Tag Archives: Sarah Palin

Death Panels and the WWII Veterans

AP_wwII_veteran_memorial_jef_131002_16x9_992Originally posted at American Thinker

Ever since the threat of government-run health care became a reality and ObamaCare was signed into law in 2010, clear-thinking Americans have been worried about how the legislation would ultimately affect the elderly and infirm.  Now we know.

Sarah Palin called them “death panels” and was mocked for suggesting that when the federal government ran out of money, health care would be rationed, and the elderly, the infirm, and the chronically ill would be the first to be denied.

America ignored it when Obama told Jane Q Publick, aka Jane Sturm, that he would deny her 105-year-old mother, a woman with a joy for life, a pacemaker.  It wasn’t Sarah Palin, but Barack Obama who said that at a certain point, based on their age, old people would be better off with a painkiller.

No American wants to believe that in order to cut down on costs, bureaucrats, never mind the president of the United States, would purposely allow some of us to die.

But for those who observe President Obama’s actions and refuse to compartmentalize his comments, it’s been abundantly clear that this is a man who lacks respect for the sanctity of life — anyone’s life.

After all, if a person approves of the unfettered slaughter of defenseless unborn babies and also enthusiastically funds the brutal procedure to end their lives, doesn’t it make sense that such a person is capable of just about anything?

That’s why it’s no surprise that the president recently inflicted abuse on elderly WWII heroes who congregated in Washington, D.C. to visit a memorial erected in honor of their service.

The soldiers were part of Honor Flight, a program that gifts WWII veterans with an expense-paid trip to Washington, D.C. to view the WWII Memorial.

Allegedly because of the shutdown, 80- and 90-year-old veterans were refused admittance to the site.  Now we come to find out that much like what is suspected in the “Fast and Furious,” Benghazi, and IRS scandals, the White House had direct involvement.

To keep the aged soldiers from entering the public space, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) rightly pointed out, “some idiot in government sent goons out there to set up barricades.”

Could it be that Obama is that contemptuous of men to whom our nation owes enormous gratitude for buying our freedom with their blood?

That must be the case, because the same individual strongly suspected of issuing a “stand down” directive for Benghazi felt that it was a priority to send guards to the memorial to threaten to arrest old WWII soldiers, some of whom arrived in wheelchairs.

All this is important to note, reason being that if Barack Obama can treat the Greatest Generation in such a disrespectful manner, and dismiss their value to this nation by sending a goon squad to put up physical barriers to prevent entry into their memorial, it’s probable that this incident is indicative of how older Americans will be treated when it comes to accessing government-controlled health care.

Seeing America’s finest staring from afar at a monument built to honor their sacrifices and watching them be prohibited from enjoying what freedom promises every American citizen makes the prospect of Obama-controlled health care even more chilling.

What we witnessed on the day ObamaCare was rolled out, with senior citizens being held at arm’s length by the bureaucratic arm of an overbearing government, a vindictive president, and a band of bootlicking public employees, should send shudders down the spine of every American able to comprehend reality.

For those who didn’t think it was possible, Barack Obama disallowing WWII veterans’ entry into a public park should be viewed as a moment of clarity for the entire nation.

Let’s not forget: the Obama administration’s antipathy toward patriots was already evidenced when it objected to adding FDR’s D-Day prayer to the WWII Memorial shrine.

For the rest of us, in a free country, elderly soldiers being forced to storm their own memorial could be a glimpse into a future where a man with no compassion or scruples will have zero compunction barring these and many other American citizens from entering doctors’ offices, hospitals, operating rooms, and pharmacies.  

In other words, consider what America has witnessed with the veterans an unofficial ObamaCare-denial test flight.

At the WWII Memorial, the inscription at the foot of every flagpole reads: “Americans came to liberate, not to conquer, to restore freedom and to end tyranny.”

Little did the brave Americans who stormed the beaches at Normandy know that one day they’d be fighting for their lives thanks to a different kind of tyranny — right here at home.

Q For the Left: Is Sarah Palin as Smart as Rachel Jeantel?

SarahPalinByDavidShankboneOriginally posted at Clash Daily

When liberals mock conservatives, the criticism is neither based in logic nor truth. That’s why instead of debating the issues in an intelligent manner, the left chooses instead to disparage political foes. One of their favorite tactics is to portray conservatives as mentally deficient morons.

Sarah Palin is a primary target of that sort of liberal derision, for both what she says and the folksy way in which she says it. George W. Bush was also victimized by the ‘he’s dumb as a stump’ drumbeat of ridicule that issued forth from the left.

Not for nothing, but liberals worship a man who pronounced “corpsman” as “corpse man,” and as a political party are sincerely convinced that just on the basis of being liberal, they and the “corpse men” they support possess the most brilliant of minds.

That is why, if an individual who furthers the liberal cause is found to be challenged in the intellect department, rather than apply the same criticism, liberals will do anything to explain away, oh let’s say, a black female’s inability to cobble together a coherent point.

Incoherency is what brings us around to Rachel Jeantel, star witness for the prosecution in the George Zimmerman trial. Perhaps Ms. Jeantel has the potential to express herself in a clear, respectful, and articulate way, but is caught up in a low-expectation culture that has shaped her into who she is.

Still, based on her abysmal diction, contemptuous demeanor, and basic disrespect for authority, it’s hard to believe that Rachel Jeantel possesses the cerebral capacity that liberals are now trying to establish on her behalf.

Then again, it could be that Rachel “made a lot more sense than you think,” just as Time magazine intimated in an article entitled “Rachel Jeantel Explained, Linguistically.” Time actually seemed to argue that people who don’t understand Rachel are the challenged ones, not Ms. Jeantel.

Television and media critic Eric Deggans of the Tampa Bay Times described Rachael’s inability to express herself as merely a problem with “code switching,” which Mr. Deggans describes thusly:

For linguists, code-switching describes the simple act of switching between two languages in a conversation. But in today’s increasingly multicultural, multi-ethnic society, the term’s deeper meaning involves shifting between different cultures as you move through life’s conversations — choosing your communication style based on the people you’re dealing with.

Mr. Deggans even went so far as to define Rachel Jeantel’s now infamous “creepy-ass cracka” comment as nothing more than a cultural problem exacerbated by Jeantel’s inability to adequately code-switch.

Of late, the Jeantel apologist maintains that the impression Rachel made during the trial was based more on the observer’s lack of cultural sensitivity than Rachel’s intellectual “shortcomings.”

Yet when Sarah Palin, who the left still considers to be “the queen of stupid”, said the following about Barack Obama: “Obama’s Shuck and Jive ends with Benghazi Lies,” Deggans accused Palin of using coded words to mask her prejudice. Thus, it’s unlikely Deggans would have described a favorite Sarah Palin expression, “wee-weed up,” as an inability for the former Alaska governor to code-switch.

Currently Rachel Jeantel is working the media circuit, toting along a lawyer and, from the looks of things, a stylist and probably a publicist. She’s spending her days acting as the official sage of gangsta thug culture, schooling liberals such as the completely engrossed Piers Morgan on things like the difference between the N-word ending with an “a” versus the N-word ending with an “-er,” the latter of which is the racist version while the former just means “a guy”.

On Piers Morgan Live, Jeantel provided a riveting explanation that clarified how “a” and “-er” make all the difference between a honky cracker and a security/law enforcement “creepy-ass cracka.”

For a little context, Piers Morgan is the man who laughed at the vile Bill Maher making sport of mocking Sarah Palin’s and Michelle Bachmann’s intelligence. Yet Piers seemed to actually take Rachel Jeantel seriously when she enlightened her detractors by pointing out an “under-bite that made it difficult for her to speak clearly.” Rachel Jeantel, a black woman with a dental malady, encapsulates everything necessary to merit an army of sappy liberal apologists to rally to her defense.

Proving her stunning lack of understanding when it comes to homophobia, Jeantel even went so far as to publicly assert that Martin was “creeped out” by Zimmerman following him after she suggested that George may have been a “rapist.” Morgan was riveted when Rachel posed the politically incorrect, difficult-to-decipher question, “For every boy or every man who’s not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creeped out?”

The left is so wary of the potential negative impact that might result from disagreeing with a black female representing institutional racism in the US that her poorly thought-out suggestion that Trayvon Martin pummeled George Zimmerman because he thought he was a homosexual rapist was largely ignored by the gay rights lobby in the media.

In a “CNN Opinion” article entitled “Love Her or Hate Her, Rachel Jeantel is a Star,” Jason Johnson explained people’s negative perception of Rachel Jeantel as follows: “Part of it is because she is a dark-skinned, plus-sized girl from a low-income neighborhood who doesn’t speak the King’s English. With that profile, some viewers automatically see her as non-credible and uneducated[.]”

So, does that mean that if Sarah Palin had only been born a “dark-skinned, plus-sized girl from a low-income neighborhood who [didn’t] speak the King’s English” the left-wing media, regardless of her political persuasion, would have embraced her and seen her so-called gibberish as some sort of wisdom that lesser people fail to understand?

If that’s the case, there’s hope for Sarah Palin! Maybe Rachel Jeantel can help Palin brush up on her phraseology. Then, Sarah’s folksy style of speaking wouldn’t sound so stupid to liberals, and the former governor of Alaska will be viewed by the left as being almost as smart as Rachel Jeantel.

Michelle Obama Tells Letterman She’s a Blue Collar Gal from Chicago

Originally posted at Breitbart BIG Hollywood

Not until it was almost certain that Barack Obama would become the 44th President of the United States was Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama proud to be an American.

However, listening to her now, it’s quite clear that she’s always been proud to call the south side of Chicago home.

Recently, while making the talk show rounds, The First Lady appeared on “The Late Show with David Letterman.” Besides family dinnertime discussions about macroeconomics, Obama told Letterman that both she and President Obama work hard to “instill the values of south Chicago in their daughters.

If given the choice, the President and First Lady prefer to identify with the culture of a “toddlin’ town” that, besides Al Capone and deep-dish pizza, also introduced America to aging bomb-throwing domestic terrorists, racist/anti-Semitic reverends, a deeper understanding of community organizing, and a president who, above all, does Saul Alinsky proud.

According to Michelle, for the Obamas, Chicago is all about the values – so much so that when the family steps off the elevator, the second- and third-floor family residence of the White House magically transforms into the Windy City.

Michelle told a fawning Letterman that “what we want to have happen is when they get off that elevator and walk in to our residence that it feels like the south side of Chicago, the same values, the same rules, the same sense of responsibility.”

Working class. Blue collar. Joe and Jane Sixpack wearing matching Cubs hats.

If the first lady favors ideals unique to south Chicago over traditional American values, then why were the couple’s children, Sasha and Malia, skiing with Mom in Aspen in February when Chicago law enforcement logged in a whopping 18 homicides for that month alone?

Mrs. Obama explained further to an enthralled Letterman, who once said that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin resembles a “slutty flight attendant,” that around the family residence Chi-town standards of “kindness, empathy and respect” are always a must.

The fact that Mrs. Obama failed to address Letterman’s previous disrespectful, sexually perverted remarks about Piper Palin, who was Malia’s age at the time those comments were made, may mean that on Chicago’s south side, if it’s a conservative being attacked, it’s perfectly acceptable for “kindness, empathy and respect” to be excluded from the conversation.

A relaxed Michelle expounded on the idyllic values residing in the old neighborhood as compared to the tedious perks the Obamas presently endure as they struggle to survive in the lap of luxury.

Relating directly to the plight of the common folk, Michelle reminded America that back in Chicago, even though they lived in Hyde Park in a mansion valued to be worth $3 million and Sam Kass was their personal chef, the Obamas “didn’t have [butlers], you know. So, Barack and I really do work hard to, you know, figure out how you create those values in this other world that we know nothing about.”

All right now, hold it right there. America has been handed a lot of poppycock for three years, but are we now supposed to, you know, believe that haute couture-wearing, $4 million Christmas-vacationing Michelle Obama is trying to, you know, create a south side of Chicago atmosphere on the second and third floor of the White House and is doing it by making sure that Sasha and Malia, when they’re not, you know, vacationing in Spain or Mexico, “have chores to do?”

And is America also supposed to believe that nouveau riche Michelle and her husband are, you know, living in a strange world that, you know, they know nothing about?

Guess so, because she told Letterman that Chicago values are a must for Sasha and Malia, and that these are the “things that we can give them … that [are] more important than anything that they’ll have.”

Then, quite by accident, the First Lady shed light on the source of the President’s ideological approach to governing. While discussing her daughters, Mrs. Obama actually admitted to Letterman that, just like they’ve done to America for the last three years, if Sasha and Malia refuse to obey them, Michelle and Barack just say “Give me that” and “take their stuff away.”

Tebow, Palin, and the Pain of Remorse

Originally posted at American Thinker

Tim Tebow is really annoying to certain people in a Sarah Palin sort of way.  Whenever Tim or Sarah shows up, an uncomfortable feeling accompanies him or her, and it’s called conviction.  One definition for “convict” is “to impress with a sense of guilt.”  That is precisely what Tim Tebow and Sarah Palin are guilty of: impressing shame and remorse upon America that it would prefer to avoid.

The Palin family has been mocked and derided for many reasons, including baby boy Trig, born with Down Syndrome.  This past spring, after former Gov. Palin posted a birthday tribute to her son, former Wonkette writer Jack Stuef called Trig a “magic intellectually disabled baby prop.”  Stuef questioned “Trig’s parentage, implying he was conceived in incest, and used the R word.”  Stuef has since apologized and said he regretted using the word “retarded,” but he stands by his criticism of Palin.

By approving of and promoting policies that destroy innocent human life, the left is hateful enough.  However, when a conservative public figure “chooses” life, what emanates from hate-spewing liberals amounts to a new level of vitriol.

That rage is evidenced by liberal reactions to Sarah Palin, who celebrates the life of a child whom some liberals would deem a disposable burden on society.  Palin said it so well in a 2011 Thanksgiving tribute to Trig when she shared:

Through Trig, I see firsthand that there is man’s standard of perfection, and then there is God’s.  Man’s standard is flawed, temporary, and shallow.  God’s standard lasts an eternity.  At the end of the day, His is what matters.

And what about that pesky Tim Tebow?  In 1987, Tim’s mother Pam chose to grant her son the gift of life.  Pregnant and suffering from a life-threatening infection, Pam Tebow, a missionary with her husband Robert to the Philippines, was told that her and Robert’s child would be stillborn.  Rather than take the advice of her doctor and abort, Pam Tebow chose to trust God.

Both mother and baby survived, and today, much like Sarah and Trig Palin, Pam and Tim Tebow both pose a problematic contradiction to one of the strongest arguments abortion advocates use when arguing to justify disposing of the unborn.

To this day, 24 years after proving the doctor wrong, starting quarterback for the Denver Broncos Tim Tebow remains downright annoying.  Every time he makes an appearance on the football field, without opening his mouth, the abortion survivor takes all the fun out of the sport.  Why?  Because pro-choice America is forced to look into the face of a strapping miracle child whose mother put his life ahead of her own.

To make matters worse, not only did the Tebow family allow the child to be born, but they then did the unthinkable and raised him to be a devout Christian.

Now, as a football star, Tebow is open about that faith and his relationship to Christ, and that bold testimony has become a center of controversy.  Mike McCarthy of USA Today says that when he “tunes in to watch sports[,] he deserves to just get sports,” and sort of resents Tim thanking and praising God.

Former Denver Bronco quarterback Jake Plummer agrees.  Plummer extended kudos to Tebow’s accomplishments as a football player but tempered his enthusiasm by saying:

Tebow, regardless of whether I wish he’d just shut up after a game and go hug his teammates, I think he’s a winner and I respect that about him. I think that when he accepts the fact that we know that he loves Jesus Christ then I think I’ll like him a little better. I don’t hate him because of that, I just would rather not have to hear that every single time he takes a good snap or makes a good handoff.

Unbowed, Tim graciously responded to the criticism by attesting that his relationship with Jesus Christ is the most important thing in his life.  Tebow said, “So any time I get an opportunity to tell Him that I love Him or given an opportunity to shout Him out on national TV, I’m gonna take that opportunity.”

What Jake Plummer doesn’t realize is that even if Tim Tebow never says another word about Jesus, forgoes writing John 3:16 in his eye black, decides to relinquish his virginity before marriage, and never again teams up with Focus on the Family to sponsor pro-life ads during the Super Bowl, his mere presence on the planet speaks volumes to a secular society driven by heartless liberal policies.

Not only does abortion survivor Tim Tebow live, but as a staunch follower of Jesus Christ, he is a source of double-conviction in a godless world where devotion to sports often supersedes commitment to God.

Based on the left’s reaction, seems Trig Palin and Tim Tebow are huge thorns in the side of pro-choice America.  So are their mothers, who, if they’d only exercised the right to choose, would have made life a lot more comfortable for those who would rather avoid dredging up past mistakes.

Instead, every time Trig or Tim shows up, those who would rather look away are forced to stare into a looking glass that reflects dedication to heroes who are no heroes at all, images associated with the sorrow of abortion, and the senseless self-interest of a nation’s ungodly attachment to a level of futility that, in the end, delivers nothing but a lifetime of regret.

‘Gun Against the Head’ Civil Discourse

Originally posted at BIG Government

In 2008, long before a shooting in Tucson where six people died and 19 were injured, candidate Barack Obama did not shy away from violent imagery when explaining how he would counter Republican attacks during the 2008 presidential campaign. Chicago-style Obama warned: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

After Tucson, when it came time to assign blame for what amounted to an attempted political assassination, liberals did not squander the opportunity to blame the Sarah Palin PAC website’s depiction of cross-hairs for inciting the type of uncivil discourse that led to the  murders, and Obama didn’t stop them. In fact, the media all but laid the responsibility for Jared Lee Loughner shooting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ)  in the head at Palin’s feet.

Liberal commentator Keith Olbermann even went so far as to say: “If Sarah Palin … does not repudiate her own part, however tangential, in amplifying violence and violent imagery in American politics, she must be dismissed from politics, she must be repudiated by the members of her party.”

Four short days after the shooting, Barack Obama used the opportunity to sell T-shirts, rebuke the gun lobby, and use the tragedy to partner with the media and call for “civility in public discourse.”  In other words, the memorial in Tucson became a platform for Obama to reprimand his critics and harness the First Amendment by condemning “point scoring and pettiness.”

Barack recited Scripture, offered condolences, and eulogized all the victims before segueing into rhetoric that heaped guilt upon anyone on the right who might employ hyperbole in political discussion. Citing the gallant actions of those who saved lives in a Safeway parking lot, the President said heroism posed a “challenge to each of us,” and raised the question “going forward” of what “beyond the prayers and expressions of concern,” was  required of all Americans, including himself, to “honor the fallen” and “be true to their memory?”

Politicizing an act that had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with insanity, the President brought up “national conversation” as an “essential ingredient in our exercise of self-government.” Obama also used the occasion to mention the debate over the “motivations behind these killings…the merits of gun safety laws,” and “the adequacy of our mental health systems.”

President “Bring a Knife and We’ll Bring a Gun” Obama chided the nation by saying, “at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”

It was touching sentiments such as those that inspired the New York Times to praise Barack Obama for ushering in a New Era of Civility.  Six months later, amidst talk of economic “Armageddon,” as the debate over raising the debt ceiling continues to heat up, Barack Obama is the one who  dropped the ‘civility’ ball.

If it is true that mentally ill individuals can be goaded toward violence by cartoon depictions of cross-hairs, then Obama, who exhorted the nation by saying “rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together,” may have unintentionally provided the impetus for a future tragedy.

At  a Twitter town hall in Washington DC, the man who, when in Tucson, demanded from political adversaries “more civility in our public discourse,” tweeted out to millions that Republicans are using the debt ceiling debate as a “gun against the heads” of the American people.  He even made reference to how Republicans disagree with what they call “job-killing tax increases.” If President Obama wants to set the courtesy bar, maybe he should stick to his own stringent, legalistic language standard and when speaking censor the word “killing.”

Barack Obama’s own words at the Tucson Memorial denounced ‘gun against the head’ imagery, which everyone knows is simply hyperbolic analogy.  However, unless this is another in a long list of examples of Barack Obama exempting himself from the edicts he places upon everyone else, the President either owes an apology to the nation for exhibiting the lack of “decency and goodness” he called for in Tucson, or he should quit looking for any excuse to control speech and politicize misfortune.

Partisan Heartbreaker Tom the Petty

Originally posted at BIG Hollywood

In an effort to further promote the message of love, peace and the type of compassion intrinsic to all dedicated liberals, Alec Baldwin, a paunchy comedian with anger issues, called attention to what he feels is Michele Bachmann’s inability to articulate by inarticulately spewing obscenities in the Minnesota congresswoman’s direction by way of Twitter.

Within seconds of Michele announcing she’d decided to launch a bid for the Republican nomination for President of the United States, it became clear that not one iota of liberal negativity toward conservatives has abated.

Over the past few days, the rock world has joined the fun by publicly stepping forward in an effort to send a message to the latest object of targeted political ridicule, Michele Bachmann. The goal is to drive home the point that liberal rock musicians disapprove of both Bachmann’s politics and audacity in thinking she actually has a chance to send honorary rock star Barack Obama back to Chicago.

Following Alec Baldwin’s Twitter tirade, Tom Petty, a Mad Hatter in sunglasses, decided it was his turn to deny Bachmann, without explanation, the use of one of his hit songs. Petty is so anti-GOP he forbade Michele Bachmann from playing  “American Girl” as a musical backdrop to her announcement to run for president.

Apparently, the last thing Tom Petty wants to be associated with is writing the signature anthem that could accompany a female Republican candidate on the trip from Minnesota to the White House.  So, to prevent that from happening, the rocker sent a three-word message to Michele: “Cease and desist.”

It’s doubtful that Tom Petty would decline $275 per person ticket proceeds based on who concertgoers supported in the last election. Yet, rock musicians who refuse, due to partisan politics, to let conservative candidates use songs for campaign backdrops forget that many of their fans are conservatives.

It’s no secret; Tom Petty isn’t a fan of the Right. When George W. Bush ran for governor of Texas, the genial GW pulled a Michele Bachmann and complimented the songwriter by using “I Won’t Back Down” as a campaign song. The unappreciative Petty had his publisher warn the campaign that using the ballad could send a false impression (Heaven forbid) that Petty endorsed Bush, and ordered the gubernatorial team to pull the song.

