Common Sense Conservatism: Cap and Trade

The future of our planet is at stake! That’s what you’ll hear from proponents of cap and trade legislation. For those of you who aren’t familiar with Cap and Trade, let me explain what it is and what it is designed to accomplish.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Cap and trade is an environmental policy tool that delivers results with a mandatory cap on emissions while providing sources flexibility in how they comply.” That sounds a little vague. Over at Wikipedia, they explain it a bit better: “Emissions trading (also known as cap and trade) is a market-based approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.” Not bad, although it sounds voluntarily. Here are the facts from a pretty fair article over at Now Public:

  • Cap and trade legislation “aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by 2020.”
  • Cap and trade legislation would “cap” or limit the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by industrial industries.
  • If companies go above their limit, they have to buy pollution permits.
  • If companies stay under their limit, they can sell their additional permits to companies that need them.

The idea of limiting carbon emissions with a system of rewards and penalties sounds like a great way to help keep our planet clean and ensure companies make our environment a priority. The bill passed the Democrat-super-majority-controlled House of Representatives 219-211 (Democrats control 255 votes, and only need 218 to pass a bill). The bill has yet to pass the Senate.

Many conservatives and Republicans are against this bill. In traditional fashion, these “anti-climate,” “anti-environment” conservatives are being painted as “hating green jobs” by proponents of Cap and trade legislation. So do conservatives hate the environment? Or are there other reasons why they’re against Cap and Trade?

First, opponents of Cap and Trade extend beyond the Republican Party. After all, 44 Democrats voted against the bill and 8 Republicans voted for it. I haven’t seen a news story asking why those 44 Democrats hate the environment, but I’m sure it’s in the works. Like all pieces of legislation, there are both good and bad components. When evaluating whether a bill should be passed, we should take a look at how good and how bad these provisions are. Let’s do just that.

Reducing greenhouse gases 17% by 2020 is a noble goal. What are greenhouse gases? According to the National Climactic Data Center (NCDC) they include water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane among others, in order or importance. According to their website, “the feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.” So we know water vapor is important, we just don’t know how or why.

The site also tells us that carbon dioxide has increased 30% since before the industrial revolution, but that is to be expected. It has risen from 310 parts-per-million (ppm) to 370 ppm since 1955, hardly a giant leap. However, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recommends an exposure limit of 5,000 ppm. If the current rate of increase continues (roughly 1 ppm per year), we will reach unsafe limits in the year 6640.

Methane, which we’re told is the most dangerous by-product of the cattle industry and our dependence on beef, has not increased significantly in our atmosphere since 1990. According to the NCDC, “there is no scientific consensus on why methane has not risen much since around 1990.”

While reducing greenhouse gases is a respectable objective, it hardly seems as though we are in the throes of an environmental catastrophe.

Limiting the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by industrial industries also sounds practical. However, no one will argue that reducing the output of every carbon emitter in the country by 17% will result in problems. To address this problem, pollution permits have been created. Companies that must go over their allotted emissions can purchase these carbon credits from companies that have extra. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is one greenhouse gas emission registry which will trade these carbon credits between companies, no doubt for a tidy profit, as the European Climate Exchange (ECX) is already doing. Companies like Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management will seek to make money from the exchange of these credits, by charging fees to their clients. This amounts to nothing more than penalties for going over the cap; penalties that will undoubtedly be passed on to consumers.

In 1975 we learned of impending doom in the form of Global Cooling. The last 15 years has been dominated by talk of Global Warming. In the end, there is so much inconsistency among scientists, including evidence of scientists falsifying information to prove warming trends. If there’s no real emergency, why is Congress trying to pass a bill that the Obama Administration admits could cost families almost $1,800/year?

While conservatives are being vilified for opposing Cap and trade legislation, Americans should take the time to learn about exactly how this bill will affect them. Our nation is $13.4 Trillion in debt, unemployment remains near 10%, and Congress continues to spend money on bill after bill. Would passing Cap & trade help us solve these problems, or would it simply create more?

Imagine a nation where our industries are restricted by arbitrary limits on emissions, and penalized for not complying with potentially unrealistic goals for reduction. This will happen while China and India, the world’s top polluters, would have no such restrictions! How does this help America? If the playing field was level, and America was not forced to operate at a huge disadvantage, this bill would be worth taking a second look at. Until that happens, how can we honestly support Cap and Trade?

Rahm Emanuel is known for having said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” It is with that philosophy that President Obama, and his Democrat-controlled Congress, is using our current economic crisis to pass trillions in new spending. These policies will have long-term effects on our country and taxpayers, and it’s time to start analyzing whether we need this spending now giving our economic challenges.

Al Gore, the most prevalent advocate of Cap and Trade and other global warming legislation, doesn’t even follow his own advice. He routinely travels via private jet, keeps his motorcade’s engines running, and lives in a mansion, four-times the size of the average American’s home – resulting in energy consumption 12-times higher than the average American family according to Associated Press. He even plagiarized a clip from the disaster movie “The Day After Tomorrow” in his environmental epic “Inconvenient Truth” to advance his views.

Conservatives don’t hate the environment, but they do hate government expending by trillions of dollars, if taxpayers are on the hook for something we don’t need. Saving our planet shouldn’t be a partisan issue, but has been made one by environmentalists hell-bent on using government to achieve their goals. These liberals blame conservatives for fear-mongering, while they scare Americans into supporting bills like Cap and Trade with Global Warming doom and gloom scenarios. It’s hypocrisy, and should be treated as such.

“The Party of No” continues to be vilified by the Left, but they never take the time to explain why “yes” is the right answer. Today, being “The Party of Yes” means supporting:

  • Government-imposed penalties for emitting pollution, costing us money and jobs.
  • A complete government takeover of the health care industry via the public option, which Democrats are still trying to pass.
  • Limitless bailouts for everything and everyone, regardless of how much debt we accrue.
  • The immediate end to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell without allowing the military to weigh in and assess the impact on our military readiness during wartime.
  • A mandatory reduction in salt at restaurants.
  • Taxes on soda and candy.
  • Removing toys from Happy Meals at McDonalds.
  • Mandating equal time for conservatives and liberals on the radio.

If saying “No” to this stuff means conservatives are the bad guys, so be it!

Common Sense Conservatism: Taxes and the Size of Government

How much of your income should the government be able to take? Think about your answer as you read the rest of this post.

The first permanent, broad-based federal income tax went into effect in 1913 and placed a 7% tax on the top 1% of wage-earners in the United States. Within five years it had risen to be a 77% tax on the top 6% of income earners. In 1913, Americans paid between 1% and 7% on income over $20,000. However, in 1918 every American paid the tax, and those making less than $4,000/year paid 6%. Once the door was opened to an income tax, the government abused the privilege. For the record, the top tax bracket reached 94% in the mid-1940s. Imagine having to fork over 94% of your income to the government.

So here we are almost a century later, and the top income tax bracket pays 35% with those earning less than $16,750 pay only 10%. However, with the Earned Income Tax Credit, deductions for children and dependents and the ability to write-off health care costs, real estate taxes, charitable donations and other expenses many Americans earning less than $25,000/year pay no federal income tax. Some Americans who pay no taxes actually receive a refund, meaning the government sends them a check simply for being a low-income earner.

The federal government does need revenue in order to pay for the services it provides, and it certainly doesn’t have the ability to earn money of its own. Therefore, it is up to Americans to cover the costs of these services in the form of taxes. Since it is our hard-earned dollars being used by the federal government, there are obviously disagreements on which services the federal government should provide. Many on the Left believe that the government should be a force for good, and use those dollars to help people whenever possible. Those on the Right believe the Constitution outlines the responsibilities of the federal government, and anything outside of those duties should be handled at the state level or through individual choice.

The position taken by many on the Left isn’t a bad one in theory, but where do you draw the line when it comes to helping people? Does the federal government have an obligation to ensure all Americans have access to food and shelter? The answer is “yes,” as we have Section 8 housing and programs like welfare, food stamps and WIC. But how far should the federal government go in taking care of its people? Should the government be providing homes and cars for those who can’t afford them? How about computers with internet access? This is where opinions begin to divide.

Conservatives tend to believe the U.S. Constitution provides a clear-cut answer on the role of government. When our country was founded, the 13 colonies-turned-states created the federal government to handle matters of national interest. They were clear, however, through the 10th Amendment, that the states reserved the right to handle everything else. Matters of national interest include protecting us from foreign invasion, defending us against foreign threats and maintaining a three-branch government including the Presidency and his cabinet, Congress and the federal court system. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted the right to meddle in education, the environment, health care, automobiles, and many other areas where their presence is very obvious today. Those issues were historically handled at the state level, until such a time when they weren’t.

So back to my original question: How much of your income should the government be able to take?

The appropriate answer to that question depends on how much the government spends, because the more it spends, the more you’ll have to pay. Now both liberals and conservatives have good points when it comes to the role of government. It would be great for the government to be able to take care of everyone, but we must remember that they are paying for that care with the hard-earned dollars of working Americans. It would also be great if government was small so that all Americans were free from government intervention in their lives, and can keep more of the money they earn. But we must also remember that there are programs that are necessary and they must be paid for with our tax dollars. We must find ways to address legitimate problems without unfairly hurting others in the process.

Just like the federal government abused their ability to tax Americans in the first half of the 20th Century, Americans are noticing a disturbing trend today. In addition to paying federal income taxes, most Americans pay a state income tax. They also pay half of a 2.9% Medicare tax, and they pay into Social Security, which may not be around in a decade. We are not only taxed on our income, but we are also taxed every time we move. We pay taxes on our property, a home that we own. We pay taxes every time we pay our bills for electricity, water, gas, cable, internet, phone and other utilities. If we want to leave our house, we get taxed on our car in the form of registration fees, inspection fees and of course the gas we use for fuel. If we go to the supermarket, we are most likely taxed on prepared foods and most non-edible items. If we go to the liquor store we are taxed on all alcohol, from as little as $1.50 per gallon in Maryland to $26.45 in Washington State. For everything else we buy, there is a state sales tax between 2.9% and 8.25%, depending on where you live. We are taxed every time we turn around and usually on goods and services purchased with money we’ve already paid taxes on. Doesn’t that sound oppressive to you?

Here’s a simple exercise to show you how crazy this all is:

You are a single person living in California. You earn $34,000 per year, or $2,833 per month. The federal government takes 25% for income tax, 1.45% for Medicare and 6.2% for Social Security. The state of California takes 6.25%. Let’s say you spend a generous $100/week on groceries, which are tax-free. The rest will be spent on utilities, gas for the car and other small purchases. These purchases are ALL subject to tax, which is a double tax. The state sales tax is 8.25%, so let’s use that as a basis. You still have to pay one month’s share of your yearly property taxes and motor vehicle registration fees (roughly $275), leaving you with $943, plus your $400 in tax-free groceries.

You earn $2,833 per month, but you actually receive $1,343 in tax-free profit, a whopping 47% of your income. That means your $34,000 per year only amounts to just over $16,000 per year in your pocket, with which to pay bills. It should be noted, that even with tax rates at this level, the federal government is $13 trillion in debt and our example state of California is bankrupt.

How have we arrived at a point in our lives where we only get to keep 47% of the money we earn, and our state and federal governments are in debt? These numbers are disturbing, and it only gets worse the more money you make! If you earned $82,400 you’d pay an additional 8% in taxes, taking home only 39% of your income.

So is it unreasonable for conservatives to feel there needs to be a limit on how much money the government can take in taxes? Can we really keep creating more programs that rely on our tax dollars?

Today, our national debt sits at $13.4 Trillion. That comes out to be $43,173 per citizen – every man, woman and child in America. That figure does not include our unfunded liabilities including Social Security and Medicare, which totals another $110 Trillion ($355,296 per citizen). Good thing that’s not due yet! It also doesn’t include state debt, which is as high as $16,296 per citizen (New York).

The current administration, and the Democrat-controlled Congress, passed a trillion-dollar health care reform bill which doesn’t go into full effect until 2014, a $26 billion bailout to the states, and a failed $878 billion stimulus bill. They still have plans to pass Cap & Trade ($200 billion/year), a bailout for Fannie & Freddie ($148 billion), and a potential second stimulus bill ($50-$80 billion). Citizens Against Government Waste also identified $16.5 billion in pork in 2010 (and $19.6 billion in 2009), from an administration that promised to reform the earmark profess and cut wasteful spending.

So, how much of your income should the government be able to take? Maybe the better question is: How much should the government be able to spend?

Either way, it’s currently too much. And sometimes the “Party of No” is saying the right thing.

Liberals Getting Sloppier (Yes, it’s possible!)


The biggest hindrance to Democracy is untruth.  Especially when we are supposed to be able to rely on human decency and our media for information and objective opinion.  If liberals weren’t so sloppy at the lies they tell and tricks they pull, they could pose a real danger to our freedom.

The first example involved a “man” by the name of David Weigel who showed up at a political event held for Kentucky.  He posed as a racist Republican who was a supporter of Rand Paul.  But when the cameramen got word of his trick from the other side (members supporting the liberal actually bragged about what he was doing), the cameraman had a conversation with him both as a Rand Paul supporter and then caught him marching and chanting for the liberal later on that day. 

With so much emphasis liberals have placed on the Tea Party (not to mention the NAACP), you would think this story would show up somewhere on CNN.  Yes, I know millions of Americans are out of work, losing their homes, and Michelle is enjoying one heck of a taxpayer-funded getaway to Spain, but you’d think after all that has happened with regard to the Tea Party, they’d have time for such raw footage.

Rick Sanchez of CNN has the time to entertain a piece of “raw” video on Sarah Palin which was brought to light by an Alaskan blogger who has been obsessed with the Governor for the past three years. 

The video — which Palin herself has responded to on Facebook today — depicts Palin “rolling her eyes” at a “teacher” by the name of Kathleen Gustafson.  The “teacher” turned out to be a “theater tech” and sits on the Board of Directors of the town’s local “Family Planning Clinic.”

It’s funny knowing this and then listen to her begin by telling Palin she swore on her “precious Bible” to serve the state then implied that Palin left for personal gain.  If she’s a board-member of a Family Planning Clinic and uses the Bible in such an angry context, I find it hard to believe Ms. Gustafson was a Palin supporter to begin with. 

Then take into consideration that Gustafson lives in the same town of Homer, Alaska as Shannyn Moore does.  Shannyn Moore is President of the Palin Derangement Syndrome Society.  For years, she’s “investigated” the Governor (falsely said Palin was under investigation by the FBI and cried victim when Palin’s attorney threatened lawsuit for it) and has entertained Levi Johnston.  We all know by now how credible he turned out to be.

C’mon liberals!  Are we really supposed to believe that this woman — an unhinged lefty — was standing up and holding a sign that said “Worst Governor Ever!” and happened to be accompanied by her own cameraman and just happens to live in the same town as Shannyn Moore (population of Homer is just over 5,000) all by coincidence?

Immediately Shannyn Moore posted two articles on this, uploaded the video to youtube, copied and pasted her article to the Huffington Post (which drew over 10,000 comments from other lefties suffering from Palin Derangement Syndrome) and sent it to CNN.

This is the same woman who appeared on “Countdown” with Keith Olbermann where she was introduced to his regular 12 viewers.

The indignant “teacher” is not very impressive.  It is a well-documented fact that Palin-haters in Alaska filed numerous ethics violations costing taxpayers $2M and Palin $500K in defense fees.  She resigned to dis-empower them and give Alaska a Governor who could devote the time to them without those interruptions.  Somehow the “teacher” is unable to comprehend this and yet she wants us to believe that parents trust her with guiding their children?

This was Shannyn Moore’s weakest attempt at investigative blogging as it took conservative bloggers about three minutes to solve this.  The homely “Girl from Homer” is getting desperate.

CNN should report these developments but I won’t hold my breath.


As noted by “jerry” who I also believe is posing as “robert” on other conservative blogs, Gustafson does work for a school.  Though the title is “theater tech” as I stated before (hardly the reading-writing-arithmetic type).  And “jerry” denies Ms. Gustafson being President of the local family planning facility but does acknowledge she sits on the board. 

Since Shannyn Moore fought so hard for her right to report rumors when she was going around telling others that Palin was being investigated by the FBI, I have appropriately changed the paragraphs which questioned Gustafson’s teaching credentials. 

Lastly, she injected herself into the public arena by protesting and certainly should be subjected to the same scrutiny and specificity as Joe-the-Plumber was.

The Immigrants We Need

I went to the Arizona State Capitol to cover the protest on Thursday and was there for Shakira’s visit; I got some good pictures and some good quotes. My report will be up sometime tomorrow. For now, I had to post a short note on how things are going all over the state. I live in the Phoenix area (Scottsdale to be exact), but many other cities are up-in-arms as well – particularly Tucson.

