“Life Must Go On As Usual”

It’s hard to admit making a mistake, but I owe the regular visitors of this website; along with my fellow contributors here, an apology.

The same day Congresswoman Giffords was shot, I reacted badly to the first article written by the AP on the story.  The article, which I linked to on my post where I specifically blamed the left, was written about 30 minutes after the tragedy.  This early on they were already linking Sarah Palin and the tea party to it.  In all honesty, my post was a reaction to that. (Along with a Facebook page I had found that has since been deleted portraying Loughner as a liberal).

As much as I disagree with liberals on pretty much everything, it was wrong for me to link the violent behavior of one idiot to an entire political party.  What I did was no better than what liberals (some of them) were doing to Sarah Palin.  As such, I shall remember that not everyone on the left is clinically insane and I apologize to Mel, Mark, Chris, and Philip (along with our regular visitors) who have to “share” this space with me.

That being said, I’d like to move forward with another aspect of how our country is prematurely responding to this tragedy. 

Aside from Sheriff Dumbnik’s running around and blaming everyone on the right; taking the attention away from him and the Police Department there in Tucson who had been getting warnings about Jared Loughner for the past three years, I have a huge problem with shutting down Congress over this.

It sends the wrong message.

On October 12, 1984, Margaret Thatcher was headlining the annual conservative conference in Brighton.  While the workaholic Iron Lady was preparing documents at 2 a.m. for business at the conference the next day, a bomb went off in the hotel.  Luckily, Margaret Thatcher and her husband had been moved to another room earlier in the day.  Nevertheless, many were killed and injured.  Mrs. Thatcher was immediately treated and examined for light injuries sustained and went to the police station. 

Almost immediately, the media and others speculated whether or not the conference would remain scheduled.  Upon exiting the police station, Lady Thatcher made her first statement to the media:

You hear about these atrocities, these bombs, you never expect them to happen to you.  But life must go on, as usual.

She also added that her conference would not be cancelled and would continue to go on “as usual” she said sternly.


The next day with very little sleep, Mrs. Thatcher kept her committment and arrived to the conference.  She not only defied the wishes of the bomber, she also showed up on time and said:

The fact that we are gathered here today, shocked but composed and determined, is a sign not only that this attack has failed but that all attempts to destroy democracy by terrorism will fail.

Lady Thatcher wasn’t showing cruelty to the victims who lost their lives.  As a leader of a nation, she had to resume business as usual to let the enemies of civilization and freedom know that she and her people in majority were in control and their rights to freedom and political process would not end. 

Similarly, as a political leader, John Boehner made a very decent and honorable statement in honor of Congresswoman Giffords.  Now, members of the media at the Washington Post are questioning his sincerity because he did not cry when he made the statement and also thought it was wrong for him to point out the fact that public servants of all levels were and always will be at some risk, but it was no reason to be deterred from doing their jobs.

Perhaps someone should tell the writer, Courtland Milloy, that we are supposed to learning a lesson about political rhetoric from this.

To reassure you, the shooting made us all sad, Mr. Milloy.  But on Saturday, I had to stay at my office anyway.  I had to get our income tax software ready for our filing season.  I had to make sure my files were cleaned out ready to be filled with new paperwork.  I had to organize my desk and clean out my drawers.  Then on Sunday, I had to go back.  Monday, I had to work and meet with clients.  Today, I had to go to a tax seminar to further prepare for my work that is vastly approaching.

Similarly, Congress should not be shutting down over this.  The best way to let lunatics like Loughner know that the only thing their potential dangerous violence is going to get them is a one-way ticket to the electric chair is to not allow our daily lives to be changed.  The world keeps on turning and “life must go on as usual.”

Joy Behar and other liberals — obviously ignoring Sheriff Dumbnik’s warning of political rhetoric — responded to Boehner by calling him “Boner” (the same party who created the term “teabagger”) — and somehow turning his promise to the people who elected the new Congress that they would indeed proceed with their promise to begin doing what we sent them there to do into an act of hate.  It makes you wonder who decides what political rhetoric is.  It also makes you wonder what “hate” is.

I have faith in the American people that they understand the bigger picture.  Boehner reserves his tears for moments of triumph.  When we overcome obstacles and tragedies and evils and plow through it in a way that only American exceptionalism can guarantee.

It seems to me that the people blaming Sarah Palin, criticizing Boehner, and everyone else on the right are the ones spreading the hate now.  It also seems to me that they reserve their tears in a sad effort to exploit tragedies to argue for bigger government and more infringements on our freedoms and liberties.

Americans are learning and we won’t forget.  But one thing remains true: “life must go on, as usual!”

Arizona Congresswoman Shot by Radical Leftist


It appears the profile I posted from Facebook was deleted already, yet others have been posted as well depicting the shooter as a conservative.  But as long as the AP can continue to post whatever THEY want, blame gun rights, and blame Sarah Palin for this tragedy — I refuse to change the headline.  As proof, I printed out the image of the Facebook Profile I saw earlier as I kept it pulled up on my screen.

**Original Post**

As has been reported over the last hour, Blue-Dog Democrat Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head at Tucson.

The AP article reporting this is unbelievably biased and laments on acts of violence against left-wing policy:

In July, a California man known for his anger over left-leaning politics engaged in a shootout with highway patrol officers after planning an attack on the ACLU and another nonprofit group. The man said he wanted to “start a revolution” by killing people at the ACLU and the Tides Foundation.

And also mentions the non-threatening (yeah, right!) Sarah Palin:

Giffords herself has drawn the ire of the right, especially for her support of the health care bill from politicians like Sarah Palin.

Absolutely disgusting.  Without a full investigation, lefties are already blaming the tea party and politicians like Sarah Palin. 

Sadly, what they fail to report is that Giffords is anything but a far-left-loon.  She supports tough immigration policy and she supports gun rights.

Moreover; the shooter’s name was revealed as Jared Laughner. 

I typed his name into Facebook and found a profile matching that name with the residence listed as Tuscon, AZ (where the shooting occurred).

In it, you see he is an Obama supporer, he loves Noam Chomsky, and his quote is the following:

About Jared Fight the Right! Obama and the Progressives will overcome the tyrrany of big business and the racist Tea Party.BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!

Does that sound like a Tea Party patriot to you?

Will the AP correct this mis-reporting?

I am guessing the answer to both of those questions is “HELL NO!”

Here is the link to his Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=100001952074770

Miller Closer than Expected (Thanks Sarah!)

(Notice the “grim” picture of the photo of Joe Miller used by the media)

I was very interested in the Alaskan Senate race and have been following Sarah Palin’s Facebook posts.

I spent last week paying attention to the AP and to observe alleged “Alaskans” coming out against Palin in this massive support for incumbent, Lisa Murkowski. 

Murkowski did not win her initial seat in the United States Senate.  She was appointed by the then-Governor, Frank Murkowski, who also happened to be her daddy.  Sarah Palin was a candidate back in those days of a short-list Murkowski kept to fill that seat and in the end, he chose his daughter.  As Palin was cast aside by Murkowski, he offered her the job of heading the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission.  It was there which Palin gained her vast knowledge on energy issues where she teamed up with Democrats to take out Republican operatives (establishment RINOs) who were taking information from the AOGC to oil-industry insiders.  This began Palin’s crusade against the Murkowskis.  The private jets, the personal chefs, and the nepotism of back-scratching with family members and oil-industry executives at the expense of the people was a thing of the past!

After doing this, Palin took Frank Murkowski on and won Alaska’s Governor’s race in a landslide. 

Not only did Murkowski get canned, but Palin canned every corrupt member of Murkowski’s back-scratching team.  So naturally, Lisa Murkowski has had a grudge against Palin for quite sometime.

Allegedly knowing how bureaucracy works, Lisa Murkowski defied common sense and publicly slammed Palin for resigning last year as Governor.  Even though Palin’s enemies; which consisted of both liberals and Palin-spanked RINOs, used an ethics law which Palin championed for to file almost 30 frivolous ethics charges against her that cost Palin nearly a half-million in personal legal debt as well as $2M of Alaskan taxpayer money and endless state resources of time and energy distracting Palin’s impressive administration from moving forward.  Murkowski denied the common sense characterization of Palin’s resignation (selfless and in the best interest of Alaskans) and attacked to appease the anti-Palin sentiment portrayed to this day by the media and liberals alike.

The cronyism among Murkowski-like Republicans has been just as devastating to our country as liberalism.  In fact, it’s even worse.  They do it in the name of “conservatism.”

For the last week, every media article released defined the race as a no-brainer for Murkowski.  A Politico article today describes “public polls showed Murkowski heavily favored to win Tuesday’s primary” while others simultaneously portrayed the race as a grudge match between Murkowski and Palin

Step 1. Discourage Miller’s voters from turning out.

Step 2. Be able to portray this as an overwhelming message of America’s anti-Palinism while loving the RINOs who have contributed to running our country in the ground.

But tonight, with 51% of the precincts reporting, Miller leads Murkowski by 52% to 48%.

Even though the media did its best to underscore the Palin-endorsed candidate’s chances.  Even though Alaskan “Republicans” have been coming out of the woodwork mysteriously to tell us how Palin embarrasses them and doesn’t speak for them.

No matter how this race concludes, the power of Palin and the tea party against establishment RINO incumbents; who suck up to convenience and diss conviction is undeniable. Even if Murkowski does pull ahead in the second half of the precincts to report, knowing she massively outspent Miller, the fact that she’s probably pissing in her pants right now is proof.

I cannot wait to get the AP’s interpretation of this tomorrow.

Notice how everything the AP does lately with regard to the upcoming midterms centers around Palin and her influence.  But expect to turn blue holding your breath waiting for them to accurately portray it.

The Realities of War

Before my lights go out, I have to post about something that I’ve been following for a little while.

About a month ago, US Marine LCpl. Joshua Bernard was fighting the Taliban in the Helmand province of Afghanistan when he was mortally wounded. AP photographer Julie Jacobson was embedded with the Marine unit during the firefight that claimed Bernard’s life, and as he lay dying, with his fellow Marines trying desperately to save his life, Jacobson snapped a photo. It likely isn’t the first time a photographer has taken such a picture. This time, however, the AP decided to run the photo.

They tried to excuse themselves by bragging that they waited until Bernard had been laid to rest to publicize the photo. What they didn’t reveal, though, was that the decision to run the image of the dying Marine was made despite the wishes of the Bernard family. Let’s forget that Defense Secretary Gates admonished AP head Tom Curley “in the strongest language I can” not to post the image for the world to see. To me, that is almost a side issue. Bernard’s family, those who had the highest rights to what they had experienced in losing their son, explicitly told the AP that they did not want the image to be published.

In the end, AP senior managing editor John Danisczewski said, “We understand Mr. Bernard’s anguish. We believe this image is part of the history of this war. The story and photos are in themselves a respectful treatment and recognition of sacrifice.” Jacobson, the photographer, excused herself from wrongdoing with statements typical of her profession–that the journalists are there to record the realities of war, this is part of that reality, and the people need to know. Oh, and it was also important for her to point out that when she allowed Bernard’s fellow Marines to look at her photos of the firefight, none of them showed outward anger: “none of them complained or grew angry about it. They understood that it was what it was. They understand, despite that he was their friend, it was the reality of things.” She said that “to ignore a moment like that simply would have been wrong.”

Let’s talk about what’s wrong. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Technically, they have the right to publish whatever they want as long as they’re not giving away classified information or posting the images before the wounded’s family has been notified. But does the fact that they have the right to mean that they should? When they ask the family for permission to run the photos and the family unequivocally says NO, what on Earth could possess these people to think themselves so much better, so much more enlightened, to believe that they had a moral imperative to go against said family’s wishes and let the whole world see the last moments of a hero’s life?

Greg Mitchell, writing for the Huffington Post, had the tacit nerve to talk disdainfully about the press’ previous refusal to “carry graphic images of the true cost of our wars, to Americans, in Iraq and Afghanistan — fatally wounded U.S. soldiers and Marines.” Since when does the freedom of the press give you or anyone else the right to exploit these incidents for your own political purposes? It may give you the ability, but what makes you think it’s okay? Because you have some kind of moral duty to let people know what the realities of war are?

If you are so interested in showing the realities of war, then be more balanced. Show the reality of allowing a despot to remain in control. Show more pictures of the mass graves uncovered during the Iraq war, graves containing hundreds–sometimes thousands–of Saddam’s victims. Show pictures of the women, homosexuals and children executed by the Taliban for crimes such as being in public without a male relative escort…or even for the crime of being a rape victim. Show the pictures you’ve refused thus far to show of those executions because, as Kathleen Carroll said, “we don’t distribute content that is known to be offensive, with rare exceptions.”

If you’re so interested in showing the realities of all that’s wrong with our world, then why not focus on issues closer to home? Between 15,000 and 16,000 will have died in alcohol-related MVA’s by the end of 2009. Between 30,000 and 35,000 will have died by suicide, with most of the completed suicides involving the individuals either shooting or hanging themselves. Guess what the leading cause of accidental death is for children? Drowning. In what I do for a living, I have seen these and many other major issues that plague our society today tear lives apart. The most gut-wrenching sound I have ever heard is not the crunch of metal and glass, not the last gurgling breaths of a gangbanger riddled with bullets and blood pouring from his mouth, nor the sound of dismembered body parts being pulled from the pavement.

It is the anguished cry of a mother or father who has just been told that their child is dead.

There is nothing in this world that can bring me to the brink of losing my calm and cool the way that sound can. The mother who woke to the sound of her only son shooting himself, the father who searched for his youngest son only to find him face-down in the murky backyard pool, and the parents who had to be notified at an ungodly hour that their teenaged daughter had been killed by a drunk driver will remain with me forever. I cannot fathom trying to show that couple a picture of their daughter after the collision that took her life. Because I have experienced their pain, I cannot imagine what manner of extreme greed could possibly drive any reporter to show that sort of thing to any parent–and then ask to publicize it.

If you holier-than-thou pricks are so concerned with putting the realities of what’s wrong with our world out there for everyone to see, then start with the wars in our own neighborhoods. Let’s see you post pictures of the scores of good people being killed every day by things we have begun to ignore. Let’s see you talk about that with the same zeal with which you ardently preach about the realities of war.

Until you are capable of doing that, tell yourself whatever the hell you want if it’ll help you sleep better…but spare us the sanctimony. What you did to the Bernards was wrong, plain and simple, and no amount of hiding behind your First Amendment rights will absolve you of that. This wasn’t about right and wrong for you. It was about what would pull in the readers, and with them the money. You’re a brood of jackals waiting to feed on the wounded.

I hope you choke on it.

Leave it to the AP to keep us divided….

Divided AP

I am fascinated now that the White House is backing away from the public option – particularly at two aspects here:

1.) Does anybody notice that ALL WEEK on any article written about the proposed public option, that the top of the page has been graced with Sarah Palin’s statement on the bill as a “fact check” that no ‘death panel’ exists in the bill?  Of course, Sarah Palin used quotations around the phrase to voice her concern over direct quotes read from Michelle Bachmann that came straight from Zeke Emanuel (Rahm’s brother).  Couple those exact words with the fact that extreme leftists and environmentalists argue pro-abortion as a means to population control and blame “carbon footprints” on too much human existence and consumption – AND that the public option would have eventually lead us to rationing health care OR raising taxes on the middle class, Sarah Palin made an extremely valid point.  For someone who everyone thinks has little power and is revered as a quitter, it’s amazing how thorough the AP is at reminding us that the term “death panel” never existed in the bill.  Thanks guys!

2.) The opening of this article begins: “Bowing to Republican pressure, President Barack Obama‘s administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new U.S. health care system.”

No, I am sorry but this is blatant partisan reporting.  The fact is, Republicans hold the minority in both the Senate and in the House.  Democrats have the majority and have the White House.  They could have passed it with no trouble whatsoever.

The turnaround is public opinion – the great wisdom of the American people – where Democrats, Independents, and Republicans all united to say “No!” 

The real story should be how one country made one crucial decision and fought together as one against something that they did not want.

But, here the writer credits Republicans and their “pressure” for the sudden turnaround.  If this were the case, the White House would have backed down weeks ago and even the AP knows it.

Obama won the support of independents because they thought he was going to govern as a centrist – as he promised during the campaign.

He has continued the surge in Iraq, and increased the surge in Afghanistan, Gitmo is actually still in place – and he used those “centrist” facts to try and quickly pass through some insane liberal-socialist fantasy.

He claimed he wanted to “keep them honest” with regard to free market insurance companies.

Unfortunately for him, he is one being kept honest – by the American people.  

Shame on the AP, but thank you President Obama for doing the right thing and listening to your voters.  No matter what side of the fence you are on, today is truly a day to be proud of our American democracy.

Winter Soldier Syndrome

More than one reader has suggested that I go to a website hosted by Iraq Veterans Against the War to read about the “reality” of the Iraq war. It actually started before I joined Steve and Philip here on www.gayconservative.org last year–people began emailing me on MySpace and telling me to read IVAW articles and quit talking about what I don’t understand. At least one was a person I knew; he had served in the Marines, but his boots never left U.S. soil. Others quoted names such as Jessie MacBeth and Josh Lansdale and suggested that I was fabricating knowing several people who had served and believed in their mission.

What’s hilarious to me now is that every single name quoted to me by those folks has been debunked as a fraud. And the list of said frauds continues to grow as time wears on. Let’s start at the beginning:

Shortly before the Iraq invasion, comic book author Micah Wright published a book called You Back the Attack, We’ll Bomb Who We Want! In it he claimed to be a former Army Ranger who’d served in Operation Just Cause (the 1989 invasion of Panama meant to depose drug lord and Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega) and had been forever changed by war. He was exposed as a fraud by Richard Leiby in the Washington Post and later recanted his story, resulting in his publishers dropping his material before his contract was set to expire.

Jimmy Massey claimed that, during his service as a Marine in Iraq, he and his comrades committed heinous atrocities. Among them were that his unit had fired on unarmed, peaceful Iraqi protesters, American Marines had shot a 4-year-old Iraqi girl in the head, and that at one point, his unit had killed so many civilians that they had to call in a tractor-trailer rig to carry the bodies away. He went on a speaking tour with Cindy Sheehan to warn parents of the evils of military recruiters and wrote a book called Kill, Kill, Kill that was a big hit in France. The Associated Press took Massey’s claims and ran with them, trumpeting them from every media outlet that would carry the story. They never checked their facts: they had a reporter, Ravi Nessman, embedded with Massey’s unit, and Nessman wrote in excess of 30 pieces about the unit’s activities. Nessman was never consulted, nor were the Marines ever asked to respond to the story before it was published as the gospel truth. To this day, however, he maintains a website where he peddles his lies and they are swallowed whole.

Jessie MacBeth was once the darling posterboy of IVAW. He claimed to be an Army Ranger who served in Iraq and, like Massey, claimed he had either carried out or witnessed unspeakable acts of horror on innocent civilians in Iraq. He even posted a picture of himself in uniform with a flag backdrop. But as soon as the picture was released, real Rangers were all over MacBeth like flies on a cowpie. His beret was worn backwards, his BDU undershirt was the wrong color, his sleeves were rolled up (Rangers don’t do that), and his unshaven face was completely outside of Army regulations. A tiny bit of digging turned up MacBeth’s form DD-214 (his record of honorable discharge): he served from January to June, 2003, and never left basic training. He certainly never went to Ranger school or Iraq. To be fair, IVAW later began requiring proof of service and no longer endorses MacBeth.

Josh Lansdale, through Wesley Clark’s VoteVets organization, spoke up on behalf of vets by claiming that the Bush administration’s slashing of VA benefits left him unable to access care for his severe PTSD and “busted ankle” (as he put it) for six months. A VA spokesman raised the first red flag when he said that a soldier such as Lansdale would have been bumped to the top of the list and would have been treated within less than 30 days. Clark’s VoteVets group featured Lansdale in an ad designed to smear the Republican incumbent Clark was running against and claimed that soldiers were being sent to Iraq with “Vietnam-era body armor” (a patent lie). Lansdale disappeared shortly after the ad aired; his 1Sgt, Gary Kuehn, spoke about Lansdale’s claims after he retired and shot down every single one. He even pointed out that Lansdale’s busted ankle came from playing volleyball.

Scott Thomas Beauchamp wrote Shock Troops, a diary series, in The New Republic. In it he claimed that he had taken part in ridiculing a woman disfigured by an IED blast, laughed at a fellow soldier as he supposedly marched around with the skull of an Iraqi child, and helped another soldier use a Bradley vehicle to run over dogs. It was the claims of jerking the Bradley “hard to the right” to run over a dog that caught the attention of several reporters; a Bradley is a big, bulky vehicle incapable of sharp turns. Beauchamp later recanted, admitting that he had hoped that his time in the war would earn him credibility as a writer–after claiming “absolute moral authority” on the grounds of simply being a soldier.

Last but not least, today Michelle Malkin and This Ain’t Hell have exposed another fraudster used by the anti-war crowd to push their agenda. Rick Duncan claimed to be a former Marine. He claimed he survived the attack at the Pentagon on 9/11 and later served three tours in Iraq with the Marines. He claimed to have been a Marine Captain and said he’d graduated the US Naval Academy at Annapolis. He also claimed that during his third tour in Iraq, he was badly injured in an IED attack that killed four Marines and left him with a plate in his skull and blew off a finger (which was miraculously reattached). This week, members of the Colorado Veterans Alliance–a group that “Duncan” founded–discovered that he was actually Richard Glen Strandlof, and he’d actually been a patient in a mental hospital in Nevada during the time he supposedly survived the IED in Fallujah. He’s now in custody and is being investigated by the FBI for stealing money from the coffers of the CVA.

I can’t remember the last time I heard such a fable being fabricated by someone who supports the war.

Media fact-checking faux pas aside, the IVAW, Winter Soldier, VoteVets and other similar organizations have put people just like this up on their pedestals to speak for them before confirming the veracity of their claims. Not only is it damning to our country, but such fairy tales demean the thousands upon thousands who have served honorably (and the many who have bled and died) in the war, having never witnessed or committed any atrocity like the ones claimed by these charlatans. Winter Soldier began with a political wannabe named John Kerry and his cohorts lying to Congress about witnessing similar atrocities in Vietnam. Winter Soldier Syndrome lives on today.

AP Showing True Colors:

I love the liberal portrayal of John MCCain’s invitation to skip Friday’s debate to be able to focus on one of the most historic decisions ever in the history of this country.  The idea that McCain is playing politics or that he is purposely avoiding a debate is the rumor circulating tonight.

Obama is declining McCain’s offer.  Which isn’t hard to believe since he’s declined offers before, such as the many old-fashioned townhall debates McCain begged Obama to do with him.  Perhaps Obama needed to study foreign policy as hard as liberals are accusing Sarah Palin of right now before he actually faced McCain in a debate?  Well, apparently, Barack has all of his answeres memorized now.

The fact is McCain has the foreign policy experience.

The fact is McCain has challenged Obama to no-holds-barred debates and Obama has chickened out of each one!  What were Obama’s reasons?  Can one liberal answer that question?

But the one time a candidate does move to cancel a debate – in a move to extend a working hand across party lines – Obama supporters respond by playing politics.

The Associated Press is in on it, too.  The article written by Beth Fouhy describes both positions of both candidates but manages to throw this unquoted, un-sourced perspective in:

McCain beat Obama to the punch with the first public statement. The surprise announcement was an attempt to outmaneuver Obama on an issue McCain trails on and as the Democrat gains in the polls. McCain went before TV cameras minutes after they spoke and before the campaigns could hammer out the agreed-upon joint statement.

WHAT!?  So this is a politcal move to “outmaneuver” Obama?  I thought it was just an invitation to work together?

It’s clear; as evidenced by this article, and every liberal in the country tonight, that Democrats are not interested in bi-partisan work for the better of Americans.

Mel or anyone else, I am currently searching for the e-mail address of Beth Fouhy as well as the other authors that contributed to the article listed in the bottom.  I cannot seem to find one on her, but in googling her name have found her active in Hillary’s campaign.  Not quite certain how deep she was involved, so I cannot lie blame.  But this type of “reporting” is precisely what liberals accuse Fox of all the time.

She and all “contributors” need to answer why that was necessary in the article.

Convenient and Desperate: Media and Democrats on Palin

Wow!  Congratulations Sarah Palin for the best speech I have heard in a very long time. 

The tears of the audience members, the repeated standing ovations, the brilliant humor interjected towards Obama and Biden topped off with her incredible poise and comfort of the stage and microphone, Sarah Palin’s success with her first official speech has been appropriately measured.

Another way of measuring the success of her effectiveness is the measure of the immediate reactions of those not-so-happy with Palin’s wit and zeal.

1.) A former Clinton mouthpiece on Fox News stated that Palin was effective, gave a great speech, but minimized it by stating that it was because our expectations were low.  Well, he had to say something I suppose.

2.) Just minutes after, Steve Quinn of the Associated Press released this new article “revealing” that e-mails Palin had written in connection with the firing of a police office who used to be married to her sister had been released.  Yet, all the e-mails prove is that Palin was furious that a man with a gun who had threatened to kill their father had not had a thorough investigation.  Nowhere did the e-mails threaten anyone else’s positions.  But for some reason, they felt “pressured” to fire the officer.

Well, I have to say, Democrats are surely throwing a tantrum tonight.  Sarah Palin reached out tonight to the core of the Republican party; and most imporantly, to the core of America.

It’s going to be fun watching the media try and attack her.  Let’s track how many times we hear about Palin’s e-mails regarding the investigation of a police officer who threatened her father versus a sheisty land deal Obama struck with slumlord, Tony Rezko. 

As Palin stated, she isn’t going to Washington to please the media.  She’s going for the better of America.  So be prepared for more of this type of massive hype over nothing.

Can Someone Find an AP Article That Cheers for America?

“U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq at 3,724”

To counter this, I searched everywhere for a running count of captured or killed insurgents and terrorists along with a running tally of successes that have occurred since 2003.

For some reason, I can’t find any.

Isn’t that weird?

Well, thanks to this headline Ron Paul and his supporters will have something to campaign on blather about this week.

I Is So Dumb Ya’ll

In another case of liberal elitism, former Colorado Rep. Pat Schroeder, has determined that I (and all my ilk) are backwards and uneducated.  Her source?  An AP-Ipsos poll showing that self-identified liberals and Dems read more books than their Republican-Conservative counterparts.

“The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans: ‘No, don’t raise my taxes, no new taxes,'” Pat Schroeder, president of the American Association of Publishers, said in a recent interview. “It’s pretty hard to write a book saying, ‘No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes’ on every page.”

Schroeder, who as a Colorado Democrat was once one of Congress’ most liberal House members, was responding to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that found people who consider themselves liberals are more prodigious book readers than conservatives.

She said liberals tend to be policy wonks who “can’t say anything in less than paragraphs. We really want the whole picture, want to peel the onion.”

Evidently, that means we are dumb.  I will tell you now that I read maybe 5-6 books a year.  Most of those are for enjoyment.  I read relatively few educational books because I get most of my reading done online.  I would, however,  point you to the book by former Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) called “National Party No More:  The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat.”  That was one I read with enthusiasm.  I’m sure that was on Pat’s reading list.  If not, it should be (yours too).

One interesting finding of the poll was –

Among those who had read at least one book, liberals typically read nine books in the year, with half reading more than that and half less. Conservatives typically read eight, moderates five.

So I guess Schroeder’s reasoning would be as follows:  She would conclude that I, Philip, am a moderate since I didn’t read 8 books.  And moderates are dumber than both conservatives and libs because they didn’t read as many books as the other two groups.  What specious reasoning. And the independents in this nation should be a little perturbed.

I’m not going to go nuts over this.  The fallacies and Schroeder’s condescension speak for themselves.  Just suffice it to say that the GOP and conservatives, in particular, will always be subject to the scorn of self-obsessed libs who are out to convince the American people that our ideology is intellectually inferior.  Nice try, Pat.