Palin Email Witch Hunt Proves Fruitless
Jun 13, 2011 Opinion
The Washington Post and The New York Times received about 300 pounds of paperwork that contained some of the emails from the time Sarah Palin was the governor of Alaska. The newspapers enlisted volunteers to sift through the mails in hope of revealing dirt that might be contained in those emails. Make no mistake about it, the desire was to find something to smear Palin with and this is because the liberal media must smear her to protect its puppet master in the White House.
The effort was a bust. The emails revealed thus far indicate that Palin encouraged her staff to be open with the media, she took her work seriously and that she was principled. The media made itself look like a bunch of fools in this effort.
Here is an idea, and it is just an idea. How about the government release the electronic communications of Anthony Weiner to several newspapers and those newspapers enlist an army of volunteers to sift through looking for anything to smear him with? I bet they will find a lot more stuff by going through his emails than they did going through Palin’s.
While they are at it, why not release the electronic communications from Barack Obama. It would be interesting to see what kind of dirt an army of volunteers sifting through them could find.
Of the three, Palin is the only one who is not in office and is not paid by taxpayers and yet she is the one that the left is gunning for.
I imagine Obama’s electronic communications would bear more fruit than Palin’s did.
And Weiner’s would most assuredly render more dirt than Palin’s ever would.
No, let’s ignore Weiner and go after Palin. To the Lame Stream Media, she is more worthy of such attention.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: email, lies, NYT, Obama, palin, smears, washington post, weiner
Frank Rich of the NYT Should Look Left for Racists
May 4, 2008 Political
Frank Rich of the New York Times has a piece out today asking why Obama’s pastor has received so much scrutiny when McCain’s has not. Rich is referring to John Hagee, an absolute nut job, who has endorsed John McCain. According to Rich, Obama’s pastor, with whom he had a 20 year relationship, is no different than a man who endorsed McCain and with whom McCain had no other relationship. Hagee is not and was not McCain’s pastor.
Rich addresses this difference by stating there is no difference between Obama sitting there in Wright’s church and John McCain actively (Rich’s assertion) seeking Hagee’s endorsement because by doing so he is agreeing with the lunacy that comes out of Hagee’s mouth (just as Obama did by being in Wright’s church).
The entire story boils down to Rich’s claim that America is a racist country and that there is double standard because Clinton and Obama are scrutinized for every perceived racist remark while the racism of the Republicans is ignored. Rich “proves’ his point by indicating that there are no blacks among all the Senators and Representatives in the Congress who happen to be Republicans. Rich tells us that gays (Foley) have a better chance of getting elected in the GOP than blacks.
I have gone through this before but I will do it again for the benefit of Frank Rich whose Obama tinted glasses have obscured his thinking. First of all, the Democrats are not being scrutinized any more on subjects of race. The Democrats have never been taken to task for their racism until this election cycle that just happens to have a black man in it. Republicans are always the subject of allegations of racism. Anytime a Republican makes a remark cries of racism abound. This is standard operating procedure. The claims do not have to be true, just some half baked idea fostered by race baiters who blow it out of proportion while, I might add, the public ignores the racist remarks of those doing the crying.
Democrats have never been taken to task for their racism. They have always been held up as the champions of race relations yet under them blacks have slipped father and farther into poverty. Welfare programs keep blacks subservient to government and under the oppressive thumb of their slave masters in the Democratic party. Democrats are always quite happy to court the black vote, which votes for them at a level of 90% in elections, and then ignore them until the next election. Affirmative action and housing projects are the Democrat’s way of telling blacks they are not capable of making it on their own but not to worry because government is there for them.
This leads me to the idea that the GOP has no elected blacks in Congress. This is a matter of demographics and math. The math is, 90% of blacks support Democratic candidates so we can conclude that 90% of them are Democrat or believe in what Democrats represent. If 90% of the black population is Democratic where does Mr. Rich think the GOP will find black people to run for office? Only 10% remain and out of them how many are qualified (Constitutionally) or want to run.
Demographics show that most black Democrats come from urban areas. They come from cities where there are huge numbers of blacks and where the political climate is overwhelmingly Democratic. Blacks who happen to be conservative would never run in these areas because they cannot win. For Rich to claim this is GOP racism is absolutely out of touch with reality. Even blacks who live in conservative areas would not want to run for office and not because of white conservatives. Look at how the Democrats and particularly black Democrats act when a black person runs for office as a Republican. The name calling begins and the names of sell out and Uncle Tom do not come from the right. These names come from blacks in the community who wonder how a black would dare be a Republican.
