Redstate blogger Loren Heal once made the excellent point that “everyone knows something that isn’t true”. In other words, everyone has, at at least one point in their lives, believed–nay, knew–something to be true that was actually 100% false. In fact, throughout history, it has not at all been uncommon for large swaths of certain populations to “know” something to be true that was really false. For example, in the Middle Ages, everyone knew that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth until Christopher Columbus and Galileo set them straight. Puritans knew that if you dunked a woman in a pond and she floated, then she wasn’t a witch. Most small children believe in Santa Claus, and a lot of political activists act like children and petulantly hold on to ridiculous beliefs long after they’ve been debunked (see birthers and 9/11 truthers as exhibit A).

And now, most importantly, everyone in the MSM and most supporters of President Obama believed in two universally known truths: that Obama is a “great debater” and that “Mitt Romney is a bumbling idiot who hates poor people”. However, both of these “known truths” turned out to be egregiously false.

Let’s take the first “known truth” that President Obama is a “great debater”. As Jonah Goldberg recently pointed out, “Obama is the single most overrated politician of my lifetime”. Yes, Obama is a good orator, but he has never been a good debater.

Did any of you watch the 2008 Democratic primary debates? I watched all of them (I know, it sounds a little embarrassing). Obama consistently lost to Hillary Clinton in debate after debate; but, predictably after every debate, Obama’s lackeys on CNN and MSNBC would declare Obama the winner even though Hillary had just cleaned his clock. (It was as if black was white and up was down to those people–ironically, only Fox News covered the Democratic debates honestly and would declare Hillary the winner.) Now, even though Hillary would usually defeat Obama in the primary debates, she never really went for the jugular in most of the debates because she was probably terrified that the liberal media would call her a “racist”, just like they did her husband and anyone else who dared to criticize Obama.

However, by April of 2008–after twenty debates–Hillary finally realized that the liberal MSM was NEVER going to give her a fair shake and that they clearly wanted Obama to win. (As Robert Stacy McCain succinctly put it, their basic attitude towards her was, “Hey, lady, why don’t you quit already?”) So therefore, Hillary decided to unleash hell on Obama in the Pennsylvania debate (which was the twenty first debate). Also, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos finally–after twenty debates–got up the nerve to ask Obama about Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers (you know, two real truths, not “known truths”). In response, Obama got a “You can’t ask me that!” look on his face, and then took his ball and went home by flat-out refusing to participate in anymore debates. Oh, but not before his buddies from the MSM and the JounoList (a group of 400 or so “objective journalists” who were secretly using their columns to campaign for Obama) wrote a strongly worded letter to ABC complaining about Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, and implied that their questions were racist.

Now, I ask you, would a truly great debater feel that he needed that much protection and shielding by his lackeys in the press? Highly doubtful.

Furthermore, many conservatives feel that John McCain (who was a decent debater during the Republican primaries) basically threw Obama softballs during their debates because, after the financial meltdown, McCain knew that he was going to lose the election so he figured that it wasn’t worth having the media hate him as well, or label him as a “racist” on his way out the door.

So, in a nutshell, there you have it. A false “known truth” that Obama is “a great debater” was created by a press that was colluding for him–all the while, Mitt Romney has had the press, literally, colluding against him. Since April of 2008, President Obama hasn’t really faced a truly assertive and engaged debate partner, or had his assertions strongly challenged in any way….that was until he walked onto the stage with Mitt Romney and had no JournoList members or liberal MSM lackeys to bail him out. However, liberals on cable news have already started blaming Jim Lehrer and his relaxed format for Obama’s defeat. (See a pattern here?) However, I seriously doubt that any of them will actually write Jim Lehrer a letter calling him a racist….that’s a card you can only play once, if at all.

Now, onto debunking the second “known truth” that “Mitt Romney is a bumbling idiot who hates poor people”.

It is a clear fact that the MSM has gone out of their way to portray Mitt Romney as a bumbling idiot who hates poor people. Don’t believe me? Well, just watch any cable news show that isn’t on Fox (and even some on Fox), or read any column about Romney written by a liberal pundit and you will see what I’m talking about. In fact, SNL recently had a cold opening where the actor playing President Obama basically said “things are really bad and I should lose, but look at this moron I’m running against.” (See the embed below.) Oh, and if SNL runs with a particular theme, that means that it is now part of the zeitgeist and is officially and accepted as a “known truth”.

Furthermore, SNL even had a skit where an actor playing Mitt Romney was singing in the shower about how much he hated poor people and how “poor people hate getting jobs”.

Well, people are entitled to their opinions–or “known truths” if you will–but not their own facts. So, without much ado, here are some real facts about Mitt Romney: he is a successful businessman who is worth around a quarter of a billion dollars, he was a successful governor of MA (and had the number one education rate in the country), he rescued the Salt Lake City Olympics, and he is WAY more accomplished than Barack Obama was when he first ran for president. In other words, it would be close to impossible for a stupid person/bumbling idiot to accomplish what Mitt Romney has throughout his life.

Second of all, did any of you watch the Republican primary debates this past spring? I watched all of them (I know, another kind of embarrassing admission) and I found Mitt Romney’s debate performances to be extremely impressive. In fact, most pundits freely admitted that Romney usually won most of the debates–and even when he didn’t out-right win, he never gave a weak performance. Not to mention, Romney was able to give consistently strong debate performances with seven or eight people on the stage going after him at once, whereas Obama wasn’t even able to consistently hold his own against just Hillary. Therefore, this assumption that Obama was destined to beat Romney in the first Presidential debate was totally detached from reality.

And lastly, John Hawkins wrote an excellent, well-researched article that demonstrated the fact that Mitt Romney has given a great amount of money–and most importantly, a lot of his time–trying to help poor or needy people. So, again, this “known truth” that “Mitt Romney is a bumbling idiot who hates poor people” was created in fantasy land.

Now, here’s the rub with regard to Obama and his campaign believing the “known truths” that Obama is “a brilliant debater” and “Mitt Romney is a bumbling idiot who hates poor people” (Obama once told a reporter, “You know, I actually believe my own bulls**t.”)–eventually you run into a wall called “reality”. And, that’s exactly what happened to Barack Obama when he walked out on that stage with Mitt Romney last Wednesday night. Charles Krauthammer sums up the problem with Obama’s strategy of demonizing Romney perfectly when he wrote the following:

He pulled off a tactical coup by coming right out of the box to undo millions of dollars’ worth of negative ads that painted him, personally, as Gordon Gekko — rapacious vulture capitalist who doesn’t just lay off steelworkers but kills their wives — and, politically, as intent on raising taxes on the middle class while lowering them for the rich.

The Romney campaign had let these ads go largely unanswered. But a “kill Romney” strategy can only work until people get to see Romney themselves. On Wednesday night, they did. Regarding the character assassination, all Romney really had to do was walk out with no horns on his head. Confident, smiling and nonthreatening, he didn’t look like a man who enjoys killing the wives of laid-off steelworkers.

Yes, reality….well she is indeed a harsh mistress. She will pop your faulty preconceived notions/”known truths” just like a needle does to a balloon. Every pundit and their mother has been on TV the last couple of days whining about how “unprepared” Obama was. But hey, who would take the time to prepare to debate a “bumbling idiot”–especially if everyone you know tells you what a “great debater” you are (whether you really are or not)?

The real problem isn’t that Obama “didn’t prepare enough”, or that “Romney cheated” (rolls eyes)–the real problem is that Obama believed his own press. That, and reality finally caught up to him (she will catch up to you eventually). Michael Barone hit it out of the park when he wrote the following:

The mainstream media has been playing protective guard around him for the last five or six years. He has seldom faced tough questioning, having managed to avoid open press conferences (as I recall) since last June. And of course mainstream media is extremely unanxious to ask him embarrassing questions about a whole host of issues. To his credit, moderator Jim Lehrer didn’t zero in on these things but didn’t prevent the interaction between the candidates from raising such questions.

Obama suffered tonight from his lack of scrutiny from mainstream media. As I like to say, there is nothing free in politics, but there is some question about when you pay the price. In this first debate Obama paid the price for the hands-off treatment he has received from mainstream media. His talking points, advanced by his spokesmen in the confidence that they will not be seriously challenged, were refuted by an energized and articulated and well-informed Mitt Romney. He stood there petulantly and pathetically, nonplussed by the fact that his flimsy talking points were effectively challenged.

Last Wednesday night, Obama and his campaign finally “paid the price” for believing in falsehoods that had no actual basis in reality.

In conclusion, please allow me to put it this way–no one still believes that the earth is flat, no one still believes that the sun revolves around the earth, and no one with half a brain still believes that Mitt Romney is a “bumbling idiot” or that Barack Obama is a “great debater”….not anymore.

In the show Game of Thrones, Lord Varys is famous for the following quote:

Power resides where men believe it resides–it is a trick, a shadow on the wall. And, a very small man can cast a very large shadow.

(See the embed below.)

I recently wrote a post where I listed (and explained in detail) the five rules of politics as I saw them:

1.) NEVER cede the higher ground to your opponent when you are winning on an issue.

2.) People hate the thought police.

3.) People don’t vote for people they don’t like–i.e., mean people suck.

4.) Don’t eat your own–you’re wasting valuable time and energy.

5.) Stay away from conspiracy theories.

However, after attending Congressman Scott’s recent fundraiser, I would like to amend my previous post and add a sixth rule:

6.) Showing up is fifty percent of the battle.

Don’t ever cede your power by just “staying home” and not getting involved. Everyone has a talent. Everyone has something to contribute–even if it’s just a vote. And remember, even “a very small man can cast a very large shadow”.

Last week, Meghan McCain–who, for better or worse, has become a player in the game of politics–went on Al Sharpton’s unwatchable show on MSNBC (which is most famous for being mocked on SNL) and stated the following with regard to Michelle Malkin and the late Andrew Breitbart:

I really don’t understand the popularity of Michelle Malkin and Andrew Breitbart who exacerbate people’s fears.

(The video of this exchange is below.)

Well, apparently, people did seem to care because the internet has been ablaze this week with righteous indignation from conservatives who seemed to be offended that Ms. McCain implied (but didn’t actually state) that Michelle Malkin and the late Andrew Breitbart are extreme. Many bloggers that I respect, like my good friend Robert Stacy McCain, wrote posts condemning her. Not to mention, Twitter lit up like a Christmas tree with criticisms of Ms. McCain’s statements on Sharpton’s show.

Finally Meghan McCain responded with a post of her own titled, Cut it Out, Internet Bullies! Being somewhat sick of this story (and not quite understanding its appeal myself), I begrudgingly read her column. Then I got to the part where she discussed what people were saying to her on her Twitter feed. I gotta admit, it was pretty appalling–I’ve pasted a quote from Ms. McCain’s column below:

I am fat pig. I am ugly. I am disgusting. I am an embarrassment to my family, and they should be ashamed of me. I am an anti-American extremist. I am a clueless whore. I should drink a bottle of alcohol and pills and kill myself.

Now, being the diligent blogger that I am, I clicked on the link to Meghan McCain’s Twitter feed to check out the scene for myself. Holy crap. The Tweets that I saw on her Twitter page were worse than some of the things that she printed in her column. I’ve pasted a few of them below:

*Breitbart had more class in his pinky finger than @McCainBlogette has in her entire 4 foot, 300 lb body.

*Her boobs weigh 300 lbs.

*Probably just missed snack time. We know how she gets when she misses snack time!!

*@McCainBlogette is an anit-american extremist who hates her country or origin.

*@McCainBlogette Man, you’re a disgusting person. May God have mercy on your soul.

*@McCainBlogette is what the leftist MSM wants to make Americans think fits the conservative label, she doesn’t, she a lazy little bitch.

*If @mccainblogette’s daddy wasn’t a senator she’d be a pole dancer in Phoenix.

*@McCainBlogette apparently subscribes to the theory that there’s no such thing as bad publicity, wrong chunky. #IAmBreitbart

*You are as big a disappointment as your dad, he could have stopped Obama but refused, that is extreme betrayal! #war @McCainBlogette

(Not to mention, there was a Tweet talking about how her dad cracked under torture, but now it’s been deleted. Like the mouthbreather who wrote it would have lasted a day in a North Vietnamese prison camp–much less five years. But, I digress.)

*@mccainblogette at what point is this clueless whore(attention whore,but I wouldn’t doubt the other kind too) going to shut up?

Facepalm. My initial gut reaction after reading the above Tweets was, “We’re better than this”. I am no fan of Meghan McCain, but the vitriol that she received for just stating her opinion with regard to what websites she doesn’t find appealing seemed way over the top. She didn’t say anything bad about Breitbart or Malkin personally–she just implied that she found their websites to be a bit extreme. I, personally, love Michelle Malkin and all of the Breitbart sites (and I think that the late Andrew Breibart was a huge asset to the conservative movement), but, hey, it’s a big internet and conservatives are all about choice. Meghan McCain does not have to validate my opinions and sense of self-worth by reading the exact same sites that I read, any more than she does by liking the exact same flavors of ice cream that I like.

However, I thought that I might be over-reacting (everyone in the conservative blogosphere seemed to disagree with me), so I called up my dear friend John Hawkins to ask him his opinion on the McCain matter after reading him a bunch of the offending Tweets over the phone. (He gave me permission to discuss our conversation in my column after urging me to write about this topic). John told me that he “wasn’t a fan of the sexist stuff” and that “when a person uses personal attacks in an argument, it sounds like he or she is losing the argument”. I couldn’t agree with him more. So therefore, I decided to take John’s advice and write about my thoughts on the McCain matter.

However, to be fair this column is really not going to be so much about the McCain internet brouhaha (please save me from comment hell) as it is going to be about how to engage in politics in a smart and productive manner (unlike those poor, misguided souls on Twitter). I have wanted to write about this for some time now and the whole Meghan McCain cyber-bullying incident has provided me with the perfect segue into this topic (if it wasn’t Meghan McCain it would be somebody else).

On my new favorite show, Game of Thrones, Tyrion Lannister is most famous for uttering the chilling phrase, “I understand the way this game is played”. (See the embed below.) Bottom line, if you are on Facebook, Twitter, write blog posts, comment on blogs, or volunteer for a campaign, you are playing the game of politics–so if you are going to play the game, you should know the rules and play to win. So without further ado, here are the five rules of politics as I see them:

1.) NEVER cede the higher ground to your opponent when you are winning on an issue.

Conservatives are clearly winning the civility war: we have the liberals on the run. I mean, David Axelrod was going on TV and actually defending the Obama Campaign’s acceptance of a one million dollar check from Bill Maher, who is famous for calling conservative women like Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin (as well as Hillary Clinton) disgusting four letter words. Oh, and Hustler recently Photoshopped conservative writer S.E. Cupp in a disgusting and misogynistic pose (please read Michelle Malkin’s excellent column about the sordid incident). Even liberal columnist Kirsten Powers has grown tired of liberal commentators on MSNBC, as well as Bill Maher, getting a free pass with regard to their flagrant misogyny. Not to mention, a group of conservative women who call themselves ShePAC, made a video montage of Bill Maher and David Letterman’s greatest sexist/misogynistic hits (see the embed below–NSFW).

Oh, and who could forget that God-awful column about Trig Palin courtesy of Wonkette, or the imfamous “hate-f**k column via Playboy. Enough said.

The American people are smart. They are starting to catch on to the left’s and the MSM’s little game of calling conservatives “uncivil”, all the while referring to conservatives as “teabaggers” and calling conservative women misogynistic four letter words.

However, the MSM is extremely biased and they will downplay flat out vile comments by liberal pundits and comedians, but will pounce like a hungry cheetah stalking a gazelle on the slightest infraction by any conservative–even random people on Twitter. I know this is not fair, but life isn’t fair. You have accept the world how it is–not how you want it to be. Just ask Rush Limbaugh (and he had the decency to apologize, unlike Bill Maher and co.). Sandra Fluke should have been known as a law student who (while testifying in front of a fake congressional hearing) displayed a shocking lack of knowledge of the US constitution when she demanded that the government pay for her birth control. Instead, she was made a martyr by the MSM simply because Rush Limbaugh used a very poor choice or words. And now, to the outside observer/swing voter who might read The Daily Beast, but doesn’t follow politics all that closely, Meghan McCain will appear to be the victim of right wing cyber-bullying. Even though the people on Twitter might have had fun calling her “a 300 pound whore who should kill herself”, she and Al Sharpton actually came out of this episode as the true winners–Ms. McCain just got a whole lot more blog hits and Al Sharpton just got more than five people to watch his show. Don’t get me wrong–these little snafus pale in comparison to the incivility that the right has had to endure from liberal pundits and comedians. However, since the left does have an advantage in that the MSM is in the bag for them, we have to try our best to always behave with class and dignity–and most importantly, we must never hand them the club to beat us with. We must think long term if we are going to play this game to win.

2.) People hate the thought police.

Another advantage that conservatives have over liberals is that we don’t tell other people how to live their lives or what to think–i.e., we don’t call people “racists” if they don’t like a particular politician, tell them that they need to redistribute their wealth, accuse them of waging a “war on women” if they disagree with us, tell people what kind of light bulb to buy or grocery bags to use, try to ban Happy Meals, or tell people “Good for you!” because they drive a Prius. In other words, if people wanted someone to tell them that they had to read/like certain websites, drive a Prius, use certain kinds of light bulbs, etc. or face vitriolic attacks, they’d probably vote for the Democrats. Therefore, independent swing voters who don’t follow politics closely but are watching this Meghan McCain incident unfold from a distance (and who voted for Obama the last time, but might be leaning towards Romney this time) might not like the idea that they have to be ardent disciples of Breitbart and Malkin or face exclusion of vicious ridicule. Those voters probably don’t want to be told what websites to read or what pundits to listen to anymore than they want to be told what food to eat or what car to drive. Furthermore, conservatives are supposed to be all about freedom of choice, remember?

Almost a year ago, I wrote a column where I chastised Dan Savage (who recently bullied a room full of high school students) and comedian Marc Maron for implying on Bill Maher’s panel that they would like to rape Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum simply because they disagreed with them with regard to homosexuality and gay marriage (they also strongly objected to Marcus Bachman’s program which attempts to convert gays through prayer). To be specific, I wrote the following with regard to how intolerant that entire panel on Maher’s show was:

FYI, I’m not a huge fan of Marcus Bachmann’s whole “pray away the gay” crusade, just like I’m not a huge fan of Dan Savage’s claim that married people–gay or straight–shouldn’t be monogamous because it is “unnatural”. However, what I like less is the growing idea in leftist circles that it’s OK to fantasize about raping people that you disagree with politically. Newsflash Lefties–people have the right to be misguided, give bad advice, disagree with you, or be flat-out wrong without being bombarded with threats of sexual assault.

However, in light of the recent Meghan McCain internet brouhaha, I would like to amend my statement to the following:

Newsflash–people have the right to be misguided, give bad advice, disagree with you, or be flat-out wrong without being bombarded on Twitter and blogs with verbal abuse, such as calling them “a 300 pound whore who should take a bottle of pills and kill themselves”. And besides, voters really hate the thought police with an unbridled passion.

3.) People don’t vote for people they don’t like–i.e., mean people suck.

….So try to avoid personal attacks if at all possible.

Hypothetically speaking, if during the upcoming presidential debate Barack Obama turned to Mitt Romney and told him, “You’re ugly, weird, stupid, hate your country and should take a bottle of pills and kill yourself”, then he would probably lose the upcoming presidential election in a spectacular fashion. Why? Because like John Hawkins said, when you engage in personal attacks, you automatically sound like you are losing the argument because you have nothing factual to offer. (And, if you are choosing to play the game of politics by participating on Twitter, writing blogs, volunteering for a campaign, etc., then you should always remember that you are representing the Republican Party with your written words/actions.)

Furthermore, what’s so exasperating about this whole Meghan McCain situation is that we do have the facts on our side. John Nolte of the Breitbart site Big Hollywood wrote an excellent column where he pointed out that the late Andrew Breitbart actually hosted the GOProud event at CPAC this past year, and that he would never marginalize anyone over their views with regard to same sex marriage or “exacerbate people’s fears”. Furthermore, Nolte even explained that Ms. McCain had been recruited by Andrew Breibart back in 2008 after her dad’s loss, before she had become a well-known pundit; therefore, Ms. McCain was displaying a stunning lack of gratitude and was frankly wrong on the facts when she implied that Breitbart was “extreme” on Al Sharpton’s show. See how much more effective Nolte’s approach is (i.e., using the facts to back up one’s argument) than calling Ms. McCain “a 300 pound whore who should take a bottle of pills and kill herself” is? I rest my case.

Now, I realize that Meghan McCain frequently plays useful idiot for the left by going on MSNBC and saying rather catty things about the Palins, Michelle Bachman, the Tea Party, etc.–and, I wrote a very detailed column where I called her out on her bad behavior….and I did it without resorting to any personal attacks on Ms. McCain’s appearance. (However, I think that Meghan McCain is very attractive, so the above offensive Tweets don’t even make any sense to me.) So, by all means, if a liberal or a RINO on MSNBC is behaving badly, then don’t hesitate to point out their bad behavior–just don’t emulate their bad behavior (or behave even worse yourself).

4.) Don’t eat your own–you’re wasting valuable time and energy.

During the recent Republican primary, I saw the following comments with regard to Mitt Romney littering the internet: “I will NEVER vote for Mitt Romney for president”, “Mitt Romney is a weirdo”, “Mormonism is a cult”, “Mitt Romney hates the poor and likes to fire people”, “Mitt Romney engaged in vulture capitalism”, “Mitt Romney is an animal abuser”….and these comments/sentiments were ALL made on conservative blogs! Look, I get it that people want to shill for or strongly support their candidate of choice and explain why the other guys are unacceptable. However, there is a big difference between supporting your candidate with gusto and demonizing the guy he’s running against. For example, if a person was a Rick Perry supporter, he or she could point out that Rick Perry had more experience and a better jobs record as governor, and that Romneycare was a bad idea…or if he or she happened to be a Newt Gingrich supporter, a good tactic might be to tout Gingrich’s fiery debate performances as a big plus for going up against Barack Obama. See, it is completely possible to explain why your guy is better than the alternative without going nuclear on the alternative. Bottom line, the guy you’re demonizing as Mephistopheles today might be the guy that you have to help get elected tomorrow….not to mention, everything that you write on the interwebs is permanent, so people can go look and see that you said a few months ago that you would NEVER vote for the guy that is now your party’s nominee.

Furthermore, now because of such a vicious primary season filled with personal attacks (many of them that sounded like they came from the left), Mitt Romney had to start out his general election campaign from a position of weakness instead of from a position of strength and waste valuable time explaining away bogus charges (for example, that he engaged in “vulture capitalism”), instead of immediately leaping into general election mode. And, in the game of politics, you always want your candidate/nominee to start out from a position of strength–whoever he or she might turn out to be.

5.) Stay away from conspiracy theories.

I’m really don’t think that I need to spill too much ink explaining why it’s a bad idea to toy around with conspiracy theories. Just Google Donald Trump/Barack Obama/Birtherism or Dan Rather/Bush National Guard if you don’t believe me. Conspiracy theories may be fun to ignite for the moment, but eventually, they will blow up in your face like a stick of dynamite does to Wile E. Coyote every darn time.

So, in conclusion, I am not suggesting that we don’t be committed–or even ruthless–when we play the game of politics. I’m only suggesting that we play the game smart and that we play to win. And, to play to win, we must not let ourselves get sidetracked or distracted. Remember, the actual prize, (or throne, if you will) is winning the White House–not winning an almost week long Twitter war with Meghan McCain or some other RINO from MSNBC. Furthermore, I am also suggesting that we not waste too much time whining about how “liberals get a free pass for their bad behavior, so therefore, we should also be allowed to engage in bad behavior”. Two wrongs don’t make a right; moreover, people follow leaders–not whiners. Let’s lead by example and win back the White House come November. Let’s play the game of politics to win.

This column is also posted at Right Wing News and The Minority Report.

As many of you are now aware, Bill Maher (as well as a host of other commentators on the left) has a long history of making sexist, uncivil comments with regard to conservatives, and conservative women in particular. In fact, Maher’s misogyny has gotten so out of hand, that now many noted liberal columnists, such as Kirsten Powers, are finally calling him (and some other progressive pundits) out on his egregious behavior.

However, this past Friday evening Bill Maher–who is now well aware that even those on his own side of the aisle have grown weary of his misogyny–decided to move on from picking on women to picking on poor people. Maher sent Alexandra Pelosi (the daughter of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) to rural Mississippi to supposedly interview prospective Republican voters about the upcoming Mississippi primary. While Ms. Pelosi’s video aired during Maher’s show, he, Jon Hamm and some other liberals on his panel sneered at the poor, barely literate people in the video (see the video below). Francis Martel of Mediate implied that Maher and his panel were elitist when she wrote that they were “mocking rural Mississippi residents from a smug Hollywood perch”. While I agree with Ms. Martel that elitism was definitely on display here, something else more sinister was afoot.

First of all, Ms. Pelosi issued a disclaimer that these were the only sort of people that she could find in the entire state of Mississippi. I gotta call BS on that! I grew up in Mobile, AL and had a roommate in college that was from Biloxi, MS (who I went home with on the weekends frequently). I have driven through and been to MS numerous times–I have NEVER seen or come into contact with people like the ones featured in the above video. Furthermore, my mother-in-law is from rural MS and she was valedictorian of her high school, got a Master’s degree in statistics from Tulane University and spent her career teaching advance placement mathematics in Texas high schools. Furthermore, her mother was one of the first women ever to graduate from Vanderbilt University with a degree in physics. Heck, Eli Manning was the quarterback for Ole Miss and still managed to graduate with a 3.44 GPA! Why didn’t Ms. Pelosi drive through Biloxi and Ole Miss’s campus and chat with the people there? (That would have been a heck of a lot simpler that traipsing through backwoods MS in order to talk to people with no education and no teeth.) The answer is simple–Ms. Pelosi didn’t want to talk to people that sounded like my mother-in-law or looked like Eli Manning. People like them would not have fit the narrative that she wanted to create–that narrative being that all MS Republican voters are illiterate, racist and toothless. Bottom line, Pelosi and Maher are being highly disingenuous when they try to pass the people in the above video off as the typical southern/MS Republican Primary voter.

Second of all, is it just me or was there a certain cruelty in mocking the people in the above video (even the stupid white supremacist)? It made me a tad queasy to see the daughter of the former Speaker of the House, Bill Maher (a guy who just gave President Obama a million dollar check) and Jon Hamm (one of the five best looking people in America IMHO) laugh at poor, semi-literate people, a senile old man, and a homeless guy (he was living in a hovel) who seemed somewhat mentally challenged and was lacking many of his front teeth. The people in the above video are poor, they are powerless and some are literally toothless! (My heart went out to them, and would have if they had said ridiculous things about George W. Bush instead of Barack Obama. Oh, and if anyone thinks that most of these people in the above video actually vote, then I have a blind bird dog and some underwater real-estate to sell you.) Whereas, Alexandra Pelosi, Bill Maher and Jon Ham are rich and quite powerful when it comes to shaping public opinion. I am reminded of what it says in the book of Luke:

“To whom much is given, of him much will be required.”

I mean, these people on Maher’s panel were given so much (looks, wealth, fame, power) and they then decide to pick on the powerless and the toothless?! That is not good satire–any great satirist, like say Oscar Wilde, knows to only pick on the powerful. This is just pure meanness.

And finally, to Bill Maher I say the following:

Dude, really???!! Your idea of cutting edge comedy and satire is to call conservative women misogynistic four letter words and to imply that all southern conservatives are “toothless hicks”? Yawn! That is not only tired, cliche’ and totally played out, it is the last bastion of the intellectually lazy. Jon Stewart would never stoop to that level. It is definitely time to hire some new writers and bring in some fresh blood because you, yourself, have become a cliche’–that of the angry, hypocritical liberal elitist who thinks that he is for the women and the little guy, but in reality has absolutely no tolerance or compassion for anyone–rich or poor, male or female–who does not think exactly like him.

This column is also posted at The Minority Report and Right Wing News.

My third grade teacher, Sister Therese, used to always say, “Be careful what you pray for–you just might get it”. Well, Barack Obama obviously prayed, wished, and worked extremely hard for the glory of being president. However, as my friend Ben Howe demonstrates in his brilliant new video, Obama forgot to ask God (or Gaia) how to, you know, competently perform the job of Commander-in-Chief once he actually made it to the Oval Office.

As Moe Lane points out, all Ben had to do to prove that Obama is in way over his head was to juxtapose Obama’s own words with a bunch of soundbites and news clippings.

Ouch! That was painful to watch. I almost felt sorry for poor Barack Obama. The man is seriously out of his depth as president of the United States. Somewhere, Sister Therese is smiling.

Update: Thanks so much to Smitty over at The Other McCain and Fox Nation for the links and for re-posting this awesome video–Ben and I appreciate you!

Cross-posted at The Minority Report and Right Wing News.

Pretty much everyone remembers last January when the liberal mainstream media accused Sarah Palin of being an accomplice to mass murder because she had almost the exact same target map on her Facebook page that the Democrats had up a year earlier. This whole “do as I say, not as I do” fiasco prompted liberals to decree that we needed a widespread campaign for civility. (Yes, I realize how hypocritical it is to demand civility from others while falsely accusing your political opponents of being accomplices to mass murder.)

Well, I thought that everyone might be interested to take a look at the liberal idea of “civility” that’s been on display since last January. First, there was the lovely union rallies in Wisconsin where participants cursed out reporters, called people they disagreed with vile names and hit my friend Tabitha Hale over the head with a sign. (Video is NSFW.)

Then, we were all treated to Jack Stuef and the good folks over at Wonkette making fun of three-year-old Trig Palin on his birthday for having Down’s Syndrome and referring to him as “half-alive”, all the while implying that Todd Palin raped his own daughter.

[Below is an excellent take-down by Steven Crowder regarding the lovely column on Trig Palin published at Wonkette. Warning--video is NSFW.]

Next came NYT columnist David Carr referring to the people of Alabama, Kansas and Middle America as “the dance of the low-sloping foreheads”.

Oh, and who could forget the recent brouhaha regarding the Rutgers University professor who got drunk and accosted Paul Ryan in a DC restaurant for drinking an expensive glass of wine that he paid for with his own money. (Her behavior was particular egregious considering the fact that she was dining in the same expensive restaurant and drinking an expensive bottle of wine herself.)

So, if you were thinking that liberals couldn’t sink any lower with their “civility”, you would be sorely mistaken. Last Friday night, Bill Maher had comic Marc Maron and sex-advice columnist Dan Savage on the panel of his show. When the topic of Michelle Bachmann’s husband, Marcus, came up–along with his ministry to try to convert homosexuals to heterosexuals–Marc Maron said the following:

“I hope [he] takes all that rage that comes from repression and denial into the bedroom with her…and I hope he f**ks her angrily, because that’s how I would.”

Not to be outdone, Savage then replied to Maron’s quip with the following quote:

“I sometimes think about f**king the sh*t out of Rick Santorum…I’m up for whipping up some Santorum in Santorum.”

Really fellas?! This sounds an awful lot like saying that you would like to rape Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum simply because you disagree with them politically. So much for “civility”.

[By the way, this isn't the first liberal foray into rape fantasies. In 2009, Playboy wrote a column about the conservative women that they would like to "hate-f**k". Caleb Howe has the screen shots here.]

FYI, I’m not a huge fan of Marcus Bachmann’s whole “pray away the gay” crusade, just like I’m not a huge fan of Dan Savage’s claim that married people–gay or straight–shouldn’t be monogamous because it is “unnatural”.* However, what I like less is the growing idea in leftist circles that it’s OK to fantasize about raping people that you disagree with politically. Newsflash Lefties–people have the right to be misguided, give bad advice, disagree with you, or be flat-out wrong without being bombarded with threats of sexual assault.

Now, the nastiness of Bill Maher’s panel only became more pronounced from there. For example, later on in the show, Dan Savage said the following with regard to Congressional Republicans:

Behold the civility!!

However, by far, the most appalling moment of Maher’s show came when he did his “New Rules” segment at the end of the show. After about a minute of calling Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin a slew of sexist names (all the while claiming that he’s not a sexist), Maher launches into a tirade against Sarah Palin and her family when he says the following:

“…And when I point out that Sarah Palin is a vain-glorious braggart, a liar, a whiner, a professional victim, a scold, a know-it-all, a chiseler, a bully who sells patriotism like a pimp, and the leader of a strange family of inbred weirdoes straight out of The Hills Have Eyes, that’s not sexist. I’m saying it because it’s true – not because it’s true of a woman.”

Now, the Hills Have Eyes reference might go over your heads, but you really should be aware of what it means. The Hills Have Eyes is a horror movie by Wes Craven where the quintessential American family is attacked, raped and brutalized by a family of radiation exposed mutants–oh, and the youngest member of the mutant family is mentally disabled. (See the movie trailer blow.)

Ha Ha–that’s so funny! You know, comparing beautiful little girls and a special needs child to violent, hideous mutants…that’s a real knee-slapper right there. And hey, what would far-leftist humor be with making fun of a special needs child? Liberals really ought to come up with a bumper sticker that reads, “We hate little girls and special needs children–vote Democrat!”. I really think that would be a great way to win friends and influence people, don’t you? I mean, nothing says class and “civility” like hating on young girls and mentally handicapped children by comparing them to radiation exposed mutants.

[On a side note, I find it to be a bit peculiar that the people comparing the Palin children to violent, raping, murdering mutants are the ones actually fantasizing about the rape and murder/death of their enemies, but I digress.]

In all seriousness, though, if you think that any of the above humor from Bill Maher’s recent show is funny, then please, stop whatever it is that you are doing, let your fingers do the walking in the Yellow Pages and find yourself a good shrink. Really, if you think that fantasizing about people being raped, mocking a handicapped child and comparing young girls to disfigured, violent mutants is funny (simply because you don’t like their mother), then you are an awful person and you need help.

And yes, I am making a value judgement here and I realize that many liberals think that value judgements are icky and some would probably like to see me “hate-f**ked” because of it, but I don’t much care. Some behaviors are just frankly uncivil–nay vile–and should be loudly denounced as such. It is high time that conservatives start demanding real civility from liberals, instead cowering whenever they whine about our target maps and “Don’t Tread On Me” flags. Enough is enough. Here is where I take my stand.

*PS–See, I was able to disagree with people without fantasizing about their rape or murder, or comparing them to disfigured, violent mutants.

Cross-posted at Parcbench, The Minority Report and Right Wing News.

Americans are an extremely charitable people. We NEVER turn our backs on those in need—whether it be our fellow Americans in New Orleans, or strangers in distant lands like Haiti or Japan. Wednesday night, a slew of tornadoes tore through the southeastern US, ravaging Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, all the way to Virginia. So far, almost 300 people have been reported dead, and millions of dollars in property damage has been done by the 173 tornadoes that have destroyed Dixie (Tuscaloosa, AL seems to be the hardest hit). Bottom line, this is the deadliest tornado outbreak in the US since 1974.

Now, the good news is that, unlike the massive flooding that happened in Tennessee last year, the media actually seems to care about this disaster and President Obama is currently touring the South in order to assess the damage (whereas, he didn’t show up at all in TN last year). Yes, a select few have behaved appallingly–like the clowns over at Think Progress who had the unmitigated gall to imply that the people in these states kind of had it coming because they are all a bunch of global warming denying rednecks. However, this time around, the MSM, President Obama and the American people–both liberal and conservative–have overwhelmingly conducted themselves with class and generosity. Let’s keep it that way and not start giving the people of Dixie the Heisman, instead of our love and support, once the cameras go away and this story is off of the front page.

Michelle Malkin has a multitude of links to many different charities on her website where you can make a donation to help out the good people of Dixie (and Tabitha Hale of Redstate.com does as well). I grew up all over the South, and I can tell you that they would do it for us without even blinking. Even if you only have a dollar or two to give, your generosity during a recession will be greatly appreciated. If everyone gives a dollar, then that would add up to a lot of dough. It’s time to love our neighbors and help the people of Dixie get through this horrific disaster.

PS–I have embedded a video below from ABC World News so that everyone can hear from the victims, and see for themselves just how hellacious these tornadoes actually were.

PPS–If you also would like to give a small donation to help out the victims of the deadly storms in North Carolina that happened just a few weeks ago, then please click here.

Cross-posted from Parcbench, The Minority Report and Right Wing News.

For the last several days, Twitter has been all aflutter with stories about a supposedly horrific attack on Trig Palin by the liberal website Wonkette. After seeing the uproar on Twitter, I remember thinking to myself, “Could this column from Wonkette attacking Trig (on his third birthday) really be as bad as everyone says?” Well, I decided to take a look at the infamous column in question and I am here to tell you that, yes, the column is just God-awful and offensive to anyone who doesn’t suffer from terminal tackiness. For example, here is the first paragraph from this abomination:

That strange man yelling unintelligibly at Sarah Palin? He’s merely a lowly shepherd proclaiming the birth of our savior. Today is the day we come together to celebrate the snowbilly grifter’s magical journey from Texas to Alaska to deliver to the America the great gentleman scholar Trig Palin. Is Palin his true mother? Or was Bristol? (And why is it that nobody questions who the father is? Because, either way, Todd definitely did it.) It doesn’t matter. What matters is that we are privileged to live in a time when we can witness the greatest prop in world political history.

Furthermore, Jack Stuef, the author of this garbage, seems to be very bothered by the fact that some woman wrote a poem for Trig and posted it on the blog Team Sarah. Here is Mr. Stuef’s lovely response to the poem about Trig:

“Oh, little boy what are you dreaming about
A mother’s soft lullaby…the soft touch of her hand…the soft sound of her voice as she says “I Love You”
Dream on little boy as the Angels stand guard”

What’s he dreaming about? Nothing. He’s retarded.

And it only gets worse from there (Jenny Erickson has some of the awful comments that the readers of the column made here). Stuef has a video up where a comedian–other than Bill Maher–calls Sarah Palin the “C-word” (among other things), and Stuef even manages to take a cheap shot at Piper Palin. (But hey, we all know that Piper’s got it coming anyway just for being a Palin, right?)

Liberal blogger, Tommy Christopher of Mediate, hit it out of the park when he wrote the following with regard to this disgusting piece of filth:

Hey, that’s really funny, calling Trig a gentleman scholar because he has Down Syndrome. And the speculation that Todd Palin may have raped his daughter? Pure comedy gold. You know what will be even funnier? The first time Jack Stuef runs into Todd Palin. That one practically writes its own punchline.

Now, if drawing the ire of the Twitterverse–as well as conservative bloggers everywhere (and a few liberal bloggers)–wasn’t bad enough, Wonkette has wound up losing a total of nine advertisers thus far. So, the question is, why would Wonkette engage in such hateful and self-destructive behavior? Well, there are actually three reasons, and if you will bear with me, I will thoroughly explain them all to you.

1.) Many liberals’ favorite pastime seems to be hating Sarah Palin.

I have written a lot in the past about liberals’ love-affair with hating Sarah Palin. For instance, I’m sure that many of you are aware of the mainstream media’s immediate, hateful leap to blame Sarah Palin and the Tea Party for Jared Lee Loughner’s murder spree in Arizona back in January. The liberal MSM blamed her because she had a target map putting certain districts in the “crosshairs”….but wait, that fell apart because the Democrats had a similar target map for the 2010 elections. Then, it was because she used incendiary language like, “Don’t retreat, just reload”….but wait, liberals conveniently forgot that Barack Obama had said, “If they bring a knife, we bring a gun”. So, in a nutshell, liberals were reduced to arguing, “We hate Sarah Palin because she exists; therefore, she must have inspired some far-left, paranoid schizophrenic–who never even saw her target map–to commit mass murder.” Pathetic.

Now, liberals’ hatred of all things Sarah Palin has also included her family, as well as her uterus, for some time now. Last December, I wrote a piece titled, “Sarah Palin Makes Liberals Act Like Weirdos” where I documented how Bill Maher called Bristol Palin a “Hillbilly Heroine”, how Sandra Bernhard called Bristol Palin a “hooker”, how Kathy Griffin called Bristol Palin “fat” in front of a group of US soldiers (who promptly booed her), how screenwriter Aaron Sorkin compared Sarah Palin to Michael Vick for hunting a caribou, how Andrew Sullivan attacked sixteen year old Willow Palin for her Facebook postings, and finally, how Andrew Sullivan has gone on a two year long crusade to prove that Trig Palin is not really Sarah Palin’s son.

[Furthermore, last fall, Michael Gross wrote a gross column for Vanity Fair where he wrote about Sarah Palin's underwear, admitted to asking the local people of Alaska about Todd and Sarah Palin's sex life, and even interviewed/had dinner with Joe McGinniss....you know, the creep who moved in next door to the Palin family in order to better stalk them.]

So, the question is why have so many mainstream liberals turned hatred of all things Sarah Palin into a creepy spectator sport? Simple. First of all, because they can. (Who is going to call them on it–the MSM? Don’t make me laugh.) Second of all, because many liberals see conservative women (as well as conservative African-Americans) as traitors, or as “suffering from Stockholm Syndrome” (to quote Janeane Garofalo). I recently wrote a column where I explained how feminism is not really about standing up for women’s rights any more, but is currently more about political correctness, multiculturalism and making sure that women check all the right boxes with their belief system (pro-abortion–check, pro-multiculturalism–check)–and, Sarah Palin refuses to check any of the boxes that liberals want checked.

In fact, I’m not certain if liberals really hate Sarah Palin as much as they think they do, or if they just hate her for what she represents–a successful conservative female face of the Republican Party who is currently standing in Barack Obama’s way. (Robert Stacy McCain has an excellent column out today where he points out that liberals first hated Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic Primary, when she was the one standing in Obama’s way–now, they have transferred their hatred onto Sarah Palin.) I will even go so far as to predict that if another female conservative figure comes along–and Sarah Palin decides not to run for president–then you will see many liberals immediately transfer their Palin rage onto her. (To see evidence of this hatred transferal phenomenon, look no further than the fact that Jack Stuef–the class act who wrote that disgusting piece of filth about Trig Palin–also wrote another column yesterday attacking Michele Bachmann for having a lot of children and foster children.)

Now, onto the second reason why Wonkette self-destructed by publishing a grotesque hit piece on Trig Palin.

2.) Many on the Left live in an echo chamber where the MSM, Hollywood and academia perpetually reassure them that they are right (even when they are clearly wrong), and that their opponents are evil.

Many in the liberal MSM (like The New York Times, MSNBC, The Huffington Post, ect.), academia and Hollywood have created a narrative where they perpetually tell their readers, viewers and students that people who disagree with them are not simply wrong or misguided–but instead, are intrinsically evil, “racist, redneck teabaggers”. In other words, the MSM, academia and Hollywood have effectively “otherized” conservatives by making them seem, evil, racist and strange, and by implying to fellow liberals that, “Conservatives are not well-intentioned like us–they are bad people who want to see others hurt; therefore, it is OK to say whatever you want about them”. For example, see the following video below where Bill O’Reilly shreds many in the liberal MSM for implying that Sarah Palin and other conservatives caused the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, because they are for welfare reform and are against open borders (again, propagating the meme that, “If you disagree with us, you are not wrong, you are evil–and, even capable of inciting mass murder”).

Now, to see proof that Bill O’Reilly is right, one only has to look at members of the MSM calling patriotic Americans, who were private citizens exorcising their First Amendment rights, “teabaggers” (which is a vile sexual slur) night after night after night. Or, one can look at Bill Maher calling Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman the c-word repeatedly in his stand-up routine (Tommy Christopher is the only liberal that I’m aware of that has publicly called Maher out on his misogyny–no other liberal has called for “civility” from Maher)…or, Maher saying that the Founding Fathers would have “hated the Tea Party’s guts”. Or, one can look to the email sent out Monday morning by a University of Iowa professor (from her college email account) telling the College Republicans, “F*** you!”. And finally, one can just listen to a montage of hateful quotes from Ed Schultz of MSNBC “otherizing” Republicans as evil people who “want to see you dead” and “want another terrorist attack to happen”.

[Could any of you imagine the fallout if Bill O'Reilly said any of those things about Democrats? I rest my case.]

Now, onto the third reason why Wonkette self-destructed by allowing Jack Stuef to write a vile hit piece on Trig Palin and the Palin family.

3.) Because of points 1 and 2, liberals have developed some really bad habits when it comes to arguing and making their points.

I call this “the Pauline Kael effect”. Every liberal entertainer, professor and pundit that most liberals respect call Republicans “teabaggers” and “racists”, say horrific things about Sarah Palin, and even spread internet rumors about her son not being hers, or her husband sleeping with her daughter (and yes, Andrew Sullivan and Bill Maher are both mainstream liberal figures–they are not the fringe). Therefore, many of them don’t know anybody who thinks that this is unacceptable behavior, so they assume that “everyone is doing it” or would approve of it. So now, they think that anything goes for liberals expressing their point of view. Debating and trying to actually convince people that you are right is for wussies. If someone is disagreeing with you, shout them down. If you don’t like a politician, call them a four letter word and attack their family. If someone is arguing with you at a protest, then curse them out–and maybe even hit them in the head with a sign for good measure. Who is going to call you out on it–The New York Times? Please! They only write op-eds criticizing the Tea Party for waving flags at their protests (and they might even call minorities in the Tea Party “a minstrel show”). However, they will never write an op-ed criticizing the WI protesters, because….well, they agree with them. And as far as Sarah Palin goes, well, you can pretty much say anything that you want about her, because The New York Times thinks that she’s an accessory to murder for using the same kind of target maps that Democrats use, because….well, they don’t agree with her. (See how it works?)

Now, if you think that I’m exaggerating about the tactics that liberals routinely use while debating, then I ask you to look no further than the two videos below. The first one is of Ed Schultz of MSNBC shouting down a liberal caller for disagreeing with him about jobs going to China–Shultz starts off by telling the guy to “stick it up your’s”. (I’m not kidding.)

The second video is a montage of the WI protesters narrated by Mary Katherine Ham–and, it ends with my friend Tabitha Hale getting hit in the head with a sign. The video is called “The New M*therf***ing Tone” and it is hilarious (language warning for the video).

OK–could any of you imagine what would have happened if Bill O’Reilly had told a caller on his radio show to “stick it up your’s”, or if the Tea Party was caught on camera behaving like that at a protest?! The MSM would lead off the six o’clock news with either story and Katie Couric would be crying out for “civility” (which the MSM thinks only applies to conservatives), but I digress.

So, in conclusion, it seems that most everyone was kind of flabbergasted by the Wonkette hit piece on Trig Palin. However, I wasn’t. Don’t get me wrong–I was appalled by the piece, but I wasn’t flabbergasted. I mean, in fairness to Jack Stuef, he was just parroting what many mainstream liberal pundits from MSNBC and the Daily Kos–as well as what Andrew Sullivan and Bill Maher–have been saying for years. Stuef is just a young, immature, college-aged kid who said it in a more in-your-face and obnoxious way. However, if liberals had been policing their own for the last several years, instead of only calling for civility from conservatives for printing target maps and waving “Don’t Tread on Me” flags, then maybe Stuef and his generation would have learned how to actually debate people instead of just practicing hatred as a spectator sport. Maybe this Wonkette hit piece on Trig Palin will serve as a crystallizing moment for some liberals–they have, now, stepped outside of the echo chamber and might realize that regular Americans don’t much care for their tactics. Maybe now, the Left might actually grow up and start really practicing the “civility” that it preaches. I won’t hold my breath, but I will hope for the best.

Update: Wonkette has since deleted the offensive column about Trig Palin; however, Dana Loesch was prescient enough to take a screenshot of part of the column, as well as the distasteful graphic that was at the top of the column. Furthermore, Steven Crowder has just released an awesome take-down of the Wonkette abomination–his video has the images, as well as parts of the Louis CK video, from the original Jack Stuef column.

Update #2: Due to the tireless efforts of a group of people on Twitter who refer to themselves as #TrigsCrew, Wonkette has now lost almost thirty advertisers thus far.

Cross-posted from Parcbench, The Minority Report and Right Wing News.

Two days ago, Allahpundit picked up the story of gorgeous Pakistani actress, Veena Malik, courageously going off on an Egyptian Mullah who accused her of “immorality” because he didn’t approve of her appearance, or the fact that that she appeared on an Indian equivalent of the television show Big Brother. Jonah Goldberg was the first major blogger to report on this story, and it has been all over the right-wing blogosphere ever since. So, what makes this a possible seminal moment for feminism instead of just another viral video? Well…several things.

First of all, the liberal mainstream media has hardly been chomping at the bit to report any story regarding Islamic violence towards women. For example, when Time magazine featured a cover with a picture of a woman whose face had been disfigured by the Taliban, The New York Times called it “war porn” (see the image below).

Furthermore, when an Iranian woman was sentenced to be stoned to death last summer, and when a fourteen year old Bangladeshi girl was recently lashed to death for being raped by her cousin, you could pretty much hear crickets from the MSM because those were pesky, politically incorrect stories that didn’t fit their multicultural narrative. (Not to mention, you probably won’t hear that much about the woman who was recently raped by Gaddafi’s thugs in Libya either.)

Second of all, liberals seem to have an overwhelming tendency to downplay Islamic abuses towards women (as well as towards gays) under the guise of multiculturalism. Don’t believe me? Well, then I suggest that you read the column by liberal Boston Globe columnist Susan Jacoby where she asks the question, “Why are liberals excusing religious abuses on grounds of cultural relativism?” To be specific, Jocoby makes some great points when she writes the following:

The latest example of the Left’s blind spot on this issue is the antagonism of so many liberal reviewers toward Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s recent memoir, Nomad. The Somali-born Hirsi Ali immigrated to the United States in 2006 after her close friend, the Dutch film director Theo Van Gogh, was murdered by a radical Islamist. Hirsi Ali still needs bodyguards because of frequent death threats.

She was educated as a child in Muslim schools, subjected to genital mutilation, and broke with her family when she refused to consent to an arranged marriage. She first settled in Holland, where she worked as a Somali-Dutch interpreter, and her convictions about violence in many (though not, she emphasizes, all) Muslim families are rooted in her work with immigrants as well as her own upbringing. Yet Nicholas D. Kristof, reviewing Nomad for The New York Times Book Review, writes that “I couldn’t help thinking that perhaps Hirsi Ali’s family is dysfunctional simply because its members never learned to bite their tongues and just say to one another: ‘I love you.’”

I was startled by this patronizing comment, because I admire Kristof for being one of the few male columnists who writes frequently about violence against women. Somehow, “I love you” isn’t the first thing that would come to mind if I were being held down by female relatives while my clitoris was maimed or if my father told me I had to marry a stranger.

Moreover, Jacoby really finished off her column with a bang when she shared the following anecdote:

An 80-year-old friend of mine — a woman of forceful intellect who used to teach Renaissance history — now lives in a Florida retirement community where many of the part-time staff are teenaged children of recent Afghan immigrants. When my friend saw one of her favorite young Afghan-American women — a high school senior — weeping in the dining room, she asked what was wrong. “Oh, madam professor,” the girl replied, “my father has arranged for me to meet my future husband. He is 40 years old, and the wedding will take place in six months. I wanted so much to go to college, and this will not be permitted.

My friend replied gently, “You know, Yasmin, you don’t have to marry anyone in this country because your parents say so. There are organizations to help girls like you think these things through. There are college scholarships. I can give you the names of people to talk to.” Another resident of this community sharply reproved my friend, saying, “We have no right to interfere with her culture, her religion, her family,”

Wrong. This type of “interference” — telling a troubled young woman that she has choices other than an arranged marriage — is exactly what a true liberal ought to be doing. The idea that someone should ignore the tears of a 17-year-old who says she is being pushed to give up her education is utterly perverse.

Now, if you still aren’t satisfied, here is another example of liberal moral relativism with regard to radical Islam’s abuses towards women (as well as gays). Da Tech Guy wrote an excellent column titled, “You can tell a lot about a person by what they bold when quoting”. First, Da Tech guy demonstrated what liberal blogger, Matthew Yglesias, thought was important enough to put in bold type when he quoted Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s writings in her New York Times column about the Egyptian revolution:

I’ll tell you why: because Islam is the new fascism. Just like Nazism started with Hitler’s vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate – a society ruled by Sharia law – in which women who have sex before marriage are stoned to death, homosexuals are beaten, and apostates like me are killed. Sharia law is as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism. Young Muslims need to be persuaded that the vision of the Prophet Mohammed is a bad one, and you aren’t going to get that in Islamic faith schools.

Next, Da Tech re-pastes the exact same quote from the exact same column, but puts in bold type what he finds to be important in Ms. Ali’s column:

I’ll tell you why: because Islam is the new fascism. Just like Nazism started with Hitler’s vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate – a society ruled by Sharia law – in which women who have sex before marriage are stoned to death, homosexuals are beaten, and apostates like me are killed. Sharia law is as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism. Young Muslims need to be persuaded that the vision of the Prophet Mohammed is a bad one, and you aren’t going to get that in Islamic faith schools.

Nifty little trick ain’t it? Furthermore, it’s pretty telling that Mr. Yglesias found Ms. Ali’s supposed “intolerance” to be the most bothersome part of that passage, whereas the rest of us find the whole stoning of women and beating of gays to be the most troublesome part. (Oh, but best not to mention that politically incorrect line, because then you have just officially sinned on the liberal alter of multiculturalism.)

And finally, the ultimate examples of liberals downplaying the Islamic abuses of women are Naomi Wolf writing a column about how sexy the burka is, and Amanda Marcotte (she of “Godbag Christofascist” fame) writing that the traditional Western wedding is comparable in misogynist tradition to female genital mutilation. (I’m not kidding.)

Now, the third and final reason why Veena Malik’s smackdown of an Egyptian cleric is a seminal moment for feminism is because the liberal MSM tends not to air the voices of Muslim women who don’t parrot their talking points. For instance, during the Ground Zero Mosque brouhaha, moderate Mulsim, Neda Bolourchi (whose mother was killed in 9/11), wrote a column in The Washington Post titled, “Build Your Mosque Somewhere Else”–needless to say, she was never invited on any MSM outlets/talk-shows. Not to mention, the liberal MSM has hardly rolled out the welcome wagon for Ayaan Hirsi Ali either. Furthermore, when moderate Muslim, Raheel Raza, was speaking out against the Ground Zero Mosque and calling it “a slap in the face to all Americans”, only conservative talk show hosts, like Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, would have her on as a guest.

So, when a Muslim woman from a Muslim country feels free to, you know, actually speak her mind without the threat of stoning when attacked by a real misogynist for her appearance, does she talk about how awful the “Godbag Christofascists” are…or how much better FGM is to endure than a wedding ceremony…or how sexy the burka is…or how racist America is for not wanting the Ground Zero Mosque? Well, not exactly. When Veena Malik gets really fired up at around 3:00 into the embed below, she let’s loose about how people are “killing in the name of Islam”, how the politicians in Pakistan are “committing murder, bribery and theft”, and how clerics are “raping children in the mosques in Pakistan”. Then, Ms. Malik really handed that cleric his arse when she told him that “Pakistan is infamous for many reasons other than Veena Malik”. In other words, she looked like she had absolutely no interest in donning a burka, but a lot of interest in her country not being overrun by true misogyny, corruption and violence.

In conclusion, I think that David Frum hit it out of the park in his excellent column titled, “Feminists need to admit that Western men are not the enemy”, when he wrote the following:

A generation ago, feminists could romanticize non-Western misogyny from a safe distance. In 1984, the Australian feminist Germaine Greer published a book, Sex and Destiny, denouncing birth control as a Western plot against Third World women. But since the 1980s, a great movement of populations has erased the distinction between the First World and the Third. Europe now receives more immigrants than does the United States. European cities are now crowded with hijabs and burkas. European police investigate honour killings. European hospitals confront female genital mutilations.

And these things all happen in North America, too, albeit to a lesser degree.

On this 100th International Women’s Day, the challenge for feminists has become both imperative and anguishing: Will they argue forever against American television sitcoms of the 1950s — or are they morally and intellectually capable of recognizing the dangers to women’s aspirations in the 21st century? Can they transcend their inherited ideology, and recognize that the best and only guarantee of women’s equality is Western liberal democratic capitalism? Will they accept critics of Third World misogyny — such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji — into the pantheon of feminism along with Mary Wollstonecraft, Susan B. Anthony and Simone de Beauvoir? Can they perceive that the people who would destroy Israel hate women even more than they hate Jews?

In short, can they accept that the irony of history has reoriented feminism into a fundamentally conservative movement? Or will their inherited ideological prejudices entrap them forever in a vanished world — dooming feminism to obsolescence and subjecting the dwindling rights of women to the aggressions of “multiculturalism”?

In other words, those nasty “Godbag Christofascists” aren’t the ones trying to suppress the rights of women all over the world; however, radical and fundamentalist Muslim clerics, like the one yelling at Veena Malik, are. Someone needed to finally get angry and say–nay, shout–what everyone (except the liberal MSM) has known to be true for a long time.

Thank you Veena Malik for having the courage and forbearance–even in the face of death threats–to shout out the truth.

Cross-posted at Parcbench, The Minority Report, and Right Wing News.

As some of you are aware, earlier this week I published a post that was chockerblock full of pictures documenting my adventures at CPAC. Well, included in that post were pictures of myself with the hilarious Red Eye guys, the hysterical Stephen Kruiser (who is a frequent guest on Red Eye, as well as the host of the Kruiser Kabana), and the lovely blogger Sarah Rumpf. (See the pictures below.)

[Above is a picture with me and Greg Gutfeld, the host of the Fox show Red Eye.]

[Above is a picture of me with Stephen Kruiser (in a purple shirt to my immediate right), and Bill Schulz (to my left) and Andy Levy of Red Eye fame.]

[The above picture is of me and the beautiful Sarah Rumpf, who is the proprietor of the blog Sunshine State Sarah.]

This past week, Stephen was kind enough to pass along the two pictures that my husband took of me with the Red Eye guys–and some pictures of Sarah taken with the Red Eye guys–to the Red Eye producers. Well, on Friday night, multiple pictures of Sarah and me posing with the Red Eye cast appeared in a photo collage on Red Eye! (Go to approximately five minutes into the video embedded below to see multiple pictures of Sarah and me posing with the Red Eye cast members.)

As I previously stated in my prior post, always bring a camera with you everywhere you go at CPAC.

Oh, and thanks for letting me brag a bit. I can’t wait to see you all again next year!

PS–Robert Stacy McCain was kind enough to write a cool post about Sarah’s and my “brush with fame”.

PPS–Thanks so much to Brian Henchey, host of The New England Job Show (who is pictured in my earlier post), for alerting me–via Facebook–to the fact that my pictures were featured on Red Eye.

This column is cross-posted from Parcbench, and it is also posted at Right Wing News, The Minority Report and Hillbillypolitics.

[A big thank you to Richard Hornsby for the photo]

This past Wednesday through Saturday, The American Conservative Union sponsored the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. CPAC was open to all conservative activists who wanted to attend. This year, I had the honor of being a credentialed blogger for CPAC, and, thus, was able to sit in the bloggers’ lounge that was sponsored by Freedom Works. Tabitha Hale, the brains behind the bloggers’ row who put the whole thing together, really outdid herself. (All attendees should participate in a quiet “golf clap” for Tabitha.)

Folks, I had a blast this past week. Seriously, if any of you ever get the opportunity to attend CPAC, I highly suggest going. In fact, there are three very good reasons to attend CPAC next year (or any similar national conservative activist conference in the future). So, without much fanfare and ado, let’s get right to it.

1.) CPAC is a great place to hear some awesome political speeches, and meet many famous conservative political activists and politicians.

This year at CPAC, participants had the opportunity to listen to many famous pundits and politicians speak. Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry, Haley Barbour, Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, David Horowitz and Andrew Breitbart were some of the many famous speakers that were there. However, there were three speakers in particular that I, personally, thought brought down the house.

Herman Cain (who is a radio talk show host and the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza) gave a speech that greatly exceeded the expectations of many people in the political class. Ed Morrissey–who wrote that Cain “stole the show” on Friday afternoon–has done a good job of collecting many of the highlights of Cain’s speech (the embed is below):

Cain said that the American Dream is being attacked by what he calls “the -ations” — legislation, regulation, and taxation. He continued that Republicans need to repeal and replace health care reform, and also “throw out” the “messed up tax code” and replace it with a new system.

The “objective of the liberals is to destroy America,” he Cain continued, but “if you can get a liberal to engage in an intelligent in the first place, ask them to strip away labels.”

Like, for example, Cain said, when liberals call anyone who disagrees with Obama a “racist.”

“They call me racist too just because I disagree with a President who happens to be black,” he continued. He told the crowd: “You are not racists — you are patriots.”

However, my favorite part of Herman Cain’s speech came when he said the following at around 8:10-8:20:

“Stupid people are ruining America.”

My husband and I nearly fell off of our chairs laughing when we heard that.

Then, on Saturday afternoon, Ann Coulter gave an excellent speech that had many good moments in it (particularly, from 4:40-5:15, 5:40-6:30, 7:40-8:20 and 12:50-13:45). (Oh, and Welcome to the Jungle by Guns and Roses was a cool choice for an entrance song).

However, Coulter was absolutely on fire during the Q&A that followed her speech (Q&A is her forte’). I would say that the best moment of her Q&A session with the crowd was when someone asked her, “Who is your least favorite Democrat?” (at 10:48-11:30 in the embed below), because Coulter responded by giving the following answer:

“That’s like asking me my least favorite disease. I can’t do my least favorite, I’m sorry”.

Then, she quickly quipped, “Cancer”. Again, my husband and I almost fell over laughing.

Now, immediately following Ann Coulter came Representative Allen West, the keynote speaker of CPAC. Before starting his speech, though, Congressman West was kind enough to visit the bloggers’ lounge and take questions from the bloggers there.

Oh, and Colonel West was gracious enough to take a picture with me as well.

[Thanks again to Richard Hornsby for the picture.]

And finally, Congressman West gave an incredible stem-winder that finished up CPAC with a bang. He was introduced below by Sargent Jason Auburn who guards the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. As Congressman West walked onto the stage, you could hear Right Now by Van Halen playing. All I have to say is Dammit, you know that you’re at CPAC when you see a colonel–introduced by sergeant who guards the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier–walk on the stage while Van Halen is playing. (None of that wussified“Yes We Can” foolishness over here. And yes, wussified is indeed a word–look it up.)

Now, onto the second reason why CPAC is a must for any aspiring conservative activist.

2.) CPAC is a great place to meet people and network, network, network.

First of all, I obviously can’t stress the whole networking part enough. It is one thing to converse with your fellow bloggers/activists online or via email–it is a whole ‘nother ball of wax to meet them face to face. When you meet someone in person, you can get a much better feel for who they really are by their body language or facial expressions–which are things that cannot possibly be conveyed by simply communicating with someone online. Furthermore, if you form a personal bond with someone at a conference like CPAC–even if you only talk to the person for, say, fifteen minutes–given the choice, they are much more likely to link to, or pimp, your stuff than someone that they think is a total douche (no matter how good of a writer the douche in question might be). (Hey, I don’t make the rules–those are just the facts. You have to accept the world how it is, not how you want it to be.)

Moreover, at CPAC, I had the unique privilege of meeting some of the most iconic bloggers/writers online. It was a phenomenal experience. I mean, it is so totally cool to actually meet people that you’ve been reading or conversing with for years online. (See the photos below that my husband took in and around the bloggers’ lounge).

The above picture is of Daily Caller reporter, and CNN contributor Matt Lewis on my left and Garrett Quinn of The Boston Globe (or Boston.com) on my right. Both of these gentlemen are extremely knowledgeable about politics, and Matt Lewis told me interesting stories about his experiences covering the NH primary. I highly suggest picking their brains if you ever get the chance.

Above is a photo of me and Caleb Howe, a man who needs no introduction. He is the assistant editor of Redstate.com, and is a legend in the blogging community. The dude is just too cool for color TV, and he makes any party that he attends teh awesome.

Above is a picture of me with the totally cool editor of the highly influential Right Wing News, John Hawkins (where I am also a contributor).

Above is a photo of me and my husband (Chris Fleetwood) that was taken right after Herman Cain spoke on Friday afternoon.

Above is a picture of myself with the awesome, iconic Ed Morrissey of Hot Air. He is the driving force behind what becomes newsworthy in the conservative blogosphere. A link by him is huge–nay, monumental. Enough said.

Above is a picture of myself with Fingers Malloy of FTR Radio and Parcbench (where I am also a contributor). Fingers is an intimidating looking guy, but don’t let the mohawk fool you–he’s a real sweetheart.

Above is a picture of Jeff Dunetz who is the proprietor of Yid With The Lid. Jeff is a great blogger who blogs at all of the “Big” sites.

Above is a picture of Doug Welch, otherwise known as the popular blogger Stix 1972. (Doug also blogs with me over at The Minority Report, and can fix any technical issues that you might have.)

The above photo is of lovely Adrienne Royer (proprietor of the awesome blog Cosmopolitan Conservative) on my left and talented writer Warner Todd Houston on my right.

Above is a picture of me with the great Jimmie Bise Jr–who is the proprietor of The Sundries Shack, and who also blogs with me in The Green Room.

Above is a picture of Oregon Tea Party head (and former congressional candidate) John Kuzmanich on my right, and a blogger from Red County named Jeff Reynolds on my left.

Above is a picture of me with two adorable, talented, young bloggers who make me feel old–Amy Miller of Pundit League and Alex Knepper.

Above is a photo of me with the adorable Tabitha Hale who was the brains and the force behind the bloggers’ lounge at CPAC (and who is also a contributor to Redstate.com). Again, she deserves a round of applause for her outstanding organizational abilities.

The above picture is of me and Nice Deb who owns the excellent blog Nice Deb. My husband and I had dinner with her and John Hawkins later in the evening, and she was very….well, nice. She just exudes this whole Midwestern class/politeness from every pore. Her blog is quite aptly named.

And, here is another photo of my buddy, the awesomely, awesome John Hawkins (with a myriad of boggers scurrying around in the background).

And finally, here he is ladies and gentlemen. The man, the myth, the legend who made the fedora cool–it’s the one and only Robert Stacy McCain (with me) in the above picture. This guy is only the coolest cat in the conservative blogosphere. Getting linked on his blog means that you’ve finally arrived. Enough said.

Oh, and I almost forgot to give you all one final piece of advice before we move on to point number three. ALWAYS BRING A CAMERA EVERYWHERE YOU GO AT CPAC. Why? Because you never know who you are going to run into there. For instance, when I went downstairs to get a sandwich I ran into Johnathan Martin of Politico. He was an extremely nice guy and we talked for a good ten minutes, but I had forgotten my camera upstairs. I never made that mistake again. So the next day, when we went to McDonald’s, I took my camera with me and look who I ran into:

Yes Ladies and Gentlemen, that would be Alfonzo Rachel of PJTV who is famous for his “ZoBama” impersonations–and, who was personally attacked by Charles Blow for being part of a “minstrel show” (because liberals are all “tolerant” and stuff).

And then, when we returned to the hotel lobby, I ran into Jim Hoft–otherwise known as Gateway Pundit. He is pretty famous in blogging world and was mentioned by William Kristol on Fox News Sunday for breaking open the Van Jones story. (Oh, and he’s a very nice guy as well.)

Now, onto the third reason why CPAC is the bomb for all budding conservative activists.

3.) You get to party like a rockstar in the Kruiser Cabana with the Red Eye guys and various other conservative celebrities.

During every major conservative convention, like BlogCon or CPAC, Stephen Kruiser of PJTV is kind enough to host awesome parties in his room–or, turn his room into the “Kruiser Cabana”. Stephen is just a stitch (as we say down south). And, besides working for PJTV, he is also a stand up comic and is a frequent guest on Fox’s Red Eye. Therefore, Kruiser tends to get a lot of high profile guests to come to his parties (like, for instance, the guys from Red Eye). In fact, the Kruiser Cabana was so kickin’ this year, that Stephen Kruiser was named CPAC’s Miss Congeniality.

[Below are some pictures that we took in the Kruiser Cabana, as well as at other CPAC hot spots.]

Above is a picture of me with Stephen Kruiser (in a purple shirt to my immediate right), and Bill Schulz (to my left) and Andy Levy of Red Eye fame.

.

Above is a picture of Red Eye host Greg Gutfeld and me. How cool is that? (Gee, I sound like highschooler.)

Oh, and here is a little bipartisan love for everyone. On my right is conservative writer Philip Klein of American Spectator and Politico, and on my left is liberal writer Tommy Christopher of Mediate. (They both know a lot about politics and are awesome to hang out with, by the way.)

Above is a picture of the lovely Pamela Geller who became quite famous when she discussed her opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque on 60 Minutes.

And, above is a picture myself with the lovely Kristina Ribali and the lovely Pamela Geller. Did I mention that they were lovely?

Above is a picture of Stephen Kruiser and my husband. I think that they are both cuties, but I’m probably a little biased. (I’m married to one, and I had a blast at the other one’s parties.)

And, above is a picture of the awesome Ben Howe of Redstate.com (brother of Caleb Howe–awesomeness runs in their family) standing next to my adorable hubby.

Now, that handsome man in the tri-corner hat above is frequent Fox News Business panelist Paul Erickson. He threw a killer party earlier that evening. (Yes, there is life outside the Kruiser Cabana at CPAC. But hey, Stephen, you’re still Miss Congeniality and no one can take that away from you.)

And, above is my good friend Amy Miller posing with me at Mr. Erickson’s party. (She’s so cute isn’t she?)

Above is the always awesome Robert Stacy McCain and the very gracious Paul Erickson. (Hmmm….I don’t know what I like better, the fedora or the tri-corner hat.)

Pictured above is me with the always adorable Alexa Moutevalis and the always awesome Caleb Howe. (Remember, awesomeness runs in the Howe family.)

The above picture is of myself with Steve Eggleston (proprietor of the great blog No Runny Eggs) and the always awesome Ben Howe.

The five cute guys in the above photo are as follows (from left to right): Kevin Eder (who runs the Facebook and Twitter pages for the Media Research Center and Newsbusters), Stephen Gutowski of Human Events and Eyeblast TV, Fingers Malloy, Chris Fleetwood and Steve Eggleston.

And, here we have the iconic Robert Stacy McCain on my right and John Howting on my left, who is president of Miami Universities ISI Chapter. (Man, those college Republicans are just so darn cute, aren’t they?)

Oh, and here is another picture of the beautiful Kristina Ribali. I’m sure all of you gentlemen reading this just hate seeing her again.

Above is a shot of me talking to Da Tech Guy, who is one of my all time favorite bloggers–and favorite people–in the conservative blogosphere. (Oh, and check out his cool fedora!)

Above is a photo of me talking to the always charming Christopher Renner. (Hmmm….what’s better, the fedora, the tri-corner hat, or the cowboy hat? Decisions, decisions.)

The above picture is of me and the lovely Sarah Rumpf, who is the proprietor of the blog Sunshine State Sarah. This was my first time meeting Sarah, but she struck me as a, well….very sunny person–not to mention, she was a heck of a lot of fun to hang out with.

In the above picture (starting from left to right), you’ve got the adorable Jenny Erickson whispering to the uber-cool and super hilarious Larry O’Connor from Breitbart TV. And next to them, is Dr. Gina Loudon (in the grey) whispering to Meredith Dake, Mr. O’Connor’s very pretty producer.

And, in this picture, I am posing with the lovely Dr. Gina Loudon on my right (yes, that Dr. Gina Loudon who smacked down sleazy VF columnist Michael Gross), and the lovely and talented Jenny Erickson on my left.

Above is a photo of John Hawkins and Nice Deb at a killer Thai restaurant called The Thai Kitchen (they have great red chicken curry). John, Deb, my husband and I ventured over there after CPAC on Saturday night prior to heading over to the Kruiser Cabana.

The above picture is of me and charming, polite Glen Asbury, who is the proprietor of the popular blog Ramblings.

Above is a picture of a gentlemen by the name of Brian Henchey who is the host of The New England Job Show. I just met Brian late that evening in the Kruiser Cabana when I blurted out to him that he “had great hair”, and then asked to take a picture with him. He laughed, thanked me for the compliment, and then politely complied with my request. However, Brian turned out to be a great conversationalist and an all around funny dude; therefore, I really hope to see him again at CPAC next year.

And finally, rounding out my collection of party pics is this final parting shot of me and Stephen Kruiser. (Oh, how I will miss the Kruiser Cabana). One more thing. That button on my hat says, “Dale Peterson for President”.

So, in conclusion, I think that I’ve concisely summed up why CPAC is a must for any and every aspiring conservative activist–not to mention, why it’s truly a “can’t miss” event if you want to meet the who’s who of the conservative blogging/activist world.

However, I just have one more thing to add before I leave you all. I think that next year’s theme song for CPAC’s keynote speaker should be Dreams by Van Halen, because it’s got a very patriotic video that mainly consists of incredible footage of The Blue Angels flying and performing stunts. Since we had one Van Halen song this year, why not have another one next year?

And on that note, I say that I truly can’t wait to see you all again next year!

PS–I took those hats home with me that I was wearing in those photos. (You can clearly see them poking out of my tote-bags in the above picture taken outside of Reagan International Airport on Sunday afternoon.)

PPS–I see you over there doing air guitar at your computer.

This column is cross-posted from Parcbench, and it is also posted at The Minority Report, Right Wing News and Hillbillypolitics.

This past week, Time magazine wrote an extremely dishonest column comparing Barack Obama to Ronald Reagan. In fact, Michael Sherer, one of the column’s co-authors, claimed on Hardball that Obama has always seen Reagan as a model, even though Sherer admitted in his column that “Reagan would come to epitomize all that Obama opposed”. That is the understatement of the millennium. Allow me to put it like this–Ronald Reagan strongly believed in American exceptionalism, and he would rather have shaved his head with a cheese grater than gone on an Apologolooza/America Sucks world tour or bow to the king of Saudi Arabia. (Maybe Time magazine is confusing President Ronald Reagan with Ron Reagan Jr.)

But enough talking. The video below, made by Citizens United, perfectly demonstrates the real contrasts between the two men better than a hundred more words of blogging ever could.

What this pathetically disingenuous comparison between these two men shows, is just how desperate the liberal mainstream media is to prop up Barack Obama’s presidency. For instance, Time magazine has already compared Obama to FDR on one of their previous covers; then they discovered that the American people don’t really want a “New Deal” style big government after all. So now, the MSM has scratched the whole FDR thingy and is plowing full steam ahead with the ridiculous Reagan/Obama comparisons. If in a few months, when Time realizes that Americans aren’t buying the “Obama is Reagan reincarnated” meme, we can possibly expect more magazine covers comparing Obama to, maybe, JFK or Bill Clinton. (Obama has already had Bill Clinton do one of his press conferences for him, so an Obama/Clinton magazine cover is entirely plausible.) But, I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for an Obama/Carter magazine cover.

However, one thing is for certain–the MSM and the president’s spinmeisters want the American people to associate Barack Obama with anyone not associated with his failing presidency (or Jimmy Carter).

This post is cross-posted from The Minority Report, and it is also posted at Right Wing News and Hillbillypolitics.

Tuesday night, President Obama gave his State of the Union Address. Then afterward, Republican Congressman Paul Ryan gave the official GOP response to the president’s SOTU address, and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann gave the unofficial Tea Party response. Most in the political world expected fireworks from Ms. Bachmann’s response, but, in the end, her speech proved to be highly unprovocative. In fact, many Republican pundits, like Redstate’s Erick Erickson, wrote that they were pleasantly surprised at how well Congresswoman Bachmann came across. As Da Tech Guy pointed out, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, there was “not a single word of snark from the panel” when the topic of her speech came up. However, perpetual GOP critic, Meghan McCain, found a way to say something, not just critical of Ms. Bachmann’s speech, but over-the-top and mean-spirited as well. To be specific, Ms. McCain said the following to Laurence O’Donnell when he inquired as to whether Michele Bachmann giving the Tea Party response to the SOTU was “your worst dream come true” :

“Michele Bachmann is not the leader of the Republican Party. Michele Bachmann is a poor man’s Sarah Palin, and I think the fact that MSNBC and Fox elected not to run this is admirable to the kind of journalism that Fox and MSNBC is airing, and I think that CNN should be ashamed of themselves for airing this. This is one rogue woman who couldn’t even look into the camera directly.”

Oh, where to begin, where to begin. I guess I’ll start off with question number one.

1.) Why should CNN be “ashamed of themselves” for running Congresswoman Bachmann’s speech?

As Allahpundit pointed out, “Bachmann did a good job in both emphasizing her role as a spokesperson for Tea Party Express rather than the GOP and sticking with economic and fiscal issues”, so she clearly wasn’t some “rogue woman”. And yes, her not looking directly into the camera was slightly distracting, but it wasn’t disgraceful. In fact, I have embedded the dreaded Bachmann speech below.

Oh, my eyes, my eyes–it burns, it stings!! The inhumanity of it all! I can’t believe that I just watched that hateful woman talk about job numbers, debt ceilings and unemployment for six minutes! I mean all of that talk about spending and inflation and other “hateful” stuff that John McCain’s always talking about and Zzzzzz….Oh, I’m sorry, I’m awake now.

Yeah, you see, the reason why most networks didn’t carry Congresswoman Bachmann’s speech is not because it was hateful (as Meghan McCain implies by stating that “CNN should be ashamed of themselves”), but because it was boring–as most of these SOTU replies are. However, if CNN’s viewers find Ms. Bachmann’s speech to be interesting for some reason, then it is CNN’s right as a private company to put it on the air. CNN should not be forced to make its business decisions based around who Ms. McCain personally likes or dislikes. Hey Meghan, censorship much?

2.) Ms. McCain, do you want to be a political pundit or a Valley Girl?

During the first few minutes of her interview with Laurence O’Donnell (see the embed above), Meghan McCain said the following when Mr. O’Donnell asked her if she “enjoyed prom night”:

“Um, I enjoyed following on Twitter all what the congressmen and pundits were saying and there were a lot of jokes about prom night that I enjoyed and I think it was good…um, it was definitely a very metaphorical thing to do.”

Really?! That’s your actual response when asked–as a political pundit–to give your opinion about the SOTU address? “A metaphorical thing to do”? I don’t even know what that means. Oh, and could we please have some more “ums”, name-calling (like “poor man’s Sarah Palin” or “H8er”), and over-the-top rhetoric (like “CNN should be ashamed of themselves”) because all of that really makes you sound so professional. Seriously Meghan, if you sound like the actress from the 1983 movie Valley Girl when giving a political opinion, then it’s time to step it up a notch.

I imagine that if the character from Valley Girl was asked by Laurence O’Donnell to give her opinion on the STOU Address, she would probably sound something like this:

“Oh. My. God. I just loved the whole prom night theme from the SOTU–it was like totally awesome. Um, I mean, I like couldn’t shut up about it on Twitter. Date night totally rocks!! It was just so metaphorical and stuff. But then that H8er Michele Bachmann had to come on and just ruin it for me. Like gag me with a spoon. Um, she like totally sucks! She is such a loser and is just a poor man’s Sarah Palin. CNN should totally be ashamed of themselves for putting her on the air and ruining prom night for me!“

And yes Ms. McCain–even though it is a bit of an exaggeration–that mental image is what people are reminded of when you start to talk. It might sound catty, but if you are going to give an outrageous opinion–like say, stating that a network should censor a politician’s speech simply because you don’t like that person–then it would help if you didn’t sound like a walking, dated parody yourself. (That movie was made in 1983.) In other words, if you want people to start taking you seriously, then start taking yourself seriously and drop the Valley Girl routine.

3.) What in the heck does the Tuscon shooting have to do with Michele Bachmann’s SOTU rebuttal?

In the beginning of Meghan McCain’s interview with Mr. O’Donnell, he immediately started off with the discredited meme that “heated political rhetoric” somehow played a part in the Arizona shootings. Well, when Ms. McCain had the chance to respond and set him straight, she instead gave the following reply:

“Although I do think that it’s a wake-up call for what’s going on in the country, I don’t think that the shootings were necessarily politically motivated.”

Again, really??!!! “Weren’t necessarily politically motivated”? So, in other words, they might be politically motivated, but you’re really not sure, huh?

Then, to make matters worse, Ms. McCain goes off on a tangent and plays useful idiot to Laurence O’Donnell by agreeing with him that having Michele Bachmann speak is her “worst nightmare”, because of Bachmann’s supposedly “hateful rhetoric”.

[What pray tell was hateful about her speech? Bachmann was talking about spending and deficits--basically, the exact same thing that your father has talked about his entire political career. Does your father engage in "hateful rhetoric"?]

However, what is particularly galling about Ms. McCain’s willingness to play useful idiot to Mr. O’Donnell, is that MSNBC was ground zero for hateful rhetoric for pretty much the entire week after the AZ shootings by perpetually insinuating that Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and the Tea Party were somehow responsible for the shooter’s rampage (and they failed to mention that the killer was an undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenic). I think that David Brooks (of all people) said it best when he wrote the following:

“All of this evidence, which is easily accessible on the Internet, points to the possibility that Loughner may be suffering from a mental illness like schizophrenia.

In short, the evidence before us suggests that Loughner was locked in a world far removed from politics as we normally understand it.

Yet the early coverage and commentary of the Tucson massacre suppressed this evidence. The coverage and commentary shifted to an entirely different explanation: Loughner unleashed his rampage because he was incited by the violent rhetoric of the Tea Party, the anti-immigrant movement and Sarah Palin.

Mainstream news organizations linked the attack to an offensive target map issued by Sarah Palin’s political action committee. The Huffington Post erupted, with former Senator Gary Hart flatly stating that the killings were the result of angry political rhetoric. Keith Olbermann demanded a Palin repudiation and the founder of the Daily Kos wrote on Twitter: “Mission Accomplished, Sarah Palin.” Others argued that the killing was fostered by a political climate of hate.

These accusations — that political actors contributed to the murder of 6 people, including a 9-year-old girl — are extremely grave. They were made despite the fact that there was, and is, no evidence that Loughner was part of these movements or a consumer of their literature. They were made despite the fact that the link between political rhetoric and actual violence is extremely murky. They were vicious charges made by people who claimed to be criticizing viciousness.”

So, isn’t it a bit ironic that you, Ms. McCain, and Mr. O’Donnell were calling out Michelle Bachman for engaging in imaginary vicious, heated rhetoric, when it was you guys who were actually being the vicious ones by falsely accusing her (her speech was standard wonky stuff), and implying that her past rhetoric had something to do with the shooting. (Yes, you guys were clearly doing that by mentioning her speech right after you talked about “heated rhetoric” with regard to the AZ massacre.)

4.) Ms. McCain, what “hateful rhetoric” is specifically over the line for you?

For instance, it’s now a well-known fact that MSNBC was part of the MSM cabal that falsely implied that Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, the Tea Party and conservatives in general were accessories to mass murder. Moreover, as Robert Stacy McCain recently pointed out, Chris Matthews went on a sexist rant a couple of nights ago calling Michele Bachmann a “balloonhead”, and referred to her as “that woman” five or six different times. Of course, sexist rants are nothing new to Chris Matthews. John Guardiano gallantly called out Matthews, in a recent column, for his disgraceful bullying and abuse of Sarah Palin on Harball. Not to mention, liberal columnist Amy Siskind wrote a column for The Daily Caller where she asked the question, “Why does MSNBC tolerate Chris Matthews’ misogyny?” (Siskind even pointed out the fact that Chris Matthews has a long history of making sexist comments towards Hilary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann–and pretty much every major female political player.) Oh, and speaking of MSNBC and misogyny, who could forget Keith Olbermann stating that “someone should take Hillary Clinton into a room and only he comes out”?

And finally, Ms. McCain, your pal Lawrence O’Donnell is a well-known anti-Mormon bigot who went on a long tirade a couple of years ago trashing Mitt Romney for his faith (see the embed below).

So now, my question to you Ms. McCain is exactly what is your definition of “hateful rhetoric”? Because, right now, it’s starting to look like you would give the following answer to my question:

“Um, like I don’t really mind the misogyny at MSNBC so much, because those guys are cool and hip unlike that stick in the mud Bill O’Reilly, so they’re just blowing off steam. They don’t really mean it when they call Michele Bachmann a “Balloonhead” (which she is), or say that people should kill Hillary Clinton. Furthermore, Sarah Palin like totally ruined my book tour, so she and her family kind of have it coming in my opinion. Umm…and, as far as Larry O goes, well, he’s my buddy–and besides, Mormons are weird and creepy anyway. Oh, and everyone knows that those teabaggers are all a bunch of H8ers and racists, so I don’t really care what people say about them–mocking them is kind of like a metaphorical thing to do because they are just so gross. But dammit–I draw the line when it comes to giving speeches about the debt ceiling and spending, because that will just like totally rile up all of those H8ers and teabaggers. Gag.”

So, in conclusion, Meghan McCain seems to think the reason that she rubs conservatives the wrong way is because we’re all a bunch of haters and bigots who want to automatically exclude her because of some of her more liberal sensibilities. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. I am not a big social conservative and I feel right at home in the Republican Party. The Republican Party is indeed a big tent party–we have social conservatives, libertarians, fiscal conservatives and defense hawks all happily co-existing under the same roof together. Meghan McCain’s problem is that she demands tolerance for her views, but shows none in return towards her fellow conservatives. My friend and colleague Amy Miller hit it out of the park when she wrote the following dissecting Ms. McCain’s writings:

“There is a place for the far right in this party, Malkin included, and I respect their right to be heard. But the Republican Party will continue to lose elections unless we start reaching out in a more effective way to people my age and to moderates. Barack Obama won the last election on the slogan “Yes We Can,” and there is no reason why Republicans can’t go forth and win elections with equally positive messages. We will not get anywhere by continuing to sell hate and fear…The old conservatives of the past need to start accepting that this is a new era and I am a part of a new generation. I am as sick of the infighting as everyone else, but I would like to point out that I am not the one starting this fight or demanding that the other half of the party leave.

Uh huh. There’s a place for me, a member of the “far right” crazy mob, but we should probably shut up so we don’t offend the sensibilities of those members of the party with questionable morals and an overwhelming desire to please everyone. Got that, everyone? Moe? Erick? EPU? STOP OFFENDING PEOPLE! It’s your fault we’re losing elections. Wake up, think young, and get serious. We, the youth of the world, have our iPods, our motorcycles, and our tattoos, and we’re taking over. And we’re going to be POSITIVE about it, because God knows all of your hateful fear mongering over the years has completely destroyed any chance the Republicans have of kissing the butts of people who live to destroy conservatives. UGH. Now my buzz is totally harshed. Thanks a lot.”

In other words, Meghan McCain has no problem going on television shows that routinely trash conservatives and playing useful idiot by joining in the fun. However, she wants you to be totally cool with her calling you an ignorant racist/hater on MSNBC, all the while, sounding like an ignoramus herself. What this behavior demonstrates is that Ms. McCain has no real interest in helping out the conservative movement–she is just in it for herself and to raise her own profile. Furthermore, someone needs to explain to Meghan McCain that one sounds disingenuous when her mantra is, “Everyone should be tolerant and listen to what I have to say, but shut your mouth you stupid teabagger because you should be ashamed of yourself for even wanting to give a speech. The First Amendment only applies to enlightened people like me–not to H8ers like you.” Tolerance is a two-way street. It’s high time that Meghan McCain realizes this simple fact.

This column was originally posted at Parcbench, and it is also posted at Right Wing News, The Minority Report and Hillbillypolitics.

[H/T Toby Toons for the image.]

This past week in the wake of the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords by Jared Lee Loughner (that killed six people and wounded nine others–including the congresswoman), the mainstream/liberal media instantly pounced on “the violent rhetoric” by Sarah Palin and the Tea Party as the cause of Loughner’s mad shooting spree. Oh, and they did this within half an hour of the victims being shot, before any of the facts of the case had come in. To be specific, the likes of Andrew Sullivan (he of “Trig Truther” fame), Markos Moulitsas, Matthew Yeglesias, Paul Krugman, The New York Times Editorial Board and just about everyone at MSNBC immediately implied that “right-wing rhetoric”, and specifically Sarah Palin, were accessories to this tragedy. In fact, Markos Moulitsas even went so far as to tweet out “Mission Accomplished Sarah Palin” immediately after the shooting, and blamed her based an obscure map that she had put out almost year ago on her Facebook page “targeting” certain districts for the 2010 election. To quote Alex Knepper, according to liberals, “Guns don’t kill people, Sarah Palin’s metaphors do”. (See an image of her Facebook map below.)

Except that it didn’t take conservative bloggers long to learn that the Democrats had put up a similar “target” map in 2009 (before Palin did) stating which Republicans they wanted to “target” for opposing the now infamous stimulus bill.

Furthermore, as Patterico points out Markos Moulitsas, himself, put a bulls-eye on Gifford’s district (because she’s a moderate Democrat).

Then, Michelle Malkin responded by cataloging all of the shockingly hateful and violent rhetoric towards Sarah Palin and John McCain courtesy of the Left–not to mention, she unearthed a plethora of leftist assassination fantasies about President Bush. (H/T Karl–be sure to read his excellent column.)

And finally, Bill O’Reilly swung into action by promptly calling out the left-wing charlatans participating in this hateful farce. Moreover, O’Reilly pointed out how Democrats have no problem using gun metaphors–and how Joe Manchin even shot the stimulus bill in an ad–and, that MSNBC is actually ground zero for hateful rhetoric. (Hat tip to Allahpundit for the video.)

["Oopsy daisies. Quick, quick--backtrack in the other direction! Let's now just denounce all heated rhetoric and free political speech."]

So now it’s official–court is in session and the verdict is in. According to public opinion polls, the MSM has “botched the coverage” of the Tuscon shooting by immediately and ignorantly blaming “right-wing rhetoric”. However, what’s even further evidence that the MSM has disgraced themselves with their coverage of the Arizona shooting, is that many liberal pundits are now calling out the MSM/liberal media for it’s repugnant coverage–not to mention, in his speech, President Obama wisely cautioned people against blaming “incivility” for the tragedy.

For instance, Jon Stewart, Jack Shafer of Slate, and T.A. Frank of The New Republic all blasted the liberal MSM meme of blaming “conservative rhetoric” for causing the Tuscon tragedy (T.A. Frank wrote that the MSM “botched the coverage”). Furthermore, Kirsten Powers came out with a column in The Daily Beast where she wrote that President Obama didn’t go far enough in his speech to “shut down the nonsense about how Sarah Palin or right-wing talkers caused the shooting.” Moreover, Democratic strategist Pat Caddell referred to Paul Krugman as….well, let’s just say a “sphincter” for writing that God-awful column where he blamed conservatives for the Tuscon murders (the column that O’Reilly easily debunked above). To be specific, Caddell said the following:

“People are dead, and the first thing they have to do is go to politics. No wonder the country hates the media.”

And finally, yesterday, Charles Blow (yeah, the guy that called minorities in theTea Party “a minstrel show”), wrote a column where he accused the Left of participating in “a witch hunt” after the Tuscon shooting spree.

So, now the question becomes, not, “Did the media botch the Arizona shooting?” (the obvious answer to that question is, “Yes”)–but rather, “Why did the media botch the coverage of the AZ shooting”? Well, after giving it much thought, I have come up with four reasons why the liberal MSM disgraced themselves so badly with regard to the AZ massacre.

1.) Many liberals are elitists and automatically assume that they are the smartest people in the room, so, therefore, they can get caught mindlessly flapping their gums on a subject about which they know very little.

I know nothing about ichthyology or rocket science, so therefore, I would never go on national television and try to sell myself as an expert on ichthyology or rocket science. However, this past week, there were a plethora of liberals on TV speaking about mental illness as if they were psychiatrists (stating that “angry rhetoric set off the killer”). Well, Charles Krauthammer (who is a Harvard trained psychiatrist) explained Jared Lee Loughner’s state of mind best when he wrote the following in a recent column:

“The charge: The Tucson massacre is a consequence of the “climate of hate” created by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Obamacare opponents and sundry other liberal betes noires.

The verdict: Rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous and so unsupported by evidence.

As killers go, Jared Loughner is not reticent. Yet among all his writings, postings, videos and other ravings – and in all the testimony from all the people who knew him – there is not a single reference to any of these supposed accessories to murder.

Not only is there no evidence that Loughner was impelled to violence by any of those upon whom Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, the New York Times, the Tucson sheriff and other rabid partisans are fixated. There is no evidence that he was responding to anything, political or otherwise, outside of his own head.

A climate of hate? This man lived within his very own private climate. “His thoughts were unrelated to anything in our world,” said the teacher of Loughner’s philosophy class at Pima Community College. “He was very disconnected from reality,” said classmate Lydian Ali. “You know how it is when you talk to someone who’s mentally ill and they’re just not there?” said neighbor Jason Johnson. “It was like he was in his own world.”

His ravings, said one high school classmate, were interspersed with “unnerving, long stupors of silence” during which he would “stare fixedly at his buddies,” reported the Wall Street Journal. His own writings are confused, incoherent, punctuated with private numerology and inscrutable taxonomy. He warns of government brainwashing and thought control through “grammar.” He was obsessed with “conscious dreaming,” a fairly good synonym for hallucinations.

This is not political behavior. These are the signs of a clinical thought disorder – ideas disconnected from each other, incoherent, delusional, detached from reality.

These are all the hallmarks of a paranoid schizophrenic. And a dangerous one. A classmate found him so terrifyingly mentally disturbed that, she e-mailed friends and family, she expected to find his picture on TV after his perpetrating a mass murder. This was no idle speculation: In class “I sit by the door with my purse handy” so that she could get out fast when the shooting began.

Furthermore, the available evidence dates Loughner’s fixation on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to at least 2007, when he attended a town hall of hers and felt slighted by her response. In 2007, no one had heard of Sarah Palin. Glenn Beck was still toiling on Headline News. There was no Tea Party or health-care reform. The only climate of hate was the pervasive post-Iraq campaign of vilification of George W. Bush, nicely captured by a New Republic editor who had begun an article thus: “I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it.”

Now, if any of you still have any doubts as to Mr. Loughner’s state of mind, then look no further than the video below where Loughner rambles in a disconnected stream of consciousness about “the torture of students”, “illegal wars”, “mind control by using currency”, “losing his freedom of speech”, his school being a “genocide school”, how “they control the grammar” at the school bookstore….well, you get the picture. The saddest part of the video is halfway through where Mr. Loughner utters the phrase, “I’m in a terrible place”. I have no doubt in my mind that he was/is. (H/T to The Other McCain for the video.)

On a personal note, in my third year of medical school, I did a psychiatry rotation. Now, I would never pretend to know as much about psychiatry as Dr. Krauthammer, but do I know a heck of a lot more than the average MSNBC pundit. In my psych rotation, I saw plenty of paranoid schizophrenic patients. I saw patients who called 911 when they had a bad dream, because they thought they were being murdered. I saw patients who thought that the Bush Administration was out to get them, because of something as simple as maybe a policeman giving them a ticket. And, I saw patients who threatened their spouses with weapons, but couldn’t tell you why they did it. Oh, and I even read about a patient in a medical journal who would see a python on the wall, in place of a curtain rod, if the patient missed their meds. So basically, what I’m trying to tell you is that both nothing and everything sets these patients off. You can ban target maps, Glenn Beck, Moveon.org, policemen giving people tickets, 911 calls, dreaming and curtain rods; however, unless these patients get the help that they need and are properly medicated, they will still have uncontrollable psychotic episodes.

Robert Stacy McCain has done some excellent work on his blog this week reporting on the sanity component of this story. And, one of the things that McCain reported on was the fact that Jared Lee Loughner took Salvia and watched a paranoid 9/11 truther film called Zeitgeist. However, taking Salvia and watching Zeitgeist didn’t make Loughner crazy–Loughner was already mentally unstable, which is why he became obsessed with Zeitgeist and self-medicated with Salvia in the first place.

Does anyone remember James Lee, the mentally unstable man who took hostages at the Discovery Channel headquarters and was eventually shot by the police? Lee claimed that he was motivated by Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth. You didn’t see conservatives blaming Al Gore for that insane act, did you? That is because A.) it goes against our nature to try to blame people after a tragedy (as if anyone had any control over Lee’s actions in the first place)–or try to ban things, like documentaries or political speech–and B.) because Lee didn’t become crazy by watching An Inconvenient Truth. He was already mentally unstable, which is why he became obsessed with An Inconvenient Truth in the first place. You see, a sane mind can take in all kinds of information and stimuli, and it won’t drive him or her to murder.

2.) It is the raison d’etre of many liberals to control people. They think that if they can control more people and create a larger nanny state, then they can stop bad things from happening.

Don’t believe me? Well then, just take a look at the recent ban on Happy Meals in San Francisco as proof. (The video below is hilarious.)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
San Francisco’s Happy Meal Ban
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

You see, a lot of liberals have good intentions. They think that if they ban Happy Meals, then there won’t be anymore obese children. However, what they don’t realize (and what I learned on my pediatrics rotation in medical school) is that most obese children have obese parents, and consume the majority of their fatty foods at home.

Liberals also think that if they ban guns, then crime will automatically go down. However, what they don’t realize is that criminals still will find a way to get guns, and then 76 year old men will become defenseless prey to street gangs.

So therefore, it’s only natural for liberals to also think that if they can control what people, say, watch or listen to, then that will somehow stop paranoid schizophrenics from going on murder sprees. (Well, not what they say so much–just what you say. Liberals want to be able to use “target” maps and have pundits on MSNBC be able to use incendiary rhetoric–they just don’t want you to be able to do the same thing, because….well, you know, they are just so much smarter and more enlightened than you, so they can do it, but you can’t.)

Liberals always talk about wanting to help the downtrodden. Well, this tragedy in Tuscon would have presented a perfect opportunity to discuss mental illness. The other night on The O’Reilly Factor, Charles Krauthammer discussed how, since the deinstitutionalization of mental hospitals that took place in the 1960′s, many mentally ill people have been left homeless and freezing to death on the streets. John Hawkins also made similar points in an excellent column. It seems that if liberals really cared so much for the poor and the downtrodden, then they would have first mourned the victims of the shooting, and then tried to find some good in this tragedy by using it as an opportunity to provoke a national debate with regard to mental illness (i.e., how to get people the help that they need without violating anyone’s civil liberties). Instead, they used it as an opportunity to bash Sarah Palin and act like the thought police by suggesting that we should “bring back the fairness doctrine”. These actions demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the primary focus of modern liberalism is not helping the “little guy”, but bashing Sarah Palin and controlling how people live their lives.

3.) This whole Tuscon Tragedy was the big, red “Do Not Push” button for liberals.

What do I mean by the above statement? Simple. Somehow or another, liberals were able to drag Sarah Palin and the Tea Party into this story (even though they had absolutely NOTHING to do with it). Furthermore, they were able to use this tragedy to discuss gun control, as well as speech control (two ideas that are dear to their hearts). Palin, gun control and controlling conservative speech is the liberal trifecta; therefore, with regard to this story, they just couldn’t control themselves.

David Brooks (of all people) explained this phenomenon perfectly when he wrote the following:

“All of this evidence, which is easily accessible on the Internet, points to the possibility that Loughner may be suffering from a mental illness like schizophrenia.

In short, the evidence before us suggests that Loughner was locked in a world far removed from politics as we normally understand it.

Yet the early coverage and commentary of the Tucson massacre suppressed this evidence. The coverage and commentary shifted to an entirely different explanation: Loughner unleashed his rampage because he was incited by the violent rhetoric of the Tea Party, the anti-immigrant movement and Sarah Palin.

Mainstream news organizations linked the attack to an offensive target map issued by Sarah Palin’s political action committee. The Huffington Post erupted, with former Senator Gary Hart flatly stating that the killings were the result of angry political rhetoric. Keith Olbermann demanded a Palin repudiation and the founder of the Daily Kos wrote on Twitter: “Mission Accomplished, Sarah Palin.” Others argued that the killing was fostered by a political climate of hate.

These accusations — that political actors contributed to the murder of 6 people, including a 9-year-old girl — are extremely grave. They were made despite the fact that there was, and is, no evidence that Loughner was part of these movements or a consumer of their literature. They were made despite the fact that the link between political rhetoric and actual violence is extremely murky. They were vicious charges made by people who claimed to be criticizing viciousness.

Yet such is the state of things. We have a news media that is psychologically ill informed but politically inflamed, so it naturally leans toward political explanations. We have a news media with a strong distaste for Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement, and this seemed like a golden opportunity to tarnish them. We have a segmented news media, so there is nobody in most newsrooms to stand apart from the prevailing assumptions. We have a news media market in which the rewards go to anybody who can stroke the audience’s pleasure buttons.

I have no love for Sarah Palin, and I like to think I’m committed to civil discourse. But the political opportunism occasioned by this tragedy has ranged from the completely irrelevant to the shamelessly irresponsible.”

4.) Ever since Obama has come on the scene, liberals have gone overboard with their incivility and have gotten in the habit of substituting slurs, libel, personal attacks and name-calling for actual political debate.

We are all familiar with the vitriol directed at George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Now, fast forward to the 2008 Democratic primary where the Clintons were accused of racism, and Chris Matthews called Hillary Clinton “witchy” (see the image below that was popular on many liberal blogs). Then, other Democrats tried to pressure Mrs. Clinton to get out of the race and accused her of wanting to have Obama assassinated (sound familiar?). And finally, Keith Olbermann got fed up and demanded that someone just kill her/beat her up. (To be specific, Olberman said that, “Someone should take her in a room and only he comes out”.)

Next, came the general election where John McCain and Sarah Palin basically faced the same sentiment from the liberal media that the Clintons faced. (That sentiment being, “How dare they actually try to beat Obama!”) To be specific, one liberal blogger captured the Left’s sentiment perfectly when he wrote that his “jaw dropped” when John McCain brought up Bill Ayers in the debate. In other words:

“How dare that mean, old fart try to actually win the debate?! Why doesn’t he just walk away and let Obama win the election already? Don’t he and his stupid supporters know that we liberals know what’s best for them and the rest of the country anyway?”

However, nothing quite prepared me to see members of the MSM calling patriotic Americans, who were private citizens exorcising their First Amendment rights, “teabaggers” (which is a vile sexual slur) night after night after night. I recoiled in horror, and thought that this was lowest that the liberal MSM could possibly sink–but I was wrong.

This past week, when liberals in the MSM accused Sarah Palin, the Tea Party and conservatives in general of being somehow complicit in a mass murder…..well, that was their bottom, which is why they are now experiencing such a strong “backlash” (to quote Peter Wehner).

The liberal MSM so badly botched the coverage of the Tuscon massacre, because–for so very long–they have been trying to throw water on that “witch” Sarah Palin, but she simply refuses to melt like the Wicked Witch of the West from The Wizard of Oz did.

Instead, Palin is more like Elphaba from the Broadway musical Wicked–she just keeps coming back stronger and stronger after each setback and attack, managing to fly above it all and help the Republicans win elections. (H/T to the Hillbuzz for the video.)

And now, here was finally their chance–nay, their golden opportunity–to have someone take Palin into a room and only he comes out. The liberal MSM finally thought that they could be rid of Sarah Palin once and for all. And, it was more important to them than anything else–even more important than mourning for the victims of this senseless tragedy.

So, in conclusion, if I had to get inside the mind of the average liberal journalist/elitist and translate their thoughts into liberalese, it would sound something like this:

“Why don’t these stupid racist, redneck teabaggers just sit down and shut up? Why do they even think that they have a right to participate in the political process anyway? Don’t they realize that we liberals know so much more than them? Besides, the Founding Fathers would have hated their guts. I mean, they are so crass and vulgar with their “target” maps and using phrases like, “Don’t retreat, just reload.” Sure, we use target maps, gun metaphors and incendiary rhetoric (like wishing someone would blow up Rush Limbaugh’s head with a CO2 pellet), but we are so much more educated, so it’s less offensive coming from us. And sure, we might have over-reacted with the whole “Sarah Palin and the Tea Party are accessories to murder” bit, but those teabaggers should just turn the other cheek when we attack them, because they listen to white trash like Sarah Palin and talk radio, so they kind of have it coming anyway.”

OK–well, maybe I might be a bit guilty of stereotyping liberals in that above paragraph. But hey, liberals have been stereotyping conservatives for the last two years with the whole “racist, redneck teabagger” bit. It stings a tad when someone does it back to you, huh?

So, if you lefties are really serious about the whole “new tone” thingy that you all have been whining about this entire week, might I suggest that you do two things. First off, you all really need to apologize to Sarah Palin, the Tea Party and conservatives in general for implying that we were all accessories to mass murder (as well as for all of the degrading insults that you’ve thrown our way for the last two years). I mean, that was really appalling behavior and was totally beyond the pale. To quote Charles Blow (who I never thought that I’d quote):

“Within hours of the shooting, there was a full-fledged witch hunt to link the shooter to the right.

“I saw Goody Proctor with the devil! Oh, I mean Jared Lee Loughner! Yes him. With the devil!”

Now we’ve settled into the by-any-means-necessary argument: anything that gets us to focus on the rhetoric and tamp it down is a good thing. But a wrong in the service of righteousness is no less wrong, no less corrosive, no less a menace to the very righteousness it’s meant to support.

You can’t claim the higher ground in a pit of quicksand.

Concocting connections to advance an argument actually weakens it. The argument for tonal moderation has been done a tremendous disservice by those who sought to score political points in the absence of proof. “

Second of all–and most importantly–you guys in the liberal MSM really owe the victims of the Tuscon shooting, their families and the American people an apology. Most Americans probably didn’t even learn the names of the victims until the president’s Wednesday night speech–four days after the shooting took place. Michelle Malkin has the victims’ names and ages on her blog, but I will list them here so that we may mourn them and pray for them–as well as for Congresswoman Giffords:

The deceased have been identified as: Judge John Roll ,63; Dorthy Murray, 76; Dorwin Stoddard, 76; Christina Greene, 9; Phyllis Scheck, 79; and Gabriel Zimmerman, 30.

Furthermore, until several days after the incident, most Americans probably had no idea about Jared Lee Loughner’s obvious signs of mental illness. So therefore, the American people were denied the debate that our country deserves with regard to how to recognize the signs of mental illness, as well as what to do about it (as Benjamin Kerstein explained in his poignant column).

In other words, the media’s need to “get the witch” was so strong, that it overpowered even their need to report the basic facts of the case. Everyone was talking about Sarah Palin’s “target” map, but no one even knew the victims’ names. (And to make matters worse, Sarah Palin is now getting death threats.) Seriously, shame on you guys in the press. If you all want your “new tone”, then you need to man up, suck it up and apologize first–otherwise, all of your pleas to “end the divisive rhetoric” will sound insincere. Like Mr. Blow said, you can’t claim the moral ground while standing in quick sand. Your “by any means necessary” approach has failed. If you call out for help and reach out an arm by offering a sincere apology, then we will help pull you up. Otherwise, you can all continue to sink in the muck together. The choice is yours.

This column is cross-posted from Parcbench, and it is also posted at The Minority Report, Right Wing News and Hillbillypolitics.

Ted Williams was all the rage these last couple of days in the blogosphere and on cable news. In case you happen to be living under a rock this past week, Ted Williams is the homeless man who was a former radio announcer with a “golden voice” who fell into trouble with drugs and alcohol. Williams lost everything in 1993 and became homeless, only to have his life change this week when a video of him demonstrating his God given talent on the side of a Columbus, Ohio highway went viral.

Well, within a couple of days of the above video getting national exposure, Mr. Williams was offered a job as an announcer for the Cleveland Cavaliers, and was even invited on The Today Show and asked to do the opening voice-over for the show.

So, why has America fallen in love with Ted Williams? Simple. Americans love the story of an underdog making good–and, we are all about giving people second chances. (See the hit movies Rocky, Braveheart, Invincible, The Pursuit of Happyness and Rudy as examples of American’s love of second chances and redemption.) In fact, America, was, literally, built by tired, huddled masses of people coming to a new land in order to get a second chance. I think that the movie Kingdom of Heaven sums up the American spirit–with regard to second chances–best (even though the film takes place in Medieval Europe/Jerusalem) when Balian’s father (Liam Neeson) tells Balian (Orlando Bloom) that, even though he’s been charged with a crime and his wife has committed suicide, he can redeem himself by going to Jerusalem to fight the Crusade. To be specific, Balian’s father said the following about Jerusalem:

“There, you are not what you were born, but what you have it in yourself to be.”

Yes, and in America, you are not what you were born–or what you might have been–but what what you have it in yourself to be. Ted Williams might have been a former drug addict and petty criminal who was cheerfully panhandling by the highway hoping to get a second chance at life (and not blaming anyone for his mistakes but himself), but today, he is a national celebrity known for his “golden voice”. He is the quintessential Prodigal Son.

Naturally, all of this talk of second chances makes one think of Michael Vick. Michael Vick was the man with with not only a golden arm, but golden legs as well (which is unusual for a quarterback). However, when he played football for the Atlanta Falcons (prior to going to prison for dog fighting), he was not exactly a model player. Vick was known as a slacker who was frequently late for practice, he was busted for pot possession at the airport, and he was even fined for flipping off the Atlanta Falcons fans. So, when Vick’s dog fighting scandal broke, it was especially shocking–particularly because he had been given so much and so many chances before. As it says in the book of Luke:

“To whom much is given, of him much will be required.”

And, Michael Vick was given a lot–a whole lot. He is gifted with an incredible talent, and was given millions of dollars in contracts and endorsements. And how did he pay back his fellow Americans who made him rich and famous by buying tickets to his games? Vick paid them back not by, say, volunteering in a homeless shelter, but by fighting, torturing and murdering dogs (i.e., man’s best friend). To quote the LA Examiner (H/T Adrienne’s Corner):

According to the prosecutor’s statement of facts in the case, between 2002 and 2007 Michael Vick and his co-conspirators Purnell Peace, Quanis Phillips and Tony Taylor killed thirteen dogs by various methods including wetting one dog down and electrocuting her, hanging, drowning and shooting others and, in at least one case, by slamming a dog’s body to the ground.

Michael Vick didn’t make a mistake. He didn’t “make a bad choice.” Over a period of five years he forced dogs into deadly fights, and he personally killed, or conspired to kill, thirteen dogs. He didn’t pick a quick, painless method of killing, but instead chose a variety of means that qualify as torture. Pit Bulls are powerful dogs. Imagine how hard you would have to work to kill a Pit Bull by forcibly drowning him.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution also reports, “Sometimes [the dogs] were starved to make them more vicious in the pit.”

And Michael Vick didn’t confine the abuse and killing to his own Pit Bulls.

According to a November 2008 ESPN.com news story, a report prepared by the USDA’s inspector general-investigations division revealed that Vick, Purnell Peace, Quanis Phillips and Tony Taylor also put family pet dogs into the ring with trained pit bulls.

The report, dated Aug. 28, 2008, says, “Vick, Peace and Phillips thought it was funny to watch the pit bull dogs belonging to [Vick’s] Bad Newz Kennels injure or kill the other dogs.”

[Adrienne has some pictures of Michael Vick's extracurricular activities--warning, the photos are gruesome.]

On a personal note, when this story about Michael Vick’s atrocities exploded, it hit me particularly hard. My dog Molly (who was a rescue dog) had recently been diagnosed with a fibrosarcoma of her lower jaw and had to have part of her lower jaw surgically removed. Well, a few months later her cancer came back and she was given just months to live–even with chemotherapy. However, being the fighter that she was, she held on for almost two years and passed away a little over a year ago. So, when I heard about Michael Vick–a man who had been given so much–torturing and murdering healthy dogs while my dog was fighting for her life…well, let’s just say that I had very strong feelings of dislike for Mr. Vick. (Below are some pictures of Molly.)

So, when President Obama called the owner of the Philadelphia Eagles (Mr. Vick’s current team) to praise him for “giving Michael Vick a second chance”, it kind of stuck in my craw a bit (just like it did with a lot of people). I mean, Michael Vick is not exactly your average felon–i.e., someone from the wrong side of the tracks who never got a break in life or got addicted to drugs, etc. On the contrary, he’s gotten plenty of breaks in life. To quote Richard Cohen:

“Vick got a second chance not because he deserves it but because he can play football. This is the lesson we can all take from this sorry episode. It’s one thing to be sorry. It’s much better to hit your man in the end zone”.

However, the good news is that not all athletes feel the same sense of entitlement that Michael Vick seemed to feel. Some actually get the whole, “To whom much is given, much is expected” thingy. Meet Rudy Favard. Allahpundit wrote about him a couple of days ago. He is just a senior in high school and the captain of his high school football team, but already, he understands just how lucky he is to have a healthy, strong body–so he helps out a family with a disabled son by carrying him up the stairs every night, because the father is too weak from heart surgery. (Drats–why is there water on my keyboard?)

So, in conclusion, Michael Vick might not “deserve” a second chance, but this is America and he’s got a lot of talent, so he gets one anyway. But you know what, I’m not that upset that he’s getting a second chance. Heck, it might turn out quite well in the long run. Just like Balian in Kingdom of Heaven who went from a criminal to a valiant knight/defender of Jerusalem, Michael Vick might go from an animal abuser to a very strong spokesman against cruelty to animals. Maybe his redemption is sincere–that’s for God to say, not for any of us to judge. After all, as Alex Knepper recently pointed out, Chris Brown (who beat up his girlfriend Rhianna last year) already seems to be blowing his second chance by taunting victims of sexual abuse on Twitter. Hey, at least Michael Vick appears to be doing all of the right things and showing public remorse for his crimes.

So I will take a deep breath and give Michael Vick his second chance–and I will hope that he has truly seen the error of his ways. However, please don’t ask me to forgive him just yet (I hope to eventually–forgiveness is good for the soul), and please, for the love of God, don’t ask me to celebrate him. No, right now, I prefer to celebrate Ted Williams and Rudy Favard. Hearing about their stories makes me feel good. With regard to Michael Vick, I will just cross my fingers and hope for the best.

This column is cross-posted from Parcbench, and it is also posted at The Minority Report, Right Wing News and Hillbillypolitics.

Christmas is my very favorite time of year. Why? Well, I think that Ebenezer Scrooge’s nephew, Fred Holywell, nailed it with regard to why Christmas is such a special time of year when he said the following:

There are a great many things from which I have derived good, from which I have not profited, Christmas among the rest. But I’ve always thought of Christmastime as a good time, a kindly, forgiving, charitable time; a time when men and women seem, by one consent, to open their shut-up hearts freely to their fellow creatures. So though it has never put a scrap of gold or silver into my pocket, I do believe that it has done me good, and I say “God bless it.”

So, in the spirit of Mr. Holywell’s sentiment, I would like to provide six of my all time favorite Christmas videos just to put everyone in the Christmas spirit.

Pretty much everyone remembers the hilarious Saturday Night Live skit where Jimmy Fallon, Horatio Sanz, Chris Kattan and Tracy Morgan sing “I Wish it Was Christmas Today”. Well, the video below shows Jimmy Fallon and Horatio Sanz starting off the song, but then Julian Casablancas of The Strokes finishes off the song. What is so amazing about this video, is that it demonstrates how a silly little ditty can become an awesome song just by having a cool rock star donning shades–accompanied by a great band like The Roots–singing it.

Next on my list of favorite Christmas videos, is this one of Andy Williams singing “It’s the Most Wonderful Time of the Year” (my all time favorite Christmas song). Just the decorations alone in the video make it worth watching, even if you don’t like the song.

Now, comes the theme songs from my two favorite Christmas specials–A Charlie Brown Christmas Special and How The Grinch Stole Christmas. First up is “Christmas Time is Here” from A Charlie Brown Christmas Special. Interesting anecdote here–Linus’ speech about what “the true meaning of Christmas is” was almost cut from the show. (Hat tip to Robert Stacy McCain for the video.)

Oh, and here is the video of Linus’ famous speech about the true meaning of Christmas. It still brings a tear to my eye.

Next, here comes “You’re a Mean One, Mr. Grinch” from How the Grinch Stole Christmas. Interesting anecdote here–even though Boris Karloff was the voice of the Grinch, actor Thurl Ravenscroft actually sang the theme song.

And finally, here is my favorite clip from A Christmas Carol (my all time favorite Christmas movie), with George C. Scott brilliantly playing the role of Ebeneezer Scrooge.

So, in conclusion, I hope that everyone enjoyed the entertainment. However, before I go, I would just like to leave you all with the words of Ebeneezer Scrooge:

“Merry Christmas to everybody–and a Happy New Year to the world!!”

Cross-posted at The Minority Report, Right Wing News and Hillbillypolitics.

For some odd reason, Sarah Palin causes liberal elites to rabidly foam at the mouth. Professor William Jacobson of the blog Legal Insurrection wrote an insightful piece about how conservatives seem to reflexively defend Palin, because liberals seem to be perpetually attacking her. Furthermore, not only do liberals seem to revel in finding weird reasons to attack Sarah Palin, but they also seem to only be happy when they are attacking her family as well (probably because they see them as little “spawns of Sarah”). Now, why is this? I haven’t a clue. However, I can state beyond a reasonable doubt that it’s not helping them.

For example, a couple of days ago, comediennes Kathy Griffin and Margret Cho both attacked Bristol Palin as “fat”–although Cho was a little more subtle about it than Griffin was. (Robert Stacy McCain wrote an excellent piece about both incidents here.) In fact, Griffin was dumb enough to trash Bristol Palin and refer to her as “the white Precious” in front of a group of servicemen who promptly booed her.

Question–does Ms. Griffin not know her audience at all? These are not liberal elites, like Bill Maher, who think that it’s OK to call Bristol Palin a “Hillbilly Heroine”. These are US soldiers who won’t find calling someone’s twenty year old daughter “fat” at all funny.

Moreover, a few weeks ago comedienne Sandra Bernhard called Bristol Palin a “hooker” on Joy Behar’s show because she placed in the finals on Dancing With the Stars. (Ms. Behar seemed very distressed, herself, and said that “Fred and Ginger died last night”.)

Surprising to say, Behar and Bernhard weren’t the only liberals to get so wee-weed up over Bristol Palin making it to the finals on Dancing With the Stars. Washington Post columnist, Sally Quinn, wrote a long piece about how her head was about to explode because Bristol Palin made it to the finals of Dancing With the Stars. Ann Althouse best described Quinn’s disingenuous hyperventilating when she wrote the following:

And this strangely sanctimonious journalist — she’s writing in the always awful “On Faith” section of The Washington Post — condemns Palin voters for “cheating” 7 paragraphs after she confesses to doing something that is at least as much cheating as what the Palin fans are said to be doing.

“Not only that, but I vote. Under the show’s rules, you’re allowed to vote five times on one line. I have six lines at home and my cell, so I vote as many times as I can for my favorite. “

So this lady, this longtime Washington powerbroker, has 6 phone lines, and she maxes each line out, each week, voting 30 times. But that’s the show’s rules. They can’t tell how many individuals vote are voting. They can only see phone numbers. So if your family of 5 watches the show and you — you economic losers — only have one phone, you can make 5 calls. Sally Quinn happens to have 6 phone lines, so she gets 30 votes — under the rules.

“Commenters on the conservative blog Hillbuzz.org said they had figured out how to enter more votes than the rules allow by creating fake e-mail addresses. One person posting on Hillbuzz said “Lord have mercy, I voted for three hours online! I got 300 in.”

What is a “fake e-mail address”? The rules say you are allowed 5 votes from each email address, just as you are allowed 5 votes from each phone number. Some people have multiple phone numbers and some have multiple email addresses. What’s the difference? All I can think of is that you have to spend money to have multiple phone numbers, and you can get multiple email accounts free. It feels so right for rich folk to get more. I love when liberals slip up like that.

Question–hey Lefties, first of all, you have to know that calling Bristol Palin a “fat hooker” is not a good way to win friends and influence people, right? I mean, Bristol Palin probably wears a size six or a size eight–most American women wear a size ten (Marilyn Monroe wore a size twelve). Do you really think that calling the majority of American women “fat” is a winning strategy for you?

Second of all, you guys do realize that this is just a television show and that normal people don’t freak out or want to shoot the TV because Bristol Palin won, right? Full disclosure here–I’ve never seen an episode of Dancing With the Stars (I’ve watched clips on YouTube), but if one of the Obama girls happen to make it to the finals in a few years, I would be quite happy for her (even if she wasn’t that great of a dancer).

Now, having your head explode over Bristol Palin making it to the finals on Dancing With the Stars is not the only symptom of Palin Derangement Syndrome–apparently, Sarah Palin’s Facebook postings are enough to give a lot of liberals the vapors. For instance, Andrew Sullivan recently wrote a piece whining about Sarah Palin mocking Barack Obama’s famous “57 states gaffe”, and accused her of “trashy behavior” (but, he didn’t say what was “trashy” about her behavior).

[Hey Andrew, by "trashy behavior", do you mean spreading internet rumors that a woman's baby is not really her own, and is that of her teenage daughter? Because that would be you Andrew, not Sarah Palin. But, I digress.]

Well, if Sullivan had any sense of humor at all, he would have written that Palin’s Facebook post was funny and admitted that she had a point that the media tends to give Obama a pass on his gaffes, but tends to hammer everyone else on theirs (as even SNL pointed out during the Democratic primary). Normal people like people who can laugh at themselves and respond very well to self-deprecating humor.

However, Sullivan was not only upset by Sarah Palin’s recent Facebook post, but her daughter Willow’s as well (where she gets involved with trash-talk with another teenager when she defends her sister Bristol). First of all, does Sullivan realize that Willow Palin is a sixteen year old girl, and that normal Americans find it to be very strange and distasteful when grown men pick on other people’s children? Even Jon Stewart told liberals to back off and to “stop making me feel sorry for the Palins”.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Jason Jones’ Bayonne
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Second of all, does Sullivan realize how weird it is to obsess over Sarah Palin and her family’s Facebook postings? I mean, Sarah Palin was only a vice-presidential nominee –she was never even the vice-president. You don’t see us conservatives obsessing over Joe Leiberman’s or John Edward’s Facebook postings, much less their kids Facebook postings. This is very strange behavior. I would suggest that if reading the Palin family’s Facebook postings upsets you so much, then stop reading them.

Finally, speaking of weird behavior, Charles Blow recently wrote a column about how he wasn’t going to talk about Sarah Palin anymore, but then spent the entire column writing about how much Sarah Palin sucks. Hey Charles, I thought that you said that you weren’t going to talk about Sarah Palin anymore? You see, if most people say that they aren’t going to talk about someone anymore, then they just don’t talk about them anymore–they don’t proceed to, then, write an entire column about how terrible the person is.

In fact, this column of Blow’s is almost as weird as Keith Olbermann naming Bristol Palin his “Worst Person in the World”, or Aaron Sorkin comparing Sarah Palin to Michael Vick for hunting a Caribou. (I’m sure that the millions of hunters all across America deeply appreciate that comparison.) Oh, and Keith, really???!! Bristol Palin is your “Worst Person in the World”? Not Kim Jong-Il, not Ahmadinajad, but Bristol Palin for discussing abstinence?! No, that’s not at all strange to most Americans. (Rolls eyes.)

So, in conclusion, this whole Palin Derangement Syndrome definitely hurt the Left during the past mid-term election, and is continuing to hurt them now. Why? Well, for two obvious reasons. First of all, during the last election, it appeared as if liberals were spending way too much time speaking out against the Palins (none of whom were on the ballot), and not enough time explaining why people should vote for Obama’s policies and liberal candidates. Throughout the previous election, PDS proved to be a huge distraction for the Left.

Second of all, constantly attacking someone’s children as “fat, trashy, hookers” seems, well, quite mean to normal, well-adjusted Americans who aren’t weirdos. Most Americans think that mean people suck and don’t want to vote for a party that seems to embrace nastiness. Hey, you can listen to me, or you can continue smacking around Sarah Palin and her kids. The choice is yours. However, I just have one question for you guys. How did that PDS work out for you in the last election?

This column is cross-posted from Parcbench, and it is also posted at Right Wing News, The Minority Report and Hillbillypolitics.

“Stacy has greased the skids here, but there will be a hiatus in regular blogging activity for the Smitty portion of this blog duo at the close of this post. I hold orders to activate in mid-November and report to Kabul, Afghanistan in time for Christmas. Bandwidth, and latitude for skylarking online will not exist until the end of 2011.

The attentive may recall that I’m a Navy reservist, and Afghanistan hasn’t much coast. Welcome to the modern, double-Jointed world, where Semper Gumby (always flexible) is the watchword. Have you supported Project Valor-IT yet?“

Smitty further writes the following about his upcoming departure and service to his country:

“But don’t thank me; thank Americans, from the Founding Fathers forward to the Tea Parties, to my electrician brother-in-law who just runs around fixing things all day. The exceptional American dedication to individualism, the ideals of the Constitution, and the courageous soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in whose bigger footsteps I follow make it all worth it. I’ve benefited so much from the American people, educationally and otherwise. Thus, it’s with a sense of gratitude to you that I depart on this set of orders, finishing out my Navy Reserve career in active duty style.”

Read the whole darn thing!! It is a truly inspirational and beautifully written column.

Oh, and Smitty–please take care of yourself. I’m sure that you will be fine, but we will all be praying for you just the same. Each and every one of us is extremely appreciative of your service, and I am honored to know you personally. Good luck and Godspeed. You have been a huge asset to the conservative blogosphere, and you will be sorely missed. Have a Merry Christmas.

PS–Smitty, this video goes out as a tribute to you, and to every soldier (and civilian) who has either served their country, or is currently in harm’s way.

Cross-posted from The Minority Report, Right Wing News, Parcbench, Redstate.com and Hillbillypolitics.