While the left screams about TEA Party members wanting blacks lynched (a baseless claim) the left is engaging in a high tech lynching of a black conservative. The story that Herman Cain was accused of sexual harassment and that an investigation turned up nothing has not stopped the left wing media (the Democrat wing) from lynching him. The baseless claims line up with the smear job The New York Times did in manufacturing (in 2008) the equally baseless claim that John McCain had an affair.

The left is very fast to jump on the lynch train when it comes to Herman Cain even though the allegations appear baseless. When it comes to their own they ignore the facts to provide protection.

Bill Clinton accused of rape and caught (and verified via DNA) having sex with an intern. He lied about it and the Democrats defended him during the impeachment he suffered for perjury. The left said it was a personal affair, a matter of sex between consenting adults. Nothing to see here so move along.

John Edwards is another example. He denied, denied, denied and then bam, the facts came out and not only did he have an affair while his poor wife was dying of cancer, he fathered a child. He was eventually shunned by his party but not until the evidence was so overwhelming (and sleazy) that there was no way to deny it.

Jesse Jackson, the paragon of virtue, fathered a child with someone that was not his wife. He is still regarded as a spokesperson for the disadvantaged minorities in this country (or those who have been told so often they are disadvantaged that they act like it).

We are all human beings and we all make mistakes. These men suffered their issues in public because of who they are. The untold numbers of people in the same situations are unknown to all except their family and friends because they do not live in the public’s eye.

The problem arises when allegations such as those against McCain and Herman Cain are manufactured and people do not give them the benefit of the doubt because of politics. Clinton and Edwards deny it so it must be false. Cain denies it and he is lying…

Wouldn’t it be better if the NYT did not make up the McCain story?

Wouldn’t it be better if Cain received the same consideration Clinton and Edwards did when the left kept telling us nothing was going on? It has not been shown that Cain did anything wrong. If it turns out that he did then fine, skewer him and send him on his way.

The idea that he needs to be ruined over baseless accusations is one of the things wrong in our political system.

It would have been nice though, if the MSM had spent as much time vetting Obama as it does looking to destroy Republicans.

Certainly there were a few things in Obama’s past that were liabilities. Of course they are not a problem when the MSM is burying legitimate stories.

Then again, the left only lynches blacks who have strayed away from the Democrat plantation.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

The National Organization of Whores (NOW) is an interesting organization. Originally the National Organization of Women, it was supposed to be a group that fought for the rights of women. Unfortunately, the group only fights for liberal women. Let a liberal woman have some problem or get smeared and NOW is all over it. When the same happens to a conservative, well not so much.

I know the liberals will have an issue with my choice of words for NOW but I am using their criteria. When someone in Jerry Brown’s campaign called Meg Whitman a whore NOW ended up agreeing with the statement. NOW said that Whitman sold out to some group for its endorsement so that makes her a political whore.

Well, NOW only defends liberal women. It does the bidding of liberals, defends liberal men and ignores any affront to women when liberals are involved. In other words, the group has sold out to the liberals. By their reasoning with regard to Whitman, they are political whores.

Hope that clears it up for the limp wristed liberal men who will complain about the characterization. I only used NOW’s reasoning with regard to the issue. I used their own words against them.

The website Gawker has posted a story (a completely fabricated story) about Christine O’Donnell in which an anonymous person claims to have had a one night stand with the Senate candidate. The so called one night stand did not involve sex. It actually sounds like something one would read in the Penthouse Forum (to answer the obvious question; because I have read it).

In any event, when NOW was asked for its response a spokesperson said that NOW would pass on it. This was stated twice.

Some time later NOW issued a statement condemning Gawker for publishing a story that it claims is public sexual harassment. The response is not flattering, takes a shot at O’Donnell (using the term “slut-shaming”) and it makes quite clear that NOW endorsed O’Donnell’s opponent and that NOW is looking forward to her defeat.

I hardly call this supporting her. Of course, she is a conservative so this is the best she will get and the fact that anything was actually communicated is, in and of itself, quite astonishing.

The National Organization of Whores is a disgusting left wing liberal support group that will throw women overboard in order to defend liberal men.

Bill Clinton got a pass for sexually harassing Monica Lewinsky and NOW ignored the credible allegations of rape levied against him. Remember, Gennifer Flowers was called a lot of names for suggesting that she and Clinton had an affair. Years later it was discovered that she was telling the truth. Yet, Clinton was defended by NOW.

Listen up folks in Delaware. Please elect Christine O’Donnell to the Senate just to slap these people in their faces. This is a hit job on O’Donnell and it is fabricated.

I expect more of this before election day. Pay no attention to this unless there is concrete proof. Democrats will lie, cheat, and steal in order to win.

We must bounce them out on Tuesday.

Sources:
TSG

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Looks like Jesse Jackson Jr has a little woman trouble on his hands. The trouble would be that he has to many women which might not set to well with his wife. Seems ole Jr had a woman flown in to “meet” with him and the flights were paid for by an outside source. This means Jr might have taken a gift and not reported it.

Lost in all this are new allegations that Jr was involved in the pay for play scheme that involved the Senate seat once held by Barack Obama. Yep. looks like Jr is as corrupt as his daddy and just as smooth with the women.

Not to worry though. Jr knows he has disappointed some of his supporters but he plans to continue to work hard for them.

I think he will be working hard to keep his job which is his number one concern.

Then again, he did work hard for at least one supporter…

Source:
Chicago Sun Times

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

No one in his right mind thinks of sex and soon to be FORMER Senator Harry Reid but Reid introduced sex into the debate on Wall Street reform. The Democrats, who get more money from Wall Street than Republicans, want to impose restrictions on Wall Street to keep another meltdown from happening and to keep the taxpayer from paying for more bailouts. The bill will not do that but that will not stop the Democrats.

Yes, the people who put the rules that caused the meltdown in place are making more rules.

Of course the left likes to paint Republicans as being in the pockets of the Wall Street executives. Sure, there are some but Wall Street is deeper in the pockets of Democrats.

Harry Reid tried to paint the Republicans as being in bed with Wall Street:

Reid charged that Republicans are stalling action on a Wall Street reform bill because “they are having difficulty determining how they’re going to continue making love to Wall Street” by resisting banking regulation. The Hill

Well Harry, you can keep trying to paint Republicans as being in bed with Wall Street by claiming they are making love to that entity.

It might be true and it might not.

But it is absolutely true that your side will screw Wall Street.

And the American public along with it.

Never surrender, never submit.

In 1998 when Bill Clinton’s sex scandal was the big news, news that broke because Matt Drudge posted it after it was quashed in the MSM, Hilary had an opinion about the Internet. Hillary said she did not know what she was in favor of but it sounded like she favored some kind of regulation.

…I don’t know what — that’s why I said I don’t know what I’m in favor of. And I don’t know enough to know what to be in favor of, because I think it’s one of those new issues we’ve got to address. We’ve got to see whether our existing laws protect people’s right of privacy, protect them against defamation. And if they can, how do you do that when you can press a button and you can’t take it back. So I think we have to tread carefully. Drudge Report

Hillary said that without some kind of gatekeeping function it was difficult to defend a reputation. It probably did not occur to her that Bill’s reputation was hurt when he had the affair and then lied about it. If he had been telling the truth then it would have been Drudge’s reputation that needed to be defended.

Thirteen years later and with news of China continuing to censor the Internet, Ms. Clinton still has an opinion though it is different than it was back then.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday called for an unfettered worldwide Internet and urged global condemnation of those who conduct cyber attacks, as China sought to contain tension with the United States over the hacking and censorship of Google.

“A new information curtain is descending across much of the world,” she said, calling growing Internet curbs the modern equivalent of the Berlin Wall.

“We stand for a single Internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas,” said Clinton in a major address that cited China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt among countries that censored the Internet or harassed bloggers. Yahoo News

Well things have certainly changed with regard to her position on this.

Did it change because the scandal left Bill relatively unscathed and now China is the focus?

What do you think prompted her position reversal? I would be interested to read your opinions in the comment section.

John McCain, the MSM’s and Democratic selection for the Republican party, has been the subject of debate because of his age. While Howard Dean stated that the Democrats would not take this up as an issue that has not stopped some of them from chiming in. Jack Murtha, the unindicted criminal who is three years older than McCain said that McCain was too old to be president by stating that it was no old man’s job. B. Hussein Obama recently complained about a factual statement by McCain that the terrorists would rather see Obama win. Since this was stated by terrorists it is not a lie. Obama indicated that McCain was losing his bearings which the McCain camp took as a veiled shot at the candidate’s age.

Is age an issue in this campaign? Certainly there is a minimum age requirement for the office of President but there is no maximum age limit. So why are people able to make statements about McCain’s age? Ageism is a form of discrimination so why is it tolerated. Imagine for a moment that a prominent Republican Congressman had made the statement that Hillary Clinton should not be president because she is a woman by saying “this ain’t no lady’s job.” Or imagine this same person said that Obama should not be president because he is black by saying “this ain’t no job for a black man.” The howls of misogyny or racism would be heard from coast to coast. But members of the Democratic party make a crack about age and it is quite alright. It is ironic that Murtha would say it given that he is ancient. It is also strange that age never seemed to be a problem for Ronald Reagan, the greatest president of the last century. To be fair, Chuck Norris also made an issue of McCain’s age and he was just as wrong as Murtha.

What about this age issue? Is it a concern? Has John McCain lost his bearing ? I might argue he lost his bearing a long time ago with regard to conservatism but I somehow don’t think that is what Obama meant. It is true that as we age our minds get a little slower and we forget things and of course we are more susceptible to brain diseases that result in a decline of brain function. McCain though, seems to be in pretty good shape and except for a few gaffes it does not look like he has lost any of his mental function.

There are those, especially when the general election rolls around (if the Democrats ever figure out who is running), who will make a big deal out of the gaffes and attribute them to decreased mental capacity. These would be the same people who excuse Hillary Clinton’s lies about sniper fire as a mistake. Hillary says that she told us something that she knew to be different from what actually happened and she has even written about it. Does she have decreased mental capacity because she can’t recall if she was shot at or not? The media and those on the left never attributed it to her age and decreasing brain function. Many could not compel themselves to call her a liar opting to say she simply “made a mistake.”

Now Hillary is 60 so there might be people who say that she is declining. In fact, Bill Clinton said as much (when he was trying to excuse her lie) when he said that when people get to be 60 they will forget things when they are tired. Obama though, is a mere babe in the woods compared to these two. Certainly, his mental capacity is not in question and he has the most sound mind for the job.

But wait! Obama has told us that he started attending Pastor Wright’s church 20 years ago when he was 26. He also told us that in 20 years he never realized that Wright was a racist. It took this man 20 years and public outcry to see that his pastor was an American hating racist with crack-pot conspiracy theories about the government inventing AIDS to get rid of blacks. Good thing his mind is sharp or it might have taken 40 years.

Obama’s sharp and well tuned mind did not prevent him from insulting many Americans by saying that they are bitter and as a result cling to religion and their guns while hating outsiders. If we are to believe that Obama did nothing wrong in his land deal with Tony Rezko then his sharp as a tack mind did not keep him from making a deal that had red flags flying all around it.

John McCain was tortured at the hands of our enemy for nearly seven years and he can go toe to toe with either of the other two in an intellectual battle and not get bested (I bet he could go toe to toe in a fist fight and beat them both). To make his age an issue does an injustice to the elderly in our society.

There are plenty of problems with John McCain but his age is not one of them.

Sources:
WSJ
My Way News

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.

In a recent ABC interview the involvement of former President Bill Clinton was addressed by Hillary. She indicated that any statements he made were not intended to be offensive. Then Cynthia McFadden asked Hillary if she could control Bill.

Her response was; “Oh of course.”

How is it we are supposed to believe that she can control him when she could not do that in all the years since they met? She sent her father and brother to Arkansas (before they were married) while she was away to keep him from sleeping around and there have been countless women who admitted to having consensual affairs as well as those who claimed to have been raped by him. Then, of course, there was Monica Lewinsky and that whole ugly affair. Despite their denials and defamation of Gennifer Flowers she turned out to be telling the truth when Bill admitted to having an affair with her. Despite his denials and cover up by Hillary, the Lewinsky affair turned out to be true. Even though he denied it and his people tried to portray her as a star struck kid, she turned out to be the one telling the truth.

So tell me, how is is she can control him when she has failed to do so since the time they met?

Source:
ABC Political Radar

Oprah Winfrey has been very vocal in her support for B. Hussein Obama. In her first venture into the political scene, Winfrey campaigned for Obama at several events and he is the only candidate that has appeared on her show. Winfrey has been paying a bit of a price for her support of Obama and has been labeled a traitor by women who think she should be supporting Hillary Clinton.

This kind of thinking is very dangerous for the political scene because it places emphasis on a physical characteristic rather than on policy issues and qualification for the job. Winfrey is in a particularly difficult position because if she supports Clinton she will be labeled a traitor by the blacks who support Obama. Race and sex are not supposed to play into the selection process and picking a candidate based solely upon those, or any other characteristics, is a silly way to select leaders. Imagine what kind of uproar there would be if famous male supporters of Hillary were labeled traitors by other men who think a male should be president or if whites were labeled traitors for their support of Obama.

Think of how ridiculous it would be if the supporters of other candidates did the same thing. The elderly and Vietnam vets would label other elderly or VN vets who do not support McCain as traitors. Balding men would label as traitors those who do not support Thompson, evangelicals label other evangelicals as traitors for not supporting Huckabee, trial lawyers would label other trial lawyers as traitors for not supporting Edwards, those who have been divorced several times would labels others with that history as traitors for not supporting Giuliani and successful businessmen would label other successful businessmen as traitors for not supporting Romney.

Ron Paul supporters already label anyone who does not support Paul as a traitor.

These examples are just as ridiculous as concentrating on the fact that Obama is black or Hillary is a woman. Of course these are barriers that have never been broken but electing someone just to break that “glass ceiling” (as Hillary calls it) is not the correct way to select leaders. If one is a liberal there are many reasons to vote for Clinton or Obama and if one is a Conservative there are plenty of reasons not to vote for either of them. The color or sex of the candidates does not fit into this equation.

In order to see how invalid the idea of support based upon color or sex is one only needs to ask the question; is it OK to oppose Clinton because she is a woman or Obama because he is black? Would a person who said that he will not vote for Clinton solely because she is a woman be labeled a sexist and would a person who says that he would not vote for Obama solely because he is black be labeled a racist? If the answer is yes (and we know the answer is yes) then support based upon those two items is just as wrong.

This country is ready for a woman president and it is ready for a black president and there are plenty of both who would do a great job. These two just are not the ones.

Looks like the Clintons are now finding out what Republicans have to go through all the time but what most Democrats get a free pass on and that is the issue of race. Any Republican who makes a remark that is perceived as racist is boycotted by those idiots Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. It becomes a circus while the race hustlers have people kissing their rear ends begging for forgiveness. Then, ultimately, the person who offended the black community loses a job or position or some other thing because God knows we can’t offend the race hustlers.

The Democrats always get a pass. Hillary speaks in a black voice and talks about plantations and she is excused. There are plenty of examples of this. Hell, it isn’t only race. It deals with sex as well. Let a Republican talk about women and he is a sexist pig with NOW having a cow. Let Clinton rape women and let Ted Kennedy kill them and there is nary a word. Let’s face it, Hillary is only a viable candidate because of her husband. She had an unremarkable career and only has name recognition because of him. Without his sexcapades she might not have even been elected to the Senate. NOW surely does not chide her for needing a man to get ahead. She is qualified because she slept with the president…

Back to the point. The Clinton campaign is trying to put an end to the outrage over some comments made by them which were taken as racist by many in the black community. Bill and Hillary are used to having their way with the black community but now that a brother is running for the White House (kind of ironic when you think about it) they are fair game just as any Republican would be. Bill had to go on the Sharpton radio show to kiss his butt and explain what he said. Bill told Al that the campaign was not a fairy tale after stating that it was (which started the mess for him).

Bill was on some satellite radio program where he talked in circles, lied through his teeth, and generally used a lot of words to say nothing of substance. The Clintons also have to worry about the South Carolina primary because the black vote is capable of making the difference. In addition, New York, once though to be in the bag for Hillary, is now considered in play. The Clintons have probably feared this the whole time but never really thought it would happen. Now people can complain about the race issue being brought up (it was not raised by Obama) but no one gave it a second thought when Hillary was playing the gender card.

It is fun watching them squirm and it would be great to see the black vote ruin her after all the years the Clintons pandered to blacks and then abandoned them after the votes were counted.

As for the racism, let us not forget that Obama is probably a racist as well. He hangs with Sharpton and other shady characters who hate white people and make racist remarks about them. As one of the other bloggers put it, Obama is a smile in an empty suit. However, that empty suit is just as racist as the Clintons are made out to be.

But the black guy will always get the pass on that issue. Look at Sharpton and all he has gotten away with. Kos was interested in helping the Republicans fight with each other blah, blah. It appears that the black guy and the racist woman in the Democratic party might cause a lot of fragmentation. If they are not careful the Breck girl John Edwards might sneak in.

It is getting fun and keep this in mind. If the Clintons did not think they had made racist remarks (they probably meant to and figured they would not be taken as such) then why are they all over the airwaves and TV shows defending what they said?

They know they are wrong and they are now pandering.

Hillary is Satan.

Related items:
Emperor Misha has a great post.
The Politico
Yahoo News
The State
The New York Times