Look at the Maryland Senate race from 2006 when Michael Steele, a black conservative, ran for the Senate seat being vacated by the retiring Paul Sarbanes and he ran against Joe Cardin, a white Democratic Congressman. Michael Steele was portrayed unfavorably by Democrats. He was shown in a black face photo-shopped picture and referred to as Sambo. He had Oreo cookies thrown at him and one of Cardin’s bloggers wrote terrible things about him and his race was a big part of it. These were all Democrats doing this to a black man. BTW, Steele was the Lieutenant Governor of the state and was the highest-ranking elected Republican black in the country. Republicans will elect them when they can overcome Democratic barriers.
Steele lost the race but he did not lose because whites refused to vote for him or because they did not want him in office, as Rich would have you believe. The heavily Democratic areas of Maryland (and areas with huge black populations) voted for Cardin. As those areas go so goes the state. Steele carried almost every county where the population is strongly Republican and overwhelmingly white (he won 18 subdivisions to Cardin’s 6). This should put to bed Rich’s claims and show that it is Democratic racism that prevents black Republicans from being elected.
The entire Rich story is right out of the leftist play book. The interesting thing is that he makes this an issue of McCain/Obama when the issues right now are all Obama/Clinton. Despite Rich’s attempts to make this about conservatives smearing Obama with his pastor’s words while ignoring McCain, the fact is it is the Democrats who are smearing the man (why should Republicans chime in when they are doing a good job of beating each other up). Republicans are not part of their primary process. All the negative stuff is coming from the left. Instead of asking about McCain’s “pastor” Rich would be more accurate if he asked when they were going to start looking at Clinton’s pastor.
I am sure the Democrats will get to McCain and the people with whom he associates when they finally settle their own contest. Until that time people like Frank Rich should stop muddying the waters with half truths and outright lies sprinkled with innuendo.
Yes Mr. Rich, there is a race problem in this country and it is from the Democrats and from people like you (but I repeat myself). People on the right are called racists and they have been labeled racists but in reality it is those on the left who display racism all the time.
Blacks would do themselves a world of good by changing parties (which would put a lot of black Republicans in Congress). Short of that they need to follow the words of Bill Cosby and stop blaming the white man for all their ills. It would help if white men like Frank Rich would do the same.
Others with interesting posts:
Pooh Flinging NeoCons, Rosemary’s Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, , Democrat=Socialist, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, Nuke Gingrich, Faultline USA, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, , Stageleft, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Clinton, frank rich, hagee, McCain, michael steele, NYT, Obama, racism, wright
Liberal Wants to Abolish All Taxes
Apr 15, 2008 General
New York Times Op-Ed contributor Richard Conniff wrote a piece where he calls for us to abolish all taxes. his method for accomplishing this is to change the word taxes to dues. Conniff writes that this would take a page from the conservative play book where words are changed to reframe the debate. He cites changing the “estate tax” to “death tax” as an example. His rant gives the impression that conservatives are the ones who do this and it is our trick. Liberals would never do such a thing such as change their name to progressives to give the impression that they are on the move and because liberal has been defined as a dirty word.
Conniff said if we call them dues rather than taxes it will give people a sense of belonging.
But the word “dues” also plays into the psychology of group identity, and that can work to the benefit of conservatives and liberals alike. Consider that “tax” comes from the Latin for “appraise” with punitive overtones of “censure” or “fault,” as if wage-earners have done something wrong by their labors. “Dues,” in contrast, is rooted in social obligation and duty. NYT
Let us examine this because he might be on to something but if we change he has to be willing to live by the rules established with everything that is associated with the word dues. First of all, a tax is an appraisal. They appraise our work based upon how much we earn and then they take part of it and how much they take is based upon how much the appraised value is.
Dues are something one pays to belong to an organization. As Conniff puts it; dues are rooted in obligation and duty and I believe that would be an obligation and duty to the organization. In every organization I have belonged to the dues were the same for everyone and they were not based upon the value of my work. I also must note that people only pay dues to organizations they want to join. If they do not want to belong, they do not pay dues. Given this, people will be allowed to choose if they want to belong to the organization and if not they will not be required to pay any dues. Also, dues will be the same for everyone who decides to join. A person making a million dollars will pay the same dues as a person who makes ten thousand. We cannot make people pay different rates based upon salary because that would be an appraisal of their work which is a tax and taxes will have been abolished.