Tom Petty is one of a large herd of liberal singers and songwriters who sell their wares like capitalists on steroids to anyone and everyone, but when a conservative candidate identifies with one of their songs, out of fear of being perceived as leaning to the right hawkers of concert T-shirts and tacky glassware suddenly become all partisan and possessive.

Yet when Democrats like Black Socks Spitzer of New York and John ‘My-Wife-Has-Cancer-While-I’m-Having-an-Affair’ Edwards used Heartbreaker music as campaign anthems, Tom the Perpetually Petty fully endorsed both Lotharios using the extremely apropos “Won’t Back Down” ditty.

The “You Can Call Me Al” and “Don’t Stop” crews are proud to have signature songs associated with Al ‘Crazed  Sex Poodle’ Gore and impeached adulterer Bill Clinton, but Sarah Palin shaking hands and hugging babies in time to “Barracuda” irked female rock group Heart so much the duo threatened a lawsuit if Sarah didn’t pick another tune.

Truth is, in the world of rock and roll, the liberal malady is endemic. In the 1980’s Bruce Springsteen took on the Gipper over Reagan’s use of the song “Born in the USA.” During the 2004 presidential election, in an effort to save the USA from a second Bush term, Bruce partnered with über-liberal left-wing group MoveOn.org to headline a star-studded caravan of whiners in a Vote for Change Tour.

The 2004 MoveOn.org/rock-and-roll effort failed and Bush won reelection, which proves there are more Republican voters than liberals realize.  If, as a group, conservatives boycotted downloading music from iTunes and stopped buying concert tickets, many artists who feel comfortable insulting Republicans for sport would definitely take a hit in the pocketbook.

Then again, one has to wonder if someone like Bruce Springsteen even comprehends the concept that the people he slurs with his political invectives have the monetary power to affect The Boss’s bottom line.  After all, didn’t Springsteen say Obama “speaks to the America I’ve envisioned in my music for the past 35 years?”

Even still, the liberal Step Away From the Song list goes on and on: Pretty boy Jon Bon Jovi told Sarah Palin not to use “Who Says You Can’t Go Home.”  The Foo Fighters and Van Halen dissed John McCain; Bruce Hornsby felt Sean Hannity’s use of his song “The Way it Is” shouldn’t be the way it is; and rock group Rush informed Rand Paul he’s no “Tom Sawyer.”

By now, Republicans should know better than to provide ammunition for the left by failing to stringently follow copyright laws and respect property ownership rights. Yet, a politically partisan situation still presents an opportunity to learn a profound lesson for those on both sides of the political aisle.

Liberal musicians should understand that having a fan base largely made up of those without the ability to pay $1.99 to download a song or lay out close to three bills for a concert ticket isn’t going to ensure their rock star lifestyle for very long.

For those heartbroken by Petty Heartbreaker, conservatives must take their eyes off the “Yes We Can” free-for-all where liberal politicians sway and wave in time to music amidst showers of balloons filled to capacity with Democrat hot air.  It’s time to realize the same standard does not and will never apply to Grand Ole or Tea Party candidates. Just because liberal musicians become gazillionaires with the help of Republican fans doesn’t mean those same rich rock stars will show appreciation by treating conservative candidates with respect.

For those on the right, the salient point is this: liberal politicians are never denied rights to artists’ theme songs; quite the contrary, they are encouraged to use them. Conservatives politicians should not be so naïve as to assume similar rules apply to the likes of Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann.

With that in mind, Bachmann and Harley-riding Barracuda Palin should rethink forgoing the mud wrestling fight Michele claims the media is itching for and hit the ring to work out which lady will seek permission to claim Carrie Underwood’s “All-American Girl” and whose anthem will ultimately be conservative rocker Kid Rock’s “Born Free.”

 

Questioning Michele Bachmann’s Foster Parent Claims

Originally posted at American Thinker

In order to understand liberalism, all one needs to do is take note of what the left applauds versus what they attack.  Case in point: Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann – wife, mother to five biological children and foster mother to 23 teenagers – has now become the focal point of left-wing attacks as they prepare to diminish her stature by attacking her family.

Michele gave a stellar performance at the Republican debate.  It was in that forum that she announced her decision to “seek the office of the presidency of the United States of America.”  The only woman on the platform, Michele voiced strong convictions, attacked government regulation, called the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill “over-the-top,” and promised if elected to repeal Obamacare.  Michele praised the Tea Party and described it as a “wide swath of America coming together…to take the country back.”

Yet, despite articulating strong opinions on varied subjects, Michele’s gutsy and possibly prophetic proclamation that Barack Obama is a “one-term” president wasn’t nearly as courageous as a pro-life statement she made with unabashed personal conviction and commitment to truth.

What could be worse for pro-choice America than a woman with a brood of children, smiling and firmly proclaiming without obfuscation, wavering, or uncertainty the following belief: “I am 100 percent pro-life. I’ve given birth to five babies, and I’ve taken 23 foster children into my home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I believe in the sanctity of human life.”

Michele Bachmann bore five biological children and didn’t stop there – she and husband Marcus welcomed into their home the at-risk offspring of other mothers who also chose to grant their babies the gift of life.  Not only that, but the Minnesota congresswoman also shared her commitment to the “dignity of life from conception until natural death,” which is a view that – especially on the cusp of Obamacare, the costs of which are sure to run over budget – is not only ill-timed, but most assuredly unappreciated.

Moreover, Bachmann openly proclaimed as “sacred” and “holy” something which, after almost 40 years of unrelenting indoctrination, many Americans have now come to accept as a clump of cells – another statement sure to be considered unconscionable in pro-choice circles.

Michele placed a target squarely on her own back when she dared to tie the right to life to the Declaration of Independence, demoted government from bestowing “inalienable” rights, mentioned the Creator, and emphatically declared “only God can give [life] and only God” should take it away.

In conclusion, Mrs. Bachmann even managed to inject sanity into the conversation when she noted that 2% of rape/incest abortions “get all the attention” while 98% of convenience-based abortion is “where the real battle” lies in the fight against the unfettered slaughter of the unborn.

As it turned out, the Republican debate provided a public forum for a conservative woman to school enlightened society on what many believe to be the reproductive attitudes of a troglodyte. If Mrs. Bachmann continues to voice such extreme opinions, she will fast become as distasteful to liberals as Sarah Palin, the pro-life mother of a Downs Syndrome son, whose presence and principles – especially when toting around what the world deems less-than-perfect offspring – have made her an object of unrelenting mockery.

For years, Palin has struggled against cruel rumors that Trig, her special needs baby, isn’t her and husband Todd’s son, but rather daughter Bristol’s.

Taking a page from the Demean the Maternal Claims of Pro-Life Women playbook, Michele Bachmann’s motherliness is also now being called into question by those who wish to undermine her foster parenting claim, saying “She makes it sound like she got them at birth and raised them to adulthood, but that’s not true.”

Following the debate at the Republican Leadership Conference, a CBS News reporter broached the foster parent subject with Michele in what appeared to be an effort to coax the Minnesota congresswoman, who claims she “raised” 23 foster children, into admitting she hosted most of the kids for a limited amount of time.

Those who accept “the right to privacy” as the right to destroy innocent life suddenly have become sticklers on the proper definition of the word “raised.”

Although Michele Bachmann has never once implied that she cared for 23 children simultaneously, with grace and poise the congresswoman responded to the inquiry in the following way:

Well in the situation we were in we took children as teenagers. Their family was facing a challenge and they weren’t gonna be able to be at home with their parents and we took them in as teenagers and our job was to see that they graduated from high school and were successfully launched into the world.

Challenged further for precise time frames, Michele, who said she considered having each and every child in her home a “privilege,” calmly expanded her clarification: “It really varied depending on the children and we’ve never got into specifics about the children because we always wanted to observe their privacy and that of their families, as I’m sure you can appreciate.”

It seems that when pro-life women promote motherhood, those who defend abortion as a “privacy” issue feel more than justified in prying into their personal lives if doing so provides a solid platform upon which to falsely portray a female conservative Christian politician as a fraud.

It’s almost certain that Michele Bachmann’s parenting experience wouldn’t be a topic of discussion if instead of “raising” unwanted children, she shared the opinion that women “facing challenges” would be better off exercising their right to choose in an abortion clinic.

And so, the debate over whether Michele Bachmann raised or did not raise foster children proves once again that liberalism exposes its dark underbelly not so much by what it applauds as by what and whom it attempts to tear down.

Pelosi Proves Palin’s Point

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

When the health care debate was raging, one of arguments from the opposition was that an eventual shortage of government monies would result in lost lives.  Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was mocked and disparaged as a fool for warning Americans that Obamacare would usher in “death panels” where, due to budgetary restrictions, the aged and chronically ill would be denied care.

Even President Barack Obama joined smarmy liberal comedians like Bill Maher to publicly scoff at the idea of “death panels.” The left condemned what they called outlandish scare tactics employed by conservatives attempting to stop a policy that would provide coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans, but in effect would put the government in control of life and death issues.

Fast-forward to 2011 and the very people who condemned Sarah Palin and the Republicans for being over-the-top on the anxiety chart became the harbingers of imminent death panels, only this time the fatalities would be driven by budget cuts.

Take for example Nancy Pelosi saying that the budget bill would starve six million seniors to death and that impoverished children would be jettisoned out of the Head Start program. Worse than that, Nancy said that Republicans, led by Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), were declaring an all-out “war on women.”

When speaking to CNN, Washington’s newest Death Panel Diva left no stone unturned, especially when it came to describing the detrimental effect of Republican policies on the fairer sex:

If you are talking about jobs, their pay in the work place, health care, making — no longer is being a woman a pre-existing medical condition. They want to change all of that. So in every aspect – whether it is employment, whether it is education, whether it is health care, whether it is retirement, whether it is collective bargaining which affects women as well women have a lot to lose with the ideological old style agenda of the Republicans.

According to Nancy, even modest spending cuts would result in a nation of unemployed, underpaid, uneducated, penniless, sick females unable to retire.  Pelosi predicted American women would be destined to roam the streets like zombies, riddled with cancer and missing womanly parts of their anatomy, all victims of “the ideological old style agenda of the Republicans.”

This is the woman who “called out former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) for having made the ‘lie of the year’ for claiming the healthcare bill would set up ‘death panels.’”

According to the former Speaker of the House, cutting $38 billion, give or take a billion – which is about what it takes to run the US government for four days at $10.46 billion per day – American women would fast become the bane of planet Earth. Yet, ask a Democrat whether it will cost lives if a nation with a $14.3 trillion deficit ever had trouble coming up with $1.2 trillion for health care reform, and the answer is always a resounding “No!”

Nevertheless, when it comes to Democrat budgetary doom and gloom, Pelosi is not alone.  In response to Republicans demanding funding be cut to abortion provider Planned Parenthood, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took a huge leap from those on the right not wanting to pay for dilation and curettage to accusing Republicans of wanting women to die of cancer.

On the Senate floor Reid said: “Republicans want to shut down the government because they think there’s nothing more important than keeping women from getting cancer screenings. This is indefensible and everyone should be outraged.”

Isn’t this is the same group who mocked Palin for suggesting that government run health care would end in death panels?

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi attempted to win a budget battle by implying that Planned Parenthood being denied $349.6 million dollars a year in funding could ultimately impact the well-being of 91.4 million adult women, which is quite a stretch. Such an absurd claim greatly differs from Sarah Palin coming to the logical conclusion that a shortage of health care money could equal denial of care. Reid, on the other hand, is alleging secret motives of an entire political party amounting to purposeful murder.

Lest we forget, this whole the death panel discussion was resurrected because the government’s inefficiency has placed America in an economic quandary. And this is the same government that swears there will always be ample funds to ensure that even an 85 year-old grandparent will never be denied care and sent home to die.

During the Obamacare debate, Sarah Palin was merely pointing out that a virtually bankrupt government could never cover the high cost of caring for an aging population. It took Harry and Nancy carping about denial of funds to Planned Parenthood to confirm that Sarah was right.

In an attempt to smear Republicans, Harry and Nancy probably didn’t realize it, but they proved Sarah Palin’s original point that health care reform policy poses a threat.  If the left’s argument is correct that modest budget cuts have the potential to starve old people to death and threaten lives, what will happen when the entire nation is at the mercy of a government that finds it impossible to maintain the solvency needed to keep 300 million people alive?

Biden the Bedazzler

In liberal circles, it’s believed that conservatives are intellectually challenged and the left are just, well they’re just smarter, better informed and more perceptive about everything.  Ask a liberal and they’ll tell you that high levels of gray matter, or lack thereof, is what determines political persuasion.  Progressives are of the opinion that the mentally unsophisticated lean right and those blessed with an abundance of gray matter are naturally predisposed toward the left.

Even the uneducated, inarticulate and uninformed believe identifying with liberalism secures an automatic position at the top of the IQ charts, a pair of horn-rimmed glasses, and a complimentary subscription to the New York Times.

Think about it – the liberal press is full of geniuses.  To name a few: Progressive radio talk show host Stephanie Miller, CBS News star and journalist extraordinaire Katie Couric, disgruntled Catholic altar boy Bill Maher, can’t-get- the-facts-straight Rachel Maddow, former MSNBC anchormaniac Keith Olbermann and ex-Joffrey Ballet Company dancer Ron Reagan.

The left side of  “The View” couch touts superior intellect, as does much of the leftist Hollywood elite crowd, which includes learned minds like Cher, Michael Moore, Rosie O’Donnell, Sean Penn, Oliver Stone and of course Intertel wannabes like the warm and cuddly Janeane Garofalo.

This group which, by the way, is quite extensive, have forged lucrative careers pointing out the poverty of brainpower evidenced in individuals such as Sarah Palin and George W. Bush as well as the entire American electorate.

This is also true in politics. Based on an impressive ability to deceive the masses with charm and rhetoric, Rhodes Scholar Bill Clinton is extolled as America’s bony-fingered genius.  Bill’s brighter half, Hillary, the supposed “smartest woman in the world,” was able to detect an obscure “vast right wing conspiracy” on mental power alone.

Then of course you have Barack Obama.  Barack is so intellectually gifted that Columbia University couldn’t find a grade high enough to award the man. Instead, throughout his college career institutions of higher learning chose to forgo subjecting him to their inferior grading systems, which must explain the missing transcripts.

When discussing liberal intellect, Vice President “Three letter word…J-O-B-S” Joseph Robinette Biden should not be excluded from the conversation.

Unfortunately for liberals, when Joe speaks, besides geniality, brutal honesty, average aptitude and inability to consistently articulate coherent thoughts, what is exposed is a liberal tendency to accept in some people what is fodder for the mockery of others.

When it comes to Joe, it’s a “big f______ deal” to hand the man a microphone or, for that matter, to allow a microphone within 500 feet of his lips if they’re moving. Biden has proven to be the world’s most candid politician, which explains why liberals keep Biden around; in comparison to their blathering, Joe helps twisted truth appear intelligent.

Void of measured consideration, Joe is famous for exposing the innermost recesses of his own thought processes. Take for example the Vice President sharing insights on Obama’s $900 billion stimulus with members of the House Democratic Caucus.  It was there that Biden blurted out, “If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, there’s still a 30% chance we’re going to get it wrong.”  Oops!

Even with practice, Biden’s ability to think before speaking appears to be getting worse, not better.  Prior to the historic 2008 election, Joe was so worked up on the campaign trail that he referred to Obama as “Barack America.”   The Vice President even exhorted paralyzed US Senator Chuck Graham to “stand and let … people see you.”

With Biden, authentic gusto oftentimes overrides prudence, like when a pumped up Biden disregarded confidentiality and, without further explanation, blurted out that he, Michelle, and Barack had all been tested for HIV/AIDS. Maybe if liberals want to maintain credibility it would be best if people like Stephanie Miller refrained from calling Sarah Palin an “idiot.”

The left laughed it off when Biden beseeched St. Patty’s Day blessings on the deceased mother of a world leader who was still very much alive. They chuckled when at one event Joe gave a shout-out to state senators who weren’t even in attendance, and when he confused automotive company Ener1 with disgraced energy corporation Enron.

More recently, while representing the United States in a diplomatic capacity (have mercy dear Lord), during a visit to Moscow Biden pulled a Bush in Australia.  Mr. Biden “mangled the name of Russia’s most famous prisoner Mikhail Khodorkovsky.”  The result: a stammering Biden once again pardoned for what brought Bush relentless humiliation.

Advocating for human rights on behalf of business entrepreneur/democracy-loving political prisoner Khodorkovsky, Joe “barked” out: “Over the past few months our administration has spoken out against allegations of misconduct in the trial of… of, uh… the, um… excuse me… Khodor… Kovinsky.”

After receiving “more giggles than rounds of applause,” Joe was clever enough to muster “a self-deprecating joke,” which “instantly endeared” him to the audience.  Once again, with nary a peep from the left, Biden was given a liberal pass for an understandable slip-up that, if he were a conservative, would have been mocked with gusto.