State Rep. Raul Grijalva openly called for a boycott of our state after the signing of SB 1070, the now-famous immigration bill recently signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer. The bill requires law enforcement to ask about a person’s legal status in the event that, during legal contact, they suspect the person they have pulled over/arrested for breaking the law/been called to remind of civil ordinances (such as noise pollution laws) may be in the country illegally. Here in Phoenix, protests have gone on nearly every single day since the bill was signed. Ricky Martin has blasted it in interviews, Shakira actually came here and supported the protesters, and there have been small riots in a couple of instances when white people that protesters didn’t like got under someone’s skin. The vast, overwhelming majority of the protesters are Hispanic and chants of “si, se puede” (“yes, we can”) have been prevalent.

During a Tucson city council meeting, however, a beautiful lady named Gabriella Salcedo stood and spoke from her heart about the bill. Take note, as we’ve said over and over and over again, we want people to come. We are not in any way against immigration; we are merely against illegal immigration. None of us cares what color your skin is. This woman has a wisdom that few could hope to achieve in their lifetime and is the perfect example of the immigrant that America needs.


Seeing this video made my eyes well up. I feel a great swell of pride in my country when those who face difficulty do the right thing.

You can join us now on the Facebook page Americans Boycott Shakira!

This Week’s “Sarah Palin” Hysteria

   (Image created by liberal critics from Americans for Sarah Palin on Facebook)

Two major news stories are surfacing on left-wing blogs everywhere about Sarah Palin.

First, Palin responded light-heartedly to the “controversy” over scribbling six words on her hands before her Tea Party Speech by repeating an e-mail she got from a fan who told Sarah that God had done the same thing — mentioned in the Book of Isiah.  Palin then said that if it was good enough for God, it was good enough for her.

Suddenly, left-wing blogs are rushing to God’s defense.  For those out there wondering how bizarre this is, just think of a feminist rushing to the defense of a baby right before the late-term abortion is performed or Teddy Kennedy jumping back into the harbor to save Mary Jo.

Such as it was good enough for a laugh — as most folks really are interpreting it — their portrayal of Palin is comparing herself to God! (as they shout indignantly) is also logically untrue.  In fact, she was speaking in contrast to God.  I.E. If the almighty did it, what more can you expect out of a mere mortal? 

And by the way, which President has had pictures of himself taken all over the White House and which President has been copied and pasted into the Messiah-like images before?

In the case of Him, they were serious.  In the case of Her, they were sadly attempting sarcasm to profess false beliefs onto conservative Americans.  The only problem is, they did it first with their guy — AND THEY WERE SERIOUS ABOUT IT! 

Of course, conservatives would never deliberately place the photograph of a politician we loved in the place of the Messiah.  But knowing liberals were serious when they did it with theirs, it just gives the lie to this absurdity about Palin believing she is God-like or Christian-conservatives believing it as well.

No, Sarah Palin is not Jesus Christ.  She merely believes in Him, just like we do.

Moving on….

Giving a speech in Canada this weekend, Palin recollects her childhood in Skagway, Alaska 40 years ago as she recalls crossing Canadian lines and using their health care.

Yes, you know where this is going.  It’s already been covered on the Huffington Post, the Daily Kos, and tonight on MSNBC

Suddenly, Palin is a hypocrite who uses the socialized health care system of Canada.  Nevermind the fact that both systems of health care in both countries were slightly different 40 years ago.  Nevermind the fact that she lived in a town called Skagway which rested on the Canadian border just years after Alaska had become a state. 

The joy of Sarah Palin is watching the left try as hard as they do.  I think for me, she’s already won the big battle with them.  What MSNBC and Media Matters fail to provide us with is precisely what the alternative was for the Palin family back then?  Just what did they want them to do?  Drive to Washington state every time someone broke a bone or had a fever?

My theory?  Palin knew liberals would react this way.  It wasn’t accidental that she mentioned this in her speech.  And the darlings of the left have not yet figured it out (to the point that screaming it from the rooftops now won’t take them out of their rotting anti-Palin daze) that they are so typical, they continue to eat out of her hand (with or without the scribbled words).

They run around screaming about how she’s such a dope — but they’ve all been duped by that “dope” over and over again.

Another Girly Liberal Throws Food

FOX – Man in Minnesota throws tomatoes at Sarah Palin, misses, and smacks an officer right in the face.

I’ll bet he voted for Obama.

No doubt in the Christmas season he was simply paying tribute to the two liberals who threw pies at Ann Coulter and missed as well.


The “man” is 33-year-old Jeremy Olson.  All one really must do is LOOK at the picture released tonight.

Meanwhile, liberals at the Huffington Post are proclaiming him as their new hero.  No Kidding!

Is the World’s “Fever” Really Breaking?

Pre-conference e-mail-attack threatens climate change agenda.


But shortly before his announcement, hackers broke into the servers at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Great Britain and posted e-mails in which scientists dismissed climate change skeptics, expressed concern about the lack of evidence to prove the threat of global warming and even made one reference to a plan to “hide the decline” in temperatures. 

Pro-Choice, but for who?

The hypocrisy coming from feminists and pro-abortion fanatics is astonishing with regard to the Stupak amendment.  The Stupak amendment was passed on Saturday with bipartisan support – just in case the travesty bill known as HR3962 passed (which it sadly did).  Basically, it prohibits the use of public funds for abortion by women.  Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?

Not according to Planned Parenthood and NARAL.  Tonight on Joy Behar’s show, the ultra-liberal pro-choice host had on a few of these women along with Congresswoman Maxine Waters.  To say these women stretched the truth is a huge understatement. 

When people take advantage of a public option to anything, they succumb to big-government bureaucracy.  It’s always been that way, it always will be.  Who votes for these politicians who support big-government bureaucracy?  Why I do believe it’s the same liberals who are angry about the Stupak Amendment!?

What angered me about Behar’s show (not that I expect journalistic integrity out of her) is how uniformed she herself was as the fanatics proclaimed that women would still be denied abortion if they paid for their own policies.  She, of course, was appalled as the same fanatics continued to blame “anti-choice” members of the House. 

“Paying for their policies” doesn’t grant them that right if they are paying for their policies out of the exchange.  Why?  Because if a woman purchases an insurance policy out of the public option and pays $100 per month for a policy which she would have paid $300 per month for from Blue Cross Blue Shield, this means that two-thirds of her insurance policy is subsidized by the American taxpayer.

It’s the same concept with Section 8 or public housing.  Folks pay a small sum of money – say $150 per month – and the government covers the remaining $600-$800 per month.  In my county, such recipients are constantly put through the most rigorous procedures.  They have to send in pay stubs every month, they get their house inspected every two months, their kids’ clothes are inspected and beds are checked, personal questions about the dating lives of the recipients are asked, etc. etc. etc.  Every aspect of their lives from A to Z is violated.  There is no privacy when you sell out to big government and wear one of their numbers.

What about the “choice” anyway?  Any liberal who complains about this Stupak amendment is a total hypocrite.  What about the choice of taxpayers who have to pay for the bill (considering it passes the Senate)?  Do they have a “choice” of whether or not to pay for it?  Miraculously, Planned Parenthood or NARAL doesn’t seem to mind that, nor do liberal politicians, nor do the voting liberal base.

They selectively apply “choice” and “privacy” to matters that are only important to the radical left-wing.

Here’s a little newsflash for them (and feminists alike): this is only the beginning!  Every aspect of your life is going to be uncovered, there will be an answer to them for everything you do, and they WILL have the control over your life that they have always wanted.

And you know what?  You deserve it. 

You want your precious privacy?  Good!  You might have just taken your first step to being a conservative! Afraid of our little Sarah?

Tuesday’s upcoming election in NY23 is going to be quite a media blitz.  According to this article, Democrats – some of the big ones – are frightened at Sarah Palin’s influence as it states:

On Wednesday, warned that a “bizarre House race in upstate New York could end up giving a big national boost to Sarah Palin and the far right.”

What’s even better?  The article is right on the ever-so-reliable and ever-so-frantic Huffington Post.
Where are the liberals to tell us how irrelevant and powerless Sarah Palin is when we really need them?

Frick and Frack

It’s Rosh Hashanah, everybody! I’m with my family today, enjoying the day and their company. I’m also–as usual–watching the news. FOX News in particular. (Liberals, roll your eyes now and start the familiar “FOX isn’t news” mantra…face it, they’re getting John Stossel, they’ve already gotten Bernie Goldberg and Chris Wallace, you can’t just say they’re making up their own news or get pissed about their “right-wing agenda”.)

I just finished watching Chris Wallace’s Fox News Sunday section featuring ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis and Republican congressman Darrell Issa (don’t tell me they’re biased–you’d never see Issa or any other known conservative sitting next to such a die-hard liberal on any of the other major networks!). Wallace was fair; he actually gave much of the floor to Lewis. I found it very interesting, both amusing and at the same time irritating, that Lewis was completely incapable of addressing Issa. Not once did she so much as look at him. She didn’t turn to face him. She couldn’t even speak to the man–any time Issa posed a civil and rational question to Lewis, using “you” and “your” and other direct, personal words and phrases, Lewis would ONLY speak to Wallace. “What Mr. Issa says is interesting,” she’d say, or, “I’m glad Mr. Issa asked that question.” She wouldn’t even acknowledge he was in the same building, let alone sitting not two feet from her.

I daresay that behavior was absolutely outrageous. Can you imagine if Darrell Issa had done that? He’d have been tarred and feathered. It’s every bit as outrageous as Obama making a point to blitz all of the Sunday morning news shows…with the only exception being FOX. He wouldn’t give one second of airtime to FOX, yet he’d talk to every other big-name network.

This week, Andrew Breitbart’s began running a series of explosive videos in which two independent journalists posing as pimp and prostitute ran a sting and caught at every single office ACORN employees giving them advice on evading detection for their illicit activities by finding ways to hoodwink the IRS and others who might come sniffing. In some cases, the ACORN workers gave tips on how to hide the fact that they were using underage girls from South America in a prostitution ring. When the videos first came out ACORN threatened to sue and put pressure on the Maryland AG’s office. That AG first tried to threaten Breitbart and his reporters with an investigation into supposed illegal wiretapping for recording the sessions. Today, after threatening FOX with a lawsuit for showing the videos, Lewis appeared with Wallace in a concerted damage control effort. Obama, though, is trying to claim he didn’t know what was going on and that he doesn’t care.

I think Obama would rather have dental surgery without anesthesia than talk to a FOX reporter. He’d rather talk to the reporters who fawned over him when he walked by because they won’t challenge him–they’ll ask him what appears to be a tough question, much like George Stephanopoulos did this morning on ABC, then once he’s given his answer they let it go. They won’t ask him to elaborate, they just move on. What happened to really asking the tough questions? I seriously think everyone in the MSM has lost their balls. I think they dropped off and rolled down their pant legs, and they didn’t stop to think before kicking them away as little more than an annoyance.

Stephanopoulos asked Obama about ACORN, to which Obama stuttered and finally said that he wasn’t paying attention to the ACORN controversy and the news about Congress cutting off funding to the community-organizing group. It stopped there, though. It went no further. Stephanopoulos allowed Obama to deny being involved and didn’t point out a single shred of evidence (of which there is quite a bit) that Obama is, in fact, heavily involved with ACORN. He always has been. Where were the challenges about Obama’s previous legal work on ACORN’s behalf? Where were the challenges about Obama training ACORN workers for Project Vote? Where were the questions about Obama giving more than $830,000 to Citizens Services, Inc., an ACORN front organization, for “advance work” on his campaign–work such as sound, lighting, lodging, polling and license fees. Mind you, ACORN and CSI are both supposedly just community organizing groups that canvas for low-income families. And the Obama campaign had to later revise their federal reports on the payments to CSI. They lied about it on the report they initially filed.

Nobody in the MSM has dared to cross The One and ask questions about funding, ties to ACORN, or questionable practices. Hardball my Texan ass–the MSM doesn’t know how to do it anymore. They couldn’t even play real hardball with Sarah Palin! What the hell kind of question is “what magazines do you read to get your news?” Are you freakin’ serious?

We need to face facts. Bertha Lewis and ACORN are a criminal racket and Obama is up to his eyeballs with them. He says he’s not paying much attention, but the reality is that he’s just trying to distance himself from his most ardent supporters in an attempt to save face. Plausible deniability is the new chic with Democrats. First Charles Gibson pretended to know nothing about the ACORN scandal, then Nancy Pelosi followed suit. Today, Obama played dumb. Obama and ACORN are frick and frack, folks. You can’t separate ’em.