If, for some reason, Conniff advocates for mandatory membership then we need to decide what to do with the people who do not pay any dues. Right now, under the tax system, people who earn too little pay no taxes and yet they receive the greatest number of benefits from those now paying taxes. In an organization where dues are required non dues payers receive no benefits. In fact, people are not allowed to belong if they do not pay their dues. This might not be an issue because our dues will be fixed and not based on income (so everyone will have to pay) but if the powers that be decide that those less fortunate do not have to pay dues then they do not belong and they will not receive benefits of dues paying members. No welfare, no Medicaid, and no voting. If you want the same rights as members you have to pay your dues.
Mr. Conniff has opened a can of worms in his effort to smear conservatives and be cute at the same time. I think he is on to something and that we should switch to dues and follow the customary rules associated with dues. They must be the same for everyone, people may join if they wish, and those who do not join do not get any benefits of membership.
What say you Mr. Conniff, care to reframe this debate further or would you like to continue to be shown as a fool?
Tags: dues, liberal foolishness, NYT, patriotism, taxes
Will NYT Hit Piece Help McCain?
Feb 24, 2008 Political
The New York Times put out a hit piece on John McCain that its own ombudsman criticized because it made accusations about a sexual relationship without providing any evidence. As the ombudsman pointed out, there is a pretty good story if all the sex references are removed. This is true and the story deserves attention with regard to the meat of the issue. That is, did John McCain engage in activities that favored a lobbyist? If the NYT had stuck to that part of the story there might have been more focus on it and less on the concept of a hit piece.
In essence, the paper might have helped John McCain. It is no secret that many conservatives are unhappy with McCain and it is also no secret that he was not helped by an NYT endorsement though the realists among us knew that as soon as he was the nominee (or close enough to leave no doubt) that the NYT would turn on him. And turn they did. The Times did exactly what many believed it would and instead of casting more doubt on McCain, the hit piece rallied people around McCain for what was seen as an unfair attack with innuendo and speculation.
The Times is an enemy of conservatives and they showed that they are definitely biased when they went after McCain. Given that there are plenty of speculative stories about Clinton and Obama, one would have to ask why the paper has not gone after them as well. Despite the Clinton’s claims that the media is unfair to them, they have gotten a free ride for decades. Obama is a charismatic young man who has brought the Democrats together and given them “hope” though no one, not even Obama, can describe exactly what his message is other than hope and change. Hope is not proper mission planning and it will not get him very far should he actually win the presidency.
McCain has his faults but one thing he has that the others do not is experience. He has more experience in Congress, he has more experience as a legislator and he has more experience with regard to the military which means he has more experience to be the Commander in Chief. I am not overly happy with all of his positions but I agree with more of his than the other two. They will be a disaster for this country while McCain is more likely to do an adequate job. One thing is certain, he will be better for our national security than either of the Democrats.
The paper’s hit piece might be a gift to McCain in that it will rally people around him who otherwise might have sat out the general election. I am sure that was not their intention when they published the piece but it is certainly having the effect of helping rather than hindering him.
Time will tell if he benefited from the piece and it is still a long way until November. Any of the candidates can slip up between now and then. Obama seems to be the cleanest of the crew because he does not have as long a paper trail but if he wins the nomination people will be digging in the weeds to find the dirt he has left behind.
It would be poetic justice if McCain beat him and the determining factor was the Times hit piece. If McCain wins the presidency one gets the impression that on a Wednesday in November a lot of people at the Times will be jumping from the upper floors of the building.
On the way down they will be screaming; “we have seen the enemy and it is us.”
Others with interesting posts:
The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, A Blog For All, WayWard Fundamentalist Christian, 123beta, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Cao’s Blog, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, Chuck’s Place, Nuke Gingrich, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, Wolf Pangloss, , Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
The Old White Party, Now That’s Rich
Feb 17, 2008 Political
Frank Rich, one of the idiots at the New York Times, has an opinion piece entitled The Grand Old White Party, where he discusses the GOP and John McCain. He depicts the GOP as a bunch of angry white men who exploit blacks in the south and southern racism in order to hold onto to power. With Rich, everything that happened in history is racially motivated. Rich seems to think that Barack Obama brings a fresh face to politics and that fresh face shows the GOP to be even more tied to its “racist” past than before.
Never mind that it was the Republican Party that ended slavery because even the blacks seem to have forgotten that as they have continually registered as Democrats for decades. Rich is heaping all this GOP, angry white racists, on his readers while ignoring that in this primary season it has been the whites in the Democratic Party who have been injecting race. Joe Biden and his comments, Bill Clinton and his and any number of others who question if Obama can win because he is black. Instead of focusing on the racism in the Democratic Party and the angry white men there (like Robert “sheets” Byrd, former KKK member), Rich wants to show the GOP as not being inclusive because it has no black members in the House or Senate. Rich is too stupid to understand that blacks make up about 13% of the population and 90% of that group generally (with few exceptions) votes Democrat (especially in presidential races). Therefore, there are not very many blacks available to run for office on the GOP side. What I would ask is, given the huge number of blacks who are Democrats how come their numbers are not larger among the Democrats in the House and the Senate?
I understand that Rich is a liberal and that he has drunk the liberal kool-aid. I can understand he is one who probably gets weak kneed when Obama speaks and is probably all ga ga at the prospect of voting for a woman or a black man. But what he is doing in this piece is shilling for Obama. First he shows the GOP as racists who do not include blacks and then he shows McCain as an angry white guy who has better opinions than most in the GOP because he has said things that Rich believes to be correct such as the Confederate Flag is a symbol of racism. That is patently stupid and it is obviously wrong. The Confederate Flag is NOT a symbol of racism, it is a symbol a bunch of apologists have assigned to racism. The civil war was not about racism and it was not about slavery (though without slavery there might not have been a war). But I digress, we can discuss the North’s war of aggression on the South some other time.
The entire opinion piece seems, to me at least, to be designed to build up Obama’s bonafides while casting the GOP as a group of racists so that when the general election comes anything used against Obama will be seen as a racist attack. It is designed to paint the GOP as out of touch with a country that has evolved to be so much more inclusive now that a woman and a black are fighting it out. In Rich’s world, the GOP is out of touch because it does not embrace the failed polices of liberalism (which has been called a mental disorder). The people who belong to the GOP have no problem with a black or a woman being president, just not this black (OK, half black) and that woman. We would be against these two if they were white men because we do not like the message. The vessel the message comes in is not important to the equation.
Of course, Rich thought John Edwards look presidential. It stands to reason that in Rich’s new diverse world a feminine looking and acting man would be presidential. Since Rich is big into stereotypes (but only when attacking the GOP) let me stereotype. Edwards looks like a faggot and is not presidential. Hillary looks more manly than Edwards (and many other men as well, the lesbians love that).
Before Frank Rich starts attacking the GOP for what he believes is our out of step and racist policies perhaps he should look at his own party and get them straight first. Besides the racial overtones from both camps (the Clintons and their racist remarks and the Obama supporters with the notion that not voting for Obama makes one a racist) there are plenty of party elders who are angry old white guys. Over half of the Super Delegates are old white establishment guys and they could very well decide the nomination in favor of Hillary Clinton even if Obama is leading at the time. Interestingly, the angry white guy who will lose for the GOP big time in 2008 (our demise according to Rich) is also the demographic that could be the undoing of the Democratic Party. If the party elders screw Obama, blacks might finally see what they actually mean to their party and flock to the GOP or stay home.
In either case, the Democrats would lose across the board in November. Nothing would be sweeter than to have the Democratic Party break apart in this fashion. They have used covert racism for decades to keep blacks under their thumbs. Yes, programs like affirmative action which the GOP hates, is nothing more than the left telling blacks they are not good enough to compete on their own so they need help. Just like welfare, public housing, minority business preferences, and a myriad of programs designed to help out blacks because they, according to their handlers in the Democratic Party, are not able to do anything without help. Covert racism plain and simple. It will be good to finally see the Democrats come out of the closet (to use a phrase espoused by another heavily Democratic demographic) at their national convention and show their racism right out in the open.
I wonder what Frank Rich will have to say then? Won’t matter because if his circulation keeps dropping the only people who will know what he thinks are the latte drinkers who hang out with him at Starbucks…
Others with interesting posts:
Faultline USA, , Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Blue Star Chronicles, Webloggin, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Adeline and Hazel, Stageleft, A NEWT ONE-Special Thursday guest!, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Clinton, frank rich, McCain, NYT, Obama, racism, stupidity