Wasn’t G.W. Bush’s lack of intelligence alleged because of his tendency toward improper pronunciation? Yet, based on party affiliation, Joe is not and never will be held to the same stringent garbling standards as George.  The left have set the pronunciation/intelligence bar so high that every time the Vice President opens his mouth to speak the unintended consequence is that both his handicap and liberal hypocrisy are simultaneously exposed.

The Vice President is viewed by double standard-bearing liberals as nothing more than an adorable gaffe machine.  The brainy New York Times even called Joe Biden “experienced, serious and smart,” proving once again that when measured against the standards set forth by liberal self-appointed whiz kids, Joe Biden is a genius.

Pick-pocketing the Dead

In Tucson, Arizona, Democrat Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was gravely injured in a horrific shooting that seriously injured 12 and killed six, including a nine year-old child. “Shocked and saddened lawmakers” are now grappling with the idea that “new laws and regulations are needed to curb incendiary speech.”

Although despondent and disgusted over the bloodbath, Americans should not be fooled. Compassionate concern from the left has little to do with protection for politicians and everything to do with reining in freedom of speech.  If inflammatory words – not politics – were the real issue, “Allahu Akbar” would be relegated along with “targeted…crosshairs…kill the bill…the ‘N’ word and Hawaiian Punch” to the no-no column of the vocabulary list. The last time I checked, the terrorist battle cry “Allahu Akbar” was not on that list.

It’s safe to say that it’s not beneath liberal logic to tie together fire/arson/shouting/panic and Rush Limbaugh if the result accomplishes the curtailing of First Amendment rights. Democrats would love to apply to unrelated circumstances the 1919 US Supreme Court case of Schenck v. United States where Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” Using legislative duct tape, the left can seal the mouths of anyone who disagrees with liberalism and promote it as prevention of political violence ignited by the use of combustible words.

In 2007, a tow truck driver was convicted of stealing from a victim “in a double-fatal car crash.”  As the crumpled casualties lay in the road, Ronald Forget of Pawtucket, Massachusetts “took the wallet of one of the victims and used credit cards from the wallet to pay his cell phone bill and to buy gasoline.”

The truck driver’s actions, cold as they seem, are eerily similar to the response of liberal politicians and left-wing media types to the carnage brought about by the psychotic madman in Tucson, Arizona.   The left smells blood from miles away and will pull up alongside any convenient casualty.  In this case, liberals all but politically picked the pockets of the deceased in hopes of furthering a freedom-stifling agenda.

Granted, caution should be used when accusing anyone of heartlessly exploiting tragedy.  However, following the horrendous shooting, and based on the left’s ghoulish behavior, the only conclusion that seems reasonable is that the crisis provided a prime opening for liberal government bureaucrats to look for another excuse to further restrict the Constitutional rights and freedoms of US citizens, and to do it on the backs of those who suffered and died.

Based on public disapproval of healthcare reform and reeling from stinging defeat, Democrats came across a pileup in Arizona that has provided a liberal Thought Police scenario with the potential to justify a “warning against a return to [what they call] the divisive rhetoric of last year’s healthcare debate.”

Misfortune provided post-election Democrats the perfect storm.  The situation culminated in an impeccably timed critical mass, where politics, guns, conservatism, the healthcare reform debate, and the Tea Party could be directly tied to a massacre.  Rather than focus on truth, the left chose to manipulate terror to quash telltale condemnation of an out-of-control left-wing ideologue President, an ousted Congress, and a Democrat-controlled Senate hell-bent on placing a yoke of socialism on the back of a resistant nation.

After the fact, in a pseudo-display of false solidarity, the shooting is now being described as a “rare moment of unity on Capitol Hill.”  That is pure political spin. What transpired was the Democrat ambuscade hit pay dirt.  The left patiently laid in wait for an excuse to blame unrelated violence on “inflammatory rhetoric,” Fox News, conservative talk radio, and popular politicians, and in the process are using a self-righteous demeanor to chide anyone who dares disparage liberal/Democrat policies or politicians.

Rhetoric-reaction to the shooting has been so bizarre that Maine Congresswoman Chellie Pingree proposed expunging the word “killing” from the name of the “Repeal the Job-Killing Healthcare Law Act.”

Phantom Democrats are parsing words and pointing fingers at the innocent, making ridiculous statements such as Pingree saying “I’m not suggesting that the name of that one piece of legislation somehow led to the horror of this weekend — but is it really necessary to put the word ‘killing’ in the title of a major piece of legislation?”

Hey Chellie, do we really need the word “punch” in punch line? How about bullet proof, gun shy, slaphappy, choke hold, and shoot off your mouth?  The words kilt and kiln sound too much like “kill,” which poses a potential problem in a heated political environment. How about cutting the rug, loaded for bear or pipe down?

So far, despite the highly charged atmosphere surrounding the shootings, the left has yet to acknowledge the multitudinous examples of provocative language used by Democrats. For example, for twenty years, Barack Obama was mentored by a racist, anti-Semite, anti-American deranged preacher whose revolting rhetoric far exceeded use of the word “target,” or the metaphoric placement of benign symbols on a map.

There is still not one scintilla of evidence that the Arizona shooter was motivated by political rhetoric.  Nevertheless, even before the police and ambulance arrive the left continues to cruise the Arizona crash site by censuring crosshairs, touting the merits of the Fairness Doctrine, and blaming Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle for influencing a person who was unbalanced long before either woman showed up on the national scene.

So as Gabrielle Giffords heals and six innocent murder victims, including nine year-old Christina-Taylor Green, are laid to rest, it appears the left will continue to pick-pocket the dead by taking advantage of heartbreak, feigning righteous indignation over nothing more than hyperbole, and looking for obscure excuses to muzzle political opposition in the name of moderating incendiary rhetoric.

%d bloggers like this: