The main stream media has a consistent dream.  It is the dream of Republicans and Democrats working together harmoniously and putting partisan politics aside for the good of the country.  Of course this dream only surfaces when Republicans are in power.  When Democrats are in power, there are no calls for bi-partisanship, unless that is defined as Republicans sacrificing their values on the altar of Political Correction.  But, there is no virtue in flirting with disaster. 

When the American people stupidly gave Democrats a huge majority in the House and a veto proof and filibuster majority in the Senate, the result was the most hyper-partisan congress in history.  Democrats showed zero interest in Republican input.  Major legislation was passed without a single Republican vote, even from the traditional core of liberal RINOs.  This legislation was so unbalanced that Democrats had difficulty getting it passed even though no Republican votes were necessary.  Obama care literally required flagrant bribes like the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback to gain sufficient support in the Democratic Party.  There was never support for this legislation from a majority of the voting public.  Very few people in the main stream media noticed.

Now, Republicans have gained control of the House and have regained functional control of the Senate.  The main stream media is suddenly, once again, cooing about the need for both parties to work together for the greater good.  However, this is actually a good time to recall the words of Barry Goldwater:

• I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.
  • The Conscience of A Conservative (1960), p. 15

• I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! Acceptance
  • Speech as the 1964 Republican Presidential candidate.

Paul Ryan gave a good speech in response to the State of the Union speech.  But Michele Bachmann gave a great speech.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/25/AR2011012507844.html?nav=hcmoduletmv

The difference was that Paul Ryan spoke with the assumption that President Obama is capable of leading us in an acceptable direction.  He tried to appear reasonable and respectful in a way that would be impressive to the main stream media.  That may be good politics, but the problem is that President Obama’s world view is irreconcilable with conservative values and so far he has guided us on the path to destruction.  The goal of the Republican Party should be to stop Obama’s agenda, not to modify it.  Our country cannot afford to continue along any path that is consistent with Obama’s naïve and irresponsible world view. 

As Barry Goldwater warned us over 40 years ago, compromise with those who do not share your values is no virtue.  Extremism in stopping the agenda that is destroying our country is no vice.

Sometimes you simply have to choose which path you are going to follow.  Suppose there is a fork in the road.  You know that if you take the left fork you will end up in a blind canyon, from which there is no exit, and you know there is a bridge out ahead.  You also know that the right fork will lead you back to civilization and safety.  Your leader, who does not know the area, insists on taking the left fork.  Other members of the group strongly encourage you to agree to take the left fork, because they feel that the most important thing is to support the leader.  They are wrong.  There is no merit in blindly following a leader on the path to disaster.  Obama is leading this country on a path to destruction.  We obviously should try to give him guidance on which way to go.  And if he starts leading us in the right direction, we should let him do so.   But, if he insists on continuing to follow the path to destruction, we must not follow him, we have a duty to force a change in course.    

Michele Bachman gets that.  I worry that the main stream Republican leadership does not. Winning an election is 2012 would be nice, but it will be a pyrrhic victory if we have to endure two more years of wholesale destruction to our country during the interim.   Pretending that Obama has somehow morphed from a naïve, arrogant, incompetent radical into a skilled leader just because he lost a mid-term election requires willing suspension of disbelief.  We cannot afford to wait until 2012 to turn this ship around.  We are already too close to the rocks.

TDM

I once handled a liability claim where the plaintiff refused to identify himself.  This involved an automobile accident and our driver was clearly at fault.  Our driver recognized the plaintiff as the person in the other automobile.  But, the plaintiff absolute refused to provide any documentation verifying his identity.  I advised his attorney that I could not pay him, because I didn’t have anyone to pay.  At some point, all of us are required to prove our existence.  For most of us, that starts with a birth certificate.

The recent case of the woman who was kidnapped shortly after birth tracking down her birth parents was an example of this problem.  She only learned there was an issue when she could not get a drivers license because her “parents” could not produce a birth certificate.  Ultimately she was able to prove that she had been kidnapped as a baby.  A birth certificate is not a minor detail, it is a bare necessity.

The Obama “birther” movement has gone main stream.  It is becoming increasingly difficult for the main stream media to casually dismiss this as a non-issue.  Prior to this time birthers were routinely discounted in the main stream media, including Fox News, as Don Quixote characters chasing rainbows.  There was wide spread acknowledgement that this was settled.  Obama had produced his birth certificate and that was that.

