home for 12 straight hours, the Greek homunculus issued a statement reaffirming his strong support for furloughing murderers.

-- The Bush campaign commercial about Dukakis' furlough program never showed a picture of Horton. In fact, the actors playing "criminals" passing through a revolving door in the ad were all white.

-- Voters considered it relevant that a candidate for president was so beholden to the ACLU that he backed an idiotic furlough program that released first-degree murderers.

Every informed student of the 1988 campaign knows that the Bush ad didn't show Horton's picture. And yet in Keith's discussion of Bush's allegedly vile, racist use of Willie Horton, he used a phony version of the ad, doctored to include a photo of Horton.

I don't blame Keith personally for this blatant distortion: He gets all his research material from Markos Moulitsas and other left-wing bloggers, so he can't be held responsible for the content of his show. Keith's principal contribution to the program is his nightly display of self-congratulation and pompous douche-baggery.

Remember, Keith, like his MSNBC colleague Contessa Brewer, majored in "communications" in college, not a research-related field, such as political science. In his coursework, he learned such skills as: Dramatically Turning to Camera, Hysterical Self-Righteousness, Pausing Portentously and Gravely Demanding Apologies/Resignations From Various Public Figures.

Given this background, it's understandable that Keith will make errors. As viewers witnessed recently, he can't even pronounce the name of prominent American economist and philosopher, Thomas Sowell. (Although he did spend three weeks at a Berlitz course in Arabic honing his pronunciation of "Abu Ghraib" to razor-sharp prissiness.)

The bloggers and Keith bring different skill sets to the game. They provide the tendentious half-truths, phony opinion polls and spurious social science, while Keith provides his booming baritone, gigantic "Guys and Dolls" suits and gift for ridiculous, fustian grandiloquence. Keith is far better equipped than, say, the pint-sized, girly-voiced, Frito Bandito-accented Markos Moulitsas to deliver the party line.

But here's the fly in the ointment: Keith has once again been victimized by left-wing blogs into thinking that the 1988 Bush ad showed Willie Horton's picture, when in fact, Horton's race was deliberately scrubbed from the ad.

Again, in fairness to Keith, he's never been a "content guy." He was a communications major. (The agriculture school Keith attended offered a degree in this field.) He lifts the material for his show from liberal blogs, overwrites it, and throws in his trademark smirking and snorts. But that's all he does because, again, he was a communications major.

I got busy this past few days and missed posting Miss Ann's column in a timely fashion, but decided to go ahead and put it up late because it is one of her better efforts.

You can always tell what Democrats are afraid of because that is what they shriek with the most outraged fury over.

It is also what they tell the most outrageous lies about.

As the Left's paroxysms of foaming madness over the Willie Horton ad proves.

You can also see this in candidate debates when the Republican accuses his Democrat opponent of being "liberal".

At this point the liberal candidate will become huffy and lament the fact that politics has "degenerated" to the point where we must always attach labels.

Here's a comeback for the next Republican candidate who gets scolded for "labeling" his opponent. Ask his opponent if he supports putting warnings on packs of cigarettes. Then while the liberal is still sputtering ask the audience why it is proper to attach a warning label to one dangerous product, tobacco, but not another, political liberalism.

There is a lesson in here for the GOP, if it wishes to regain control of the legislature and the White House. Look at which Republican the Left is spewing the most hatred and derision at.

That is the person they fear the most. That is the person they believe can beat their little tin messiah in the next presidential election.

Do I need to say her name?

Checking in on Sarah

C. Edmond Wright looks at how things are working our for Sarah Palin:

Now correct me if I am wrong, but didn't I hear the Jurassic media bury the career of Sarah Palin just last July? And weren't they joined in this mockery by the so-called conservative elites like David Brooks and Karl Rove and Joe Scarborough and so on?

Wasn't Mo Dowd just delirious in fact that the wicked witch (of her world) was dead?

Well, just who is looking out of touch and foolish now? Hint: It isn't the Killa from Wasilla. And yes, I think that is her Brinks Truck in fact. One of them anyway.

The temptation here is to rub the seven million dollar book advance in the face of all her naysayers -- then add that the book is coming out early and in fact breaking all kinds of sales records though not even edited yet. But we won't do that for Mo's sake.

Another temptation is to chide the Jurassics and the elites who were snickering at the thought she could command the six figures fees the big boys get for speaking engagements -- with the reports that she is currently sifting through some eleven hundred offers. Cha-ching. We won't make a big deal over that either. It might make Colin Powell blush.

What is the real story here is that given a set of singularly difficult circumstances, Governor Palin made a counter-intuitive and gutsy decision that has already proven right for all parties involved. We call that brilliance. We call that effective leadership.

Perhaps inside the beltway, those measures of wisdom and intelligence and instinctive leadership are out of date. All too often in that world, decisions are made by what is the safe play and by what will play well with the pundits. Damn the consequences to others, just pull that focus group report and make sure we look good to the media.

That was not how Palin measured her decision. She was willing to look outside the box for a possibility, and when she found an idea that worked for everyone she grabbed it. Quickly. And she never looked back. Why Dan Rather might call that "...courage..."

Palin did not seem to worry a bit about how her decision would look to the pundit class as she strode to the microphones and confidently gave a shocking announcement that she knew would bring down a hell storm of self-important derision. She did not flinch. She made her decision, announced it, and went about making it work for all involved.

And it has. It has worked for the state of Alaska, where their small government is no longer burdened by over the top media scrutiny and an endless string of nuisance legal actions. Alaska can get back to being Alaska, and the state is governed by a man who shares Palin's vision for the state without having one of the biggest media targets in the history of the country painted on his back.

What? You don't know his name? Good. Alaskans probably like it that way.

And the resignation has certainly worked for Palin's family and the former governor herself no doubt. They no longer have the targets painted on their backs either. They no longer are burdened by a mountain of legal debt and the mountain of legal debt is no longer growing like it was. Win. Win. Win.

Heck, it looks like the family will be able to travel the entire country at the request of many other people happy to pay their expenses and a nice honorarium as well. That's not a bad educational experience, and I even doubt the former governor will burden us with stories about how much she has sacrificed while doing all of this jet setting.

Along the way, she will be exposed to millions and millions of American voters who will see her in person or see local coverage of her appearances. She will curry favor with many Republicans and other conservative candidates across the country. Her rolodex will be engorged with valuable contacts. Her work in this area is likely to have a major impact on the mid-term elections of 2010 in fact. If it goes well for the GOP, she will get much of the credit in all likelihood.

There will be sound bytes from her on any number of weighty issues. That started last week in Asia in fact. Even Charles Krauthammer will be impressed. By the time 2012 rolls around - just in case she has that year circled in her day planner - any notion of her lack of depth or experience will have been clearly dispelled.

Tina Fey shooting the moose will be a distant memory. Charlie Gibson will be the one thrown to the curb in his chosen profession. And I doubt Katie Couric will age as gracefully as Sarah Palin will.

To summarize, every single ramification of Palin's resignation has come up aces. For her, her family, her state and even for any future political ambitions, it was the right call.

Even in the one arena the Jurassic media and conservative elites thought they were really expert -- politics -- Palin has trumped them in that too. It is almost 100% certain that she will come in to the year 2012 with a lot more money, a lot more exposure, a lot more commentary on the big issues, a lot more potential campaign workers across the 57 states and a lot more favors owed than she ever could have by hanging around Juneau for two more years. Yes, even in purely political terms, Palin's business and personal decision has proven to be superior to what the pundits thought she should have done.

Now of course this is sending the pundit class in the D.C.-Manhattan corridor into the vapors, not to mention shock. They never have been able to make one correct assessment about Palin and her relationship with the American people and their reaction to their own ineptness is to hate Palin herself.

Millions of Americans are not surprised however. Why do you think so many are buying her book already. You can call those "votes" and also "future campaign contributors."

They are not caught off guard by the brilliance of her decision. They knew it all along.

And I add proudly, so did American Thinker. Our contributing authors penned no fewer than 9 articles in the two weeks following Palin's resignation, and every single one of them supported her decision as wise and several pieces were scarily prescient in how they predicted just this type of success for her in light of the decision.

It is obvious that Palin knew what she was doing all along. Who knows what she will do in 2012. It doesn't matter at the moment. What matters is that her decision to resign as Governor of Alaska will put her in a far superior position for whatever she does or does not pursue.

I think that's hilariously ironic. Betcha she does too. So who's laughing now?

The world is Sarah's oyster. It will be fun to see how the left and the "Republican" establishment try to spin her triumphs into more "evidence" that she is an idiot.

President Palin. Get used to it.

Attn: GOP

The definition of insanity is repeating the same actions and expecting a different result.

From The Politico:

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has been quietly assembling the blueprint of a presidential campaign and will announce Thursday the support of a group of high-level political strategists and donors, complemented by a handful of top new media consultants, POLITICO has learned.

Pawlenty, under the radar of D.C.’s political community, has locked up some of the key operatives who engineered then-President George W. Bush’s reelection campaign — a significant feat for a little-known Midwestern politician.

The moves underscore, and will lend credence to, the emerging belief among many establishment Republicans that Pawlenty is becoming the sole viable alternative to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a potential Republican primary rival. The Minnesota governor has even gone so far as to contact some of Romney’s former supporters.

These "establishment Republicans" are the RINO assholes who pissed away the party's majority in congress and gave us John frakin' McCain as our nominee last time! Do we still want to listen to them?

Has everyone forgotten the fear that gripped the GOP when it looked like McCain was going to pick Pawlenty as his running mate? We knew that adding another useless RINO to the ticket wold make absolutely certain what was already highly likely - a Democrat in the White House come Jan. 2009.

As I have pointed out and as Rush Limbaugh has pointed out the left is showing us who they fear, who they think can beat Obama and that is Sarah Palin.

Nothing else explains the continuing insane jihad against the former governor.

Let me repeat. When the entire Democrat party AND the RINO Republican "establishment" (who are responsible for the GOP's current problems) collectively shit themselves in blind terror at the mere mention of Sarah Palin's name that should tell real conservatives (also known as real Americans) that WE HAVE OUR CANDIDATE!

Yeah, she's real stupid

Gov. Palin defends her contention that the little tin messiah's Marxist health care "reform" will lead to death panels.

Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.

The President made light of these concerns. He said:

“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore....It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.” [1]

The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program." [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]

Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.... If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]

As Lane also points out:

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic. [7]

Even columnist Eugene Robinson, a self-described “true believer” who “will almost certainly support” “whatever reform package finally emerges”, agrees that “If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.” [8]

So are these usually friendly pundits wrong? Is this all just a “rumor” to be “disposed of”, as President Obama says? Not according to Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, who writes:

Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives.... It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen ... should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign. [9]

Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” [11]

President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. It’s all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform.


[1] See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/president-obama-addresses-sarah-palin-death-panels-wild-representations.html.
[2] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[3] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1); Sec. 1233 (hhh)(3)(B)(1), above.
[4] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1)(E), above.
[5] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[6] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html].
[7] Id.
[8] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002455.html].
[9] See http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/letter-congressman-henry-waxman-re-section-1233-hr-3200.
[10] See http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf[11] See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions.

Sarah speaks truth to power

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin called President Barack Obama's health plan "downright evil" Friday in her first online comments since leaving office, saying in a Facebook posting that he would create a "death panel" that would deny care to the neediest Americans.

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care," the former Republican vice presidential candidate wrote.

"Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote on her page, which has nearly 700,000 supporters. She encouraged her supporters to be engaged in the debate.

The claim that the Democratic health care bills would encourage euthanasia has been circulating on the Internet for weeks and has been echoed by some Republican leaders. Democrats from Obama on down have dismissed it as a distortion. The nonpartisan group FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania says the claim is false.

The allegation appears to be based on a provision of the House bill that would require Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling sessions, on a voluntary basis, for beneficiaries who want the service. Medicare already covers hospice care. And legislation passed by Congress in 1990 requires that patients be asked if they have a living will.

Obama addressed the controversy during a July 28 AARP-sponsored town hall.

"Nobody is going to be forcing you to make a set of decisions on end-of-life care based on some bureaucratic law in Washington," he said.

Bull. Shit.

Remember when the woman told Obama about her mother who needed a pacemaker but the doctor didn't want to do the surgery because she was so old? She took her mom to another doctor who admired the old lady's spirit and did the operation which gave the woman additional years of life to enjoy.

Remember how Obama said that the system wouldn't be able to base decisions on someone's "spirit" but would have to make hard choices like maybe someone would be better off "taking pain pills" rather than getting needed surgery?

"Soft" euthanasia by denying treatment in favor of just "making someone comfortable" is just as much euthanasia as giving someone a lethal injection. We already know that Obama favors this for infants who survive botched abortions (he opposed the Born Alive Infant's Protection Act as long as it was politically possible for him to do so). Do we really believe that someone that soulless and evil would have any problem with doing the same to the elderly or disabled?

Why else did Obama appoint a Mengele style beast like Ezekiel Emanuel to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research?

Let's pause here and review some of Dr. Emanuel's positions on health care for the elderly and disabled, courtesy of the New York Post:

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).

[. . .]

Since Medicare was founded in 1965, seniors' lives have been transformed by new medical treatments such as angioplasty, bypass surgery and hip and knee replacements. These innovations allow the elderly to lead active lives. But Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too "enamored with technology" and is determined to reduce access to it.

Remember Obama CHOSE this man for important positions spearheading his health care"reforms" because the the two men share a common vision for how the health care industry should work.

Need I remind you that the first organized mass executions by the Nazi regime in Germany were not of Jews or Gypsies or even communists but were of the disabled? People who could not "contribute to society" and were therefore regarded by Hitler as "useless eaters" were killed by lethal injections administered by doctors (like our very own Dr. Emanuel) in hospitals.

It would seem that Mr. Obama shares more with Hitler than just a desire to see as many dead Jews as possible (if Obama doesn't want to see piles of dead Jews then why is he both failing to do anything about Iran's nuclear weapons program and doing all in his power to prevent Israel from doing anything about it themselves?).

I wonder if Obama will surpass even Hitler for cold-bloodiness and decree that the victims of his medical murder factories will given the opportunity to serve The State by being turned into organic fertilizer rather than allowing them to go to waste by burial or cremation? And let's not forget to extract the gold from their teeth either!

I believe that people who think the way that Obama and Emanuel do about issues like this do not simply remove themselves from polite and civilized society. I believe that creatures like this do not even deserve to be considered to share a common humanity with the rest of us.

I am profoundly glad that Mrs. Palin is willing to stand up and tell the truth about this but at the same time it is profoundly sad.

In Ronald Reagan's day he created controversy by having the courage to tell the truth about the Soviet Union in identifying it as the "focus of evil in the world".

Twenty years later George W Bush would create another controversy by accurately identifying North Korea, Iran and Saddam Hussein's Iraq as the "Axis of Evil".

Today while Russia is resurgent, attempting to recapture what it considers the "glory days" of the Soviet Union and North Korea has already obtained nuclear weapons and Iran is nearing completion of its own nuclear program the axis or focus of evil which is posing the most imminent threat to the American people is not centered on Moscow, Tehran or Pyongyang but instead is located in the Oval Office of the White House.

Sad.

P.S. if anyone wants to report this post or anything else on this blog to the Obama regime's new Okhrana the email address is flag@whitehouse.gov

I never could get some crazy mullah to issue a fatwa calling for my death but maybe I can get Obama or Pelosi to denounce me during a press conference.

Miss Ann is talking

That means that YOU are listening!

Sarah Palin has deeply disappointed her enemies. People who hate her guts feel she's really let them down by resigning.

She's like the ex-girlfriend they're SO over, never want to see again, have already forgotten about -- really, it's O-ver -- but they just can't stop talking about her.

Liberal: Ha, ha ... Sarah who? She's over, she's toast, a future Trivial Pursuit answer, nothing more.

Normal person: Whatever. How about the North Korean missiles?

Liberal: Can you believe she just resigned the governorship like that? What a quitter!

Normal person: Speaking of quitting, how's work?

Liberal: Did you hear she might get a TV show? There's no way Sarah Palin's getting a TV show! No way! I can't believe stupid Sarah Palin could get her own stupid TV show now. Well, I'm sure not gonna watch it -- that's for sure!

Normal person: Have you seen all the Michael Jackson coverage on TV?

Liberal: How does she think she can run for president in 2012 if she can't finish her term as governor of a Podunk state? She's finished.

Normal person: OK, then! You won't have to vote for her.

Liberal: I was never going to vote for her! But now I'm not going to vote for her twice. And I will never watch her TV show. I am so over her.

Reporters had already written their stories on Palin's press conference -- "rambling!" "incoherent!" -- before she even stepped to the podium.

Whatever you think of Palin, her argument for resigning was the opposite of "rambling" and "incoherent."

Palin's basketball analogy couldn't have been clearer, even to prissy liberal pundits who get uncomfortable when the subject turns to sports: She decided to destroy the other team's game plan, which has been to obsessively focus on her, by resigning.

This is particularly apt here -- she's passing the ball to a fantastic right-wing lieutenant governor, who shares her principles but doesn't set off the left's neuroses.

This is better for him, better for the state, better for the conservative program and better for Palin personally, whose family is sick of all the crap. Now she can make a lot of money and promote conservatism on a national stage.

It certainly won't be held against Palin by people who don't already loathe her. (On the other hand, her approval ratings among people who think she's worse than Hitler are down to 48 percent.)

With the left frenetically filing ethics complaint after ethics complaint against Palin, costing her state millions of dollars and her personally half a million dollars, citizens of Alaska must be asking, "Can we please have our state back?"

But to read the news reports -- which actually were rambling and incoherent -- you would think Palin was speaking in tongues.

The truth is liberals are furious they won't have Sarah Palin to kick around anymore -- at least not with Palin's hands tied behind her back by her public office.

Something tells me Keith Olbermann isn't going to be pulling any big numbers this summer attacking Eric Cantor and Michele Bachmann. I don't anticipate any sudden outbreaks of "Mitch McConnell Derangement Syndrome."

Soon we'll only hear about Keith when his creepy e-mails using his mother's death to hit on chicks start making the rounds again. (Tip to Keith: When a girl refuses to give you her phone number, her assistant's phone number or her personal e-mail address, and only gives you her assistant's e-mail address, you're not halfway in the sack.)

Bonus: If Olbermann gets canceled as a result of Palin's resignation, that will put her in a really good position for 2012.

But instead of being honest and saying, "Oh well, it was a good ride while it lasted," liberal chatterers indignantly demand: "Is this not the greatest betrayal a public servant ever committed against the people?"

On one hand, liberals are enraged at the heinousness of Mark Sanford -- whom they didn't vote for -- for not resigning and, on the other, they're enraged at Palin -- whom they also didn't vote for -- for resigning.

The peculiarly venomous hatred of Palin is driven by women of the left and their whipped consorts. All that needs to happen is for a feminist to overhear two Nation readers saying, "I hate to admit it, but Palin is kind of hot" and ...

WHAT??????????? YOU CALL THAT HOT? I'LL HAVE YOU KNOW WE'VE GOT A MEGA-SUPER HOTTIE IN DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. AND NEED I REMIND YOU AGAIN OF THE RAW SEX APPEAL OF RACHEL MADDOW?

Democrats are a party of women, and nothing drives them off their gourds like a beautiful Christian conservative. (How much money has that other beautiful born-again, Carrie Prejean, been forced to spend on lawyers to respond to liberal hysteria?)

So the motives are clear, but the money is not. Who is paying the rent for the losers filing all these frivolous complaints against Palin?

At least when Richard Mellon Scaife was funding investigations of Bill Clinton, we knew who Scaife was, he was an American citizen, and his money was accessible to U.S. tax authorities and not stashed in offshore accounts like a certain Hungarian Nazi-collaborator I can name.

How about some modern-day Scaife investigate the investigators?

On some level the left knows that their hysterics over Sarah Palin only reveal how frightened they are of her. But they can't help themselves.

This is what it is like to be in the grip of mindless panic.

It's going to be fun to watch the left falling to the ground in paroxysms of foaming madness next year when most of the congressional candidates she campaigns for beat the crap out of their Democrat rivals.

The propaganda organs of the Obama administration (otherwise known as the mainstream media) will not want to credit any kind of "Palin effect" yet the alternative will be massive dissatisfaction with the little tin messiah's job performance.

Chris Matthews may implode into a quantum singularity.

A softball pitched in from left field

A left wing reader left this comment on one of my posts about Sarah Palin:

She's done. If you can't finish up your term as Governor, what should we expect as President? Don't get me wrong, I hope she does run.

I was hoping someone would try making that argument so that I could make a few points about the left's little tin god.

B. Hussein Obama -
- Ran for a seat in the Illinois legislature and abandoned it before his first term ended in order to run for the United States Senate.
- Abandoned his seat in the US Senate before serving even two years of his six-year term in order to run for the presidency. In point of fact during Obama's career in the Senate he only bothered to show up and do the job he was elected to do fewer than 200 days total.

So if Mrs. Palin is unfit to be president because she failed to complete her term as governor of Alaska then Mr. Obama is twice as unfit to be president.

I would also point out that Mrs. Clinton promised the people of New York that she would be a full time Senator and would not abandon her job in order to campaign for the presidency and that Mr. Clinton made the same promise to the people of Arkansas when he ran for governor.

I would also like to point out to anyone who thinks that I'm making the argument that Palin is just as fickle and unfit as Obama (actually it would be half as fickle and unfit since she has only done once what he did twice) that there is a critical difference between her actions and his.

When Sarah Palin was elected governor of Alaska she entered a political climate which had been dominated by entrenched political interests for decades. Human nature being what it is those entrenched interests had become corrupt (think of the pre-Gringrich House of Representatives which had been controlled by the Democrat party for 40 years).

Palin made it her mission to challenge that corruption and bring about long needed reforms. She renegotiated the terms of the arrangement between the state and the oil companies which gave the people of Alaska a more equitable share of the oil revenues those companies were deriving from Alaska's natural resources. And she did this in a way which put the money into the pockets of the people of Alaska rather than into the government's pocket where it could be squandered on vote-buying pork projects.

Palin also managed to complete the negotiations for the natural gas pipeline which had been in limbo for years. In doing this she was able to bring Native Alaskan tribes, the state government of Alaska, the government of Canada and multinational corporations to the table and get them all to work and play nicely together in order to bring energy resources to the lower 48.

These two things, taking on the political cesspool of Juneau and completing the pipeline deal were Mrs. Palin's primary reasons for seeking the governorship in the first place. She got them both done with nearly a year and a half to spare.

What great projects was Mr. B. Hussein Obama pursuing when he ran for the Illinois State Senate? Other than building a platform from which to reach for higher office of course? About all he got done of any note was killing a law which would have required that children born alive after a failed attempt to abort them would be given medical care like the human beings they are (That's really something to be proud of).

What did Mr. Obama accomplish during the 180 or so days that he managed to show up in the US Senate? Well he did manage to rack up a record as the most liberal Senator. That is something of note since he managed to beat out left-wing loons like Ted Kennedy who had been there for decades.

Oh, and here's something else while I'm thinking about it. As I mentioned Governor Palin attacked the corruption she found in Alaska's state government. When Obama became active in the politics of the city of Chicago, county of Cook, state of Illinois he encountered a political machine which has held power for more than a century and has reached levels of corruption not seen since the intrigues in the court of Byzantium.

Did Mr. Obama respond to this corruption in Illinois the same way that Mrs. Palin did to the corruption in Alaska?

Hardly. Where Sarah Palin rolled up her sleeves and started fighting Mr. Obama found that he had landed in the company of like-minded men. In the almost unbelievably foul sewer of the Illinois Democrat machine Obama found a place where he was comfortable. Where he fit in and could be himself.

Let us pause here for a bit and give our noses a break by stepping away from the stench rising off of Mr. Obama and his Chicago friends and associates and look at a few more facts about Sarah Palin and her decision to resign her office.

Sarah Palin fought corruption and that earns one enemies, even in one's own party.

She is also the most beloved living conservative political figure in the nation. She has "it" the same "it" that Ronald Reagan had and she has shown ambition to reach for higher office. She has a solid record of accomplishment as mayor and then governor. It was her presence on the GOP ticket which made the 2008 race relatively close rather than a Reagan/Mondale type blowout for Obama.

For all these reasons and more Sarah Palin is the most dangerous person in the world to the political left. They realize that unless they destroy her she could attain the Oval Office with the kind of popular mandate that would allow her to undo vast amounts what the left has managed to accomplish in their goal to ruin and destroy the nation.

This is why Mrs. Palin has been subjected to an endless stream of utterly baseless ethics complaints. Defending against these complaints has cost her family anywhere from half a million to a million dollars and investigating the complaints has cost the state of Alaska over 2 million dollars. If governor Palin stays in office she has nothing but more of these groundless accusations to look forward to, further draining her and her husband's assets and further burdening the treasury of Alaska.

Mrs. Palin has a book coming out which she is going to need to tour to promote. She is also going to be the single most in demand GOP speaker who will need to crisscross the nation campaigning for conservative Republican candidates. Can you imagine what a fertile ground for false accusations of misuse of state funds all that travel would give to her enemies in Alaska if she were still governor? Can you imagine what would be said about all the time she will be spending out of Alaska if she were still governor?

She would be accused of drawing the governor's pay while not doing the governor's job. It would be said that she was abandoning her post and that the honorable thing to have done was resign.

It is also possible that the attacks on Mrs. Palin will take the form of attacks upon the state of Alaska itself. After all if the economy of Alaska can be damaged badly enough it would be bound to hurt her popularity within the state and give her critics grounds to accuse her of incompetence in any national race.

In a recent piece on American Thinker J.R. Dunn had this to say:

Chicago would put Alaska through the grinder, a very easy thing to accomplish from Washington. In fact, it could be argued that this campaign has already begun, with the slow death-by-cuts action against the National Missile Defense center at Fort Greely. Even as the ballistic missile threat from North Korea and Iran grows more urgent, Obama is dismantling the sole serious defense against it. (Am I implying that O would jeopardize the country's safety to assure his political career? Well, what do you think?) In a real sense, Palin's resignation at this time can be viewed as yet another service to her state.

Yes, Barrack Hussein Obama is an utterly corrupt political thug who would not hesitate for an instant to place his nation in peril in order to take out a dangerous - to him - domestic political opponent.

And if he is willing to do that what else might he do harm the people of Alaska in order to make their governor look bad?

Mrs. Palin is doing the honorable thing (something utterly alien to B. Hussein Obama and his ilk) and letting the position of governor be taken up by someone who would be less of a lightening rod. She is freeing herself to serve not only the people of Alaska but the entire nation by helping the GOP regain control of the legislature in 2010 and in all likelihood broadening the base of support she will have for a run at the White House in 2012 or 2016.

In their decisions to leave office before the end of their terms the differences between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama are shown to be the differences between doing what is right and wrong, honorable and dishonorable.

P.S. To the person who said "If you can't finish up your term as Governor, what should we expect as President?" Can point us to somewhere that you asked the same rhetorical question about Obama - who couldn't finish either his term as state Senator or US Senator - when he announced his candidacy for president?

Your opinions are already worthless because you are a left-wing moron (sorry, redundant) but now we can add abject hypocrite to the reasons why you are an oxygen thief.