They ALMOST got away with it.  Perhaps they would have got away with it if the citizens of Hawaii had not elected Neil Abercrombe as their new Governor.  The old Governor, a Republican, was willing to just let well enough alone.  But the new Governor is a full-fledged KoolAid drinking Obama supporter so he huffed and puffed his way into office promising to stop the birther movement once and for all.

Here is what we know.  In spite of all the promises the Governor hasn’t been able to produce squat.  The best he has is some “vague” indication that there is a record of Obama’s birth certificate in the archives, but no actual copy of the birth certificate.  That creates some serious problems. 

In June of 2008, the Obama campaign released the following “copy” of Obama’s birth certificate:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

This “certificate” was intended to end the controversy once and for all, but some people were not impressed.  It was, after all, a digital copy.  To the best of my knowledge no one outside of the Obama administration has ever laid hands on the real document.  So Dr. Chiyome Fukino from the Department of Health released the following statement on October 31, 2008. 

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai’i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai’i.”

Then, in July of 2009, she issued another statement:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

It is important to note that Dr. Fukino refused numerous requests for clarification of her original statement between October of 2008 and 2009.  There are reports, probably accurate, that Dr. Fukino’s responses were carefully crafted by legal counsel. 

Under these circumstances it is important to realize what these statements do not say.  The first statement does not say that Dr. Fukino personally saw Obama’s birth certificate, instead it says that she verified that: “the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record.”  This, in retrospect, is interesting wording.  It does not say they have the document, but rather than they have a record of the document. 

The second statement also fails to say that the original birth certificate is on file.  Instead it says that she has seen the original vital records verifying that Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and he is a natural –born American citizen.”  Again, she did not say that she saw the actual birth certificate, but that she saw the “record.”  This is totally consistent with the recent report from Governor Abercrombe that there is a “record” of Obama’s birth, but no copy of the certificate itself.  In addition, he was forced to admit that he couldn’t locate a record of live birth from any medical provider or hospital.

The Obama campaign produced a “copy” of his birth certificate.  Where, exactly, did that come from?  It now seems clear that it didn’t come from the Hawaii Department of Health since they don’t appear to have one.  It seems possible that someone in the Obama campaign manufactured this document.  In other words, it may have been a forgery.  It is quite possible that even Obama thought this certificate presented accurate information.  He may actually believe that he was born in Hawaii and that his father was Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. because that is what he was told.  The only thing certain is that there is no currently available documentation verifying this.

When Obama was born a birth certificate could be filed even for someone born outside of the state of Hawaii, perhaps even outside of the country.

State of Hawaii Statute §338-17.8  Certificates for children born out of State.  [[or out of country]]
(a)  Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b)  Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate.  The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c)  The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]”

This reminds me of Rahm Emanuel trying to establish his Chicago residency.  He inconveniently moved to Washington D.C., apparently failing to anticipate the opportunity to run for Mayor of Chicago.  Now he is having difficult convincing the courts that he really lived in Chicago all along.  In the case of Obama it appears that his parents didn’t need to actually live in Hawaii, they just needed to state that Hawaii was their legal residence.  In addition, apparently Obama did not need to actually be born in Hawaii, or even the United States, in order to qualify for a Hawaiian birth certificate in accordance with these regulations.  

The problems for Obama are more significant than I realized. This starts to fill in a lot of blanks.  It helps explain why Obama has refused to release any records from Occidental, Columbia, Harvard or even high school.  Since there is no evidence that he ever had a certified Hawaii birth certificate to present, it begs the question of what documentation Obama did use.  It would be hard to explain the use of Indonesian identity records.  It would be even harder to explain the use of Hawaii identity records that cannot be verified.  They certainly can’t be verified now.

So far everyone has been focused on whether or not Obama was born in the U.S. and whether or not he is a natural born U.S. citizen.  But perhaps the more important question not where Obama was born, but  rather what documentation did Obama use to enroll in school, to register to vote, to get a drivers’ license, to apply to the Illinois bar and to file for public office?    If Hawaii can’t find his birth certificate, where did Obama get his copy?  Ultimately, who is Barack Hussein Obama?  So far, the only thing certain is that he has never presented even the bare necessities to verify his own identity.

TDM

The new Governor of Hawaii, an Obama KoolAid drinking Democrat, promised to end the “birther” controversy as soon as he took office.  Apparently he went over to the state archives to see the actual documents, with his own eyes, so he could verify the truth once and for all.  But there was a problem.  When he opened the cupboard, the cupboard was bare:

 http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=252833

 This story was dead and buried, until the new Governor stupidly resurrected it.  The only thing we know for sure is that he personally lied about things.  For example he claimed to have met Obama’s parents along with the child.  The problem is that this story could not possibly be true.  Of course a lot of politicians invent exciting pasts.  Hillary Clinton claimed she was named after Sir Edmond Hillary, in recognition of his climbing Mt Everest.  If he hadn’t waited until she was five years old before achieving this goal, this story might have more credibility.

 http://www.kansascity.com/2010/12/24/2541347/hawaiis-new-governor-says-discrediting.html

 Obama was allegedly born on Aug 4, 1961, in Hawaii.  His mother showed up in Seattle and enrolled in the University of Washington on August 19, 1961. 

 http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=pf_output.cfm&file_id=8897

 It would appear that, at a minimum, she relocated from Hawaii to Seattle, Washington, shortly after Obama was born.  There is no evidence that Barack Obama Sr. cared.  He moved from Hawaii to Harvard before Obama’s mother ever moved back to Hawaii.  It does not appear that Obama’s parents EVER lived together as husband and wife after he was born.  If they did, it was only for a couple of days, shortly after he was born.

 http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/obama_government/news.php?q=1249498923

  I think the Governor assumed he would waltz over to the archives, heroically produce Obama’s long form birth certificate and put this all to rest.  But, clearly, he could not do that.  The following report, from WND has never been proven incorrect:

 WND has also reported that Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in 2008, has maintained that there is no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate on file with the Hawaii Department of Health and that neither Honolulu hospital – Queens Medical Center or Kapiolani Medical Center – has any record that Obama was born there.

 Read more: Hawaii governor can’t find Obama birth certificate http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=252833#ixzz1BSmINJt9

 This is turning out exactly as I expected.  So far, no long-form hospital-generated birth certificate on file with the State of Hawaii has been verified.  So far, neither Honolulu hospital, Queens Medical Center or Kapiolani Medical Center has produced any record verifying that Obama was born there. 

 In spite of a lot of stink and steam, the ultimate result is that there is no definite proof of where Obama was born.  Absence of documentation is not proof of anything, but a lack of documentation.  In other words, the absence of documents does not prove, per sea, that Obama was not born in Hawaii.  Absent some evidence proving that he was born someplace else, the best evidence available, is still the record on file with the State of Hawaii.  While this may be more than a little squishy, it appears to be all there is.  All of the participants, other than Obama, are conveniently dead.  I know this is not very satisfying, but it is what it is.  The bottom line is that while this will prove to be embarrassing for Obama and the story will generate stink and steam, but nothing will change.  In other words it does not matter where Obama was actually born, unless someone has solid evidence that he was born some place other than Hawaii.  Even if he was born in Kenya, I suspect those documents are long gone.  His “Kenya” grandmother allegedly remembers him being born in Kenya, but that is far from well documented and it was a translated conversation subject to dispute. 

 I am predicting that this story will get more and more attention, but ultimately it will solve nothing and change nothing.  What it will show is that this is far from the totally documented case closed reported in the main stream media. 

 In summary, sometimes the truth, is, well the truth.   All we know is that we don’t know and while the only evidence appears to be questionable, it remains the only evidence.  Those who believe Obama was born in the U.S. have just cause for their opinion. Those who believe he was born in Kenya also have grounds for their opinion.  In the end, the only thing certain is uncertainty.  The question is whether, under the circumstance, anyone in either party will care enough to do anything.  My prediction is that Obama will produce no documentation and no one will challenge him on the issue.

 TDM

It is now crystal clear that the Obama administration is totally clueless with regard to the duty and responsibility of a President.  The occasion called for a memorial service.  Instead we got the kick-off to Obama’s 2012 Presidential campaign.  The Obama administration clearly recruited a crowd of avid supporters and directed them to fill the hall with loud applause.  It was pathetic demonstration of supercilious sanctimony. 

On October 25, 2002, Senator Paul Wellstone was killed in an airplane crash.  Democrats, who simply cannot resist exploiting any tragedy replaced him as a candidate with Walter Mondale.  They then took over his memorial service to run a Campaign Rally.   While Democrats thought this went really well, the people in Minnesota were appalled and it backfired.  Mondale was trounced.  Of course left wing blogs continue to report conspiracy theories of how Republicans killed Senator Wellstone.  They fail to acknowledge that one of the reasons Wellstone was flying in such bad weather is that he was way behind in the polls.  They had no reason to kill him, he was destined to lose.

It is too early to get the full impact of Obama’s performance at the Tucson Memorial service, but it sure looked like a repeat of the Wellstone fiasco.  I was stunned and appalled.  The wild cheering and rapturous introductions of the Democratic participants was just plain awful.  No matter how the main stream media tries to spin it, the memorial service was turned into a campaign rally.  It was beyond poor taste.  It was just another shameless exploitation of tragedy.  I would feel exactly the same if the participants had been Republicans.  The contrast between this pep rally and the national prayer service put together by Bush after 9-11 could not be starker. 

The main stream media is trying to spin this as a great performance by Obama.  But, my guess is that a high percentage of people were just as disgusted as me.  The campaign slogan tee shirts draped over each chair added a whole new level of weirdness.  Have any of you been to a funeral lately where they handed out tee shirts with campaign slogans?

Obama also droned on and on and on.  He repeated himself several times and he was his usual arrogant self.  The man cannot give a speech without thrusting his jaw out every time he pauses, in breathless anticipation of the adoration he deserves.  I suspect that the KoolAid drinkers will continue to drink it in, but everyone else will be unimpressed.  There were no great moments, no soaring rhetoric, just the same boring monotone Obama reading predictable clichés.  His greatest moment turned out to be a lie.  Gabrielle Giffords opened her eyes Sunday, long before Obama got around to visiting her.  Perhaps Obama really believed she had only opened her eyes after his visit, but it sure looked like a staged theatrical stunt.  The problem is that this was obviously not true.  Dr. Rhee reported on Sunday that she could open her eyes, but could not speak.  The Sonoran Chronicle carried the story, but pulled it down after Obama’s speech.  Fortunate an alert blogger kept a screen print of the article:

 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bkjADo9S7qcJ:sonoranchronicle.com/2011/01/09/giffords-survives-the-night-can-open-eyes/+giffords+survives+the+night,+can+open+eyes&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Naturally the main stream media continues to report the miraculous eye opening shortly after Obama’s visit.  Some have even stooped to referring him as the great healer.  Please!  I am very glad she can open her eyes, but the exploitation of this woman is mindboggling.

Obama did say that political rhetoric had nothing to do with this incident.  Some broadcasters felt that was a brave thing for him to do.  That is nonsense.  It was the very least he could have done.  What he should have done is said that it is a national disgrace that people viciously attacked Sarah Palin when there was no evidence to support those attacks. 

Since Democrats have already demonstrated a total lack of shame, I predict that soon we will have some kind of gun control legislation proposed by Democrats with Gabrielle Giffords name attached.  Does anyone remember the “Brady bill?”  The Giffords bill is soon to follow.  Any legislation proposed by Republicans will be challenged by Democrats as failing to honor the tragedy.  I Democrat will demand that the health care repeal vote and any other “controversial” legislation be suspended until she is able to return to office.  Bills proposed by Democrats will be done in her honor.  Of course when a Republican is temporarily unavailable Democrats just try to cram through legislation without them.  The most recent example was with Senator Kirk from Illinois.  Democrats tried to delay swearing him in until the last possible moment so they could shove more legislation through the lame duck congress.

After watching Obama’s performance one thought went through my mind, in addition to pure disgust:  “If the American people are too stupid to see through this garbage, we are doomed.”

TDM

The following video from Sarah Palin is a stark reminder of why no one should underestimate her:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41036993/ns/politics-more_politics/?GT1=43001

Obama’s performance has been robotic and uninspiring. The liberal left has been virtually foaming at the mouth with obviously false charges regarding Sarah Palin, even though they admit there is zero evidence supporting these charges.  Some leading Republicans have tried to avoid saying something controversial, so they now look defensive in response.  John Boehner has handled this very professionally.  Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have been fighting back very effectively.   But Sarah Palin, with this video, directly challenged the main stream media in a way they cannot ignore.  She not only let them know their charges are absurd; she correctly challenged them on their own dangerous rhetoric.

The main stream media immediately responded by smearing Sarah Palin for responding to their attacks:

ABC criticized her for responding at all, when earlier they criticized her for not responding:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/01/the-note-obama-palin-and-arizona-a-tale-of-two-speeches.html

CBS says she is playing the victim card:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028275-503544.html

MSNBC says she is ignorant for using the “Blood Libel” term:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/01/12/nbc_andrea_mitchell_palin_ignorant_for_using_term_blood_libel.html

The important thing to note is that the main stream media felt compelled to immediately respond to Sarah Palin.  There is a reason for that.  They FEAR her.  They should.  The term “blood libel” was well chosen, and in contrast to the unfounded smears by the main stream media, it is accurate.  The liberal left’s assault on Sarah Palin did put her and other conservatives in grave danger.  The speed and strength of their reaction is direct evidence of how sharply she stung them with her response.

The liberal left should start praying desperately that no one takes a shot at Sarah Palin or her family, because if that happens the political backlash will be unprecedented.  So far the American public is not buying the “angry right rhetoric” drumbeat from the liberal left.  Sarah Palin’s video is stunningly well done.  I suspect that a lot of people will be moved and inspired by her.  The liberal left has good reason to fear her.  They look very small in comparison.

TDM

The following article alleges that the shooter in Arizona attended an independent study school with significant connections to a curriculum developed by:   WILLIAM AYERS.  The program was funded by  BARACK OBAMA.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=249429

If this is true, it would help explain why this person liked books like Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto.  That is probably from his reading list in high school.  It would explain the anti-government attitude and might help understand his acceptance of violence as a solution to a government he despised.  William Ayers obviously believed in violence against the government.  So did the man he recruited, Mike Klonsky, who was a fellow member of the weatherman underground.  Why would it be a surprise to have anyone connected with them to develop a similar attitude?  .

Democrats and liberals in general were so quick to blame this on the “radical” right that they may have never considered the very real probability that he was actually a product of the liberal left.  If they had not been so eager to attack, before having any facts, they would have quickly learned that this guy was a radical atheist liberal.  If this story gets legs this is going to be hugely embarrassing for Democrats and particularly for Obama.  At least Obama himself did not take any personal shots at Sarah Palin or anyone else with regard to this tragedy.  If he had joined the main stream media chorus he would be in serious trouble.

I think this story is going to get a lot of play.  Liberals brought this on themselves.  If they had just left this alone as a delusional loner, with no political implication, which he was, this story would be long over.  But, by trying to pin this on Sarah Palin and more recently, Rush Limbaugh, this story is going to go on and on.  Republicans are furious that the liberal left immediately politicized this tragedy.  Democrats have already demanded that Darrell Issa investigate toxic political discourse:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/01/11/group-calls-on-issa-to-investigate-toxic-political-discourse/

Sounds like a plan to me.

Such an investigation is going to reveal that the hard right wants less government, more adherence to the constitution, freedom of religion and free speech.  The liberal left just wants to hate people who disagree with them.  One of the real problems for the liberal left is that the internet has changed everything.  A few years ago the main stream media might have gotten away with covering this up and lying about it.  But now the blogosphere is on it and there turns out to be a lot of hard evidence.  The following article by Michelle Malkin is stunning and enlightening.

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/10/the-progressive-climate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

Do not read this article if you do not have a very strong stomach. 

Ultimately, the tragedy in Arizona may just result in a backlash against the liberal left that may expose them once and for all.  It’s about time.

TDM

Democrats are furious that the Tucson Arizona killer inconveniently turned out to be a left wing pothead.  Of course the main stream media will never admit that he was a leftist, they now consider him to be from no apparent ideology, left or right.  That is probably correct, but they were sure willing to consider him connected with the right wing, without any evidence at all.  They only developed the “bi-partisan nut case” scenario when it became quite obvious that he was much more closely associated with liberals than with conservatives. 

The following post was put on the Daily Kos, two days before the shooting.  Note, this is from someone in Tucson, Arizona. 

Now ask yourself one simple question:  “Which represents more hate speech, complaining about a congresswoman voting for Obamacare, in spite of wide spread voter opposition, or considering her DEAD because she didn’t vote for Nancy Pelosi?”

It is shameful that so many people, all on the left, are trying to exploit this tragedy.  Have they no shame?  The best way to provide perspective on this case would be consider what would have happened if say, Scott Brown had been shot by someone upset because he voted against Obamacare.  The main stream media would have been outraged if someone dared to imply that Democratic complaints about obstructing health care for all  was somehow responsible.  They would have been quick to point out that this was a deranged individual who was responsible for his or her own actions.

Once again Republicans have let themselves be put on the defensive by the irresponsible and irrational tactics of the liberal left.  What we need is a Republican to show outrage that this tragedy is being exploited for political purposes.   We need a Republican to say that the exploitation of this incident is exactly the kind of hate speech that both parties need to stop.  We need to do what Democrats always do, point out the numerous instances of hate speech from the liberal left and challenge them on their own record.  The real danger here is not from spirited political discourse.  The real danger is if liberals are able to silence political opposition by the shameless exploitation of this incredible tragedy.

In case you are interested the Tea Party Express has already responded to this situation.  This is spot on.  Perhaps that is why they were so effective in the mid-term election:

This weekend we all were horrified to hear the news of the violent shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and several others in Arizona.

One thing that surprised us was how many in the news media and liberal political figures and organizations immediately launched into an attack on the tea party movement – assigning blame for the shooting to our grass roots, Constitutionalist movement in general, and Gov. Sarah Palin in particular.

Friends, this is outrageous.  

It is quite clear that liberals are trying to exploit this shooting for their own political benefit, and they used deception and dishonesty to try and smear all of us and our beliefs.

You know what the truth is?  The truth is that the shooter, Jared Loughner is the one responsible for this atrocity.  But liberals are trying to place the blame on society for embracing the tea party movement.

We here at the Tea Party Express find that disgusting and revolting.

This isn’t a new concept for liberals.  Let us harken back to the words of Ronald Reagan when he called out the Left for similar behavior in years past: 

“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

– Ronald Reagan

If Jared Loughner does have a definable political ideology it is that of a far Left anarchist.  Loughner is a mentally disturbed young man who sought his ideological fulfillment from the Communist Manifesto – hardly the Bible of the Tea Party movement. He posted videos of flag burning on his YouTube channel – again, antics more consistent with Blame America First liberals, not the tea party movement.

In fact, Loughner’s interactions with Congresswoman Giffords date all the way back to 2007 when he confronted her with a question he had, and received an answer he found unacceptable.  You read that right – Loughner’s interactions with Congresswoman Giffords date back to 2007 – well before the tea party movement had even been launched.

This was all an effort to try and demean us and diminish support for the tea party movement, since the Left could not beat us at the ballot box.  Sadly way too many people in the media cooperated with this smear campaign.

The media didn’t tell you that the left-wing website, DailyKos, had targeted Congresswoman Giffords, putting a BULLSEYE on her, did they?  But that’s just what happened.

Instead they tried to blame Gov. Sarah Palin.  Friends, their hypocrisy and double standards are appalling.

This kind of media bias is a large part of why our tea party movement exists – because the voices of We The People have not been represented fairly by the news media, and listened to by our elected officials.

Well guess what:  to those liberals in the news media and on the political Left who think you can silence us, you are wrong!  Your efforts to try and smear us and shut us up will fail.

Right on!.  I hope the Republican leadership is listening.

TDM

The shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford is a tragedy.  But the bigger tragedy is the predictable irresponsible reaction by the main stream media.  There is the traditional effort to use any high profile shooting to justify more gun control.  In addition there is already a wide spread movement in the main stream media to try and pin this on Sarah Palin.  Once again we are very likely to have the conversation dominated by those most likely to learn the wrong lessons.

We already know the following about this person.  He was a nut job whose writings were incoherent.  He was a loner.  His favorite book was Mein Kampf and he admired Karl Marx.  He had prior run-ins with the law.  His big concern seemed to be with regard to our currency and our grammar.  One person who knew him, described him as a liberal.  Yet the main stream media immediately tried to tie this to excessive rhetoric by the tea party and anyone else who expresses opposition to the usurpation of power by the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration.  There is no evidence he ever attended a tea party event and he does not appear to have any contact with the tea party.  His two big issues appear to be the gold standard and grammar, neither of which is even discussed by the tea party. 

The main stream media ignores genuine hate speech by the liberal left.  It also quickly buried the obvious fact that if this delusional person was influenced by anyone, it was the liberal left.  Perhaps it is just me, but so the vast majority of actual violence has come from the anti-war liberal left and Muslim terrorists.  I am not aware of any violence from people associated with the tea party. 

It was the liberal left who openly rooted for Dick Cheney’s death.  The main stream media saw no problem with anti-war protestors carrying signs hanging Bush in effigy.  They ignored Al Gore’s screaming rage that Bush had disgraced the office after falsely claiming Bush lied about the WMD in Iraq to be a problem.  (Al Gore believed in those WMD when he was with the Clinton Administration.)  They ignored hate speech against the Bush administration because they also hated the Bush administration.

The shooting at Ford Hood was a tragedy.  It was also clearly an act of terrorism by a Muslim extremist.  The main stream media immediately cautioned people to not assume this man was influenced by his Muslim background, just because he was shouting Allahu Ahkbar while shooting everyone.  They show no such restraint in trying to blame this on the tea party movement.

There is no evidence of any increase in violence because of the tea party.  But that does not slow down the rush to judgment by the mainstream media.  The liberal left believes that this country has become an angrier place over the last two years because of irresponsible verbal assaults by people opposed to the Obama administration.  That is utter nonsense. First, those people who oppose the Obama administration are remarkable for the lack of violence.  This is a political movement.  Second, they assume that people are upset because they have been “tricked” by unethical talk show hosts and political opportunists.   This is typical liberal left delusional thinking.  They believe that every educated person agrees with their world view and they automatically assume that anyone who disagrees is either stupid or misinformed.  The simple truth is that conservative talk radio feeds on the discontent, it does not create it.  The real source of the anger is an administration who tried to jam its liberal socialist agenda down the throats of an unwilling populist.  If you want to know why people are so angry, just ask them.    

Sarah Palin is already at risk because of irresponsible assaults by the liberal left.  Even her children are fair game.  Irresponsibly trying to blame this on her, when she had absolutely nothing to do with this situation, puts her and her family in extreme danger.   If anyone needs personal protection as a result of this unfortunately event it is Sarah Palin and her family.  Gerald Rivera, on Fox News, could not resist taking a shot at Sarah Palin.  He started by admitting that this guy had no connection with her or the tea party and seems to be just a nut case.  Then he opined that this would hurt her politically because of her hateful rhetoric.  Obviously, Gerald must have slept through the period from 2000 to 2008 since he seems to have missed the genuine hate speech from the liberal left with regard to the Bush administration.

I have never heard Sarah Palin suggest violence against anyone and in fact she always abhors violence from any source.  On the other hand, some of her opponents have literally suggested someone should assault and rape her.  It is beyond disgusting.

The only thing certain at this point is that the liberal left will exploit this tragedy and use it to try to pass gun control and to silence political opponents.  There are people who are promoting hate speech and inciting violence. Those people must be stopped.   If the main stream media wants to find those people, they should purchase a mirror. 

TDM

It is clear that Sarah Palin is seriously considering running for President of the United States.  There are a lot of people who hate Sarah Palin and many so-called “experts” doubt she could get elected.  Depending on the poll, and the poll questions, her negative rates sometimes approach 50%.  There are very powerful movements, within both political parties, trying to destroy her candidacy before it begins.  The main stream media is trying desperately to paint her as unqualified to be President.  Republicans are equally concerned and just about every day one of the talking heads opines that she is unqualified to be President.

I do not know if Sarah Palin will run for President.  In some ways, I hope she doesn’t, primarily because Sarah Palin would probably pay a higher price for this than any other Presidential candidate in history.  She has already been subjected to the vilest personal attacks and these attacks have included direct personal assaults on her children.  The only thing certain is that the attacks will continue, they will become more vicious and the main stream media will become even more irresponsible.  I am not concerned over Sarah Palin’s ability to withstand this assault; she has already demonstrated that she is more than up to the task.  I just think it is unfair to expect anyone to endure this kind of treatment.

But it would be a huge mistake to assume she will not run and it would be an even bigger mistake to assume she cannot win.  We have already had a case study of what is likely to happen in the event she chooses to run.  The case study was Bristol Palin’s performance on Dancing with the Stars.  When the show began, most “experts” were predicting that Bristol would be the first person cut.  That did not happen.  She wasn’t brilliant, but she also wasn’t terrible.  The liberal media tried to portray her as some self-centered diva, but that didn’t work.  It soon became obvious that Bristol Palin is just very real and very normal.  She didn’t try to pretend to be anything other than herself, she kept her mouth shut and did the best she could.  A lot of people found that refreshing, particularly when compared to her opponents who were all professional entertainers. 

Suddenly, people realized that Bristol Palin had a chance to win the entire competition.  At that point the liberal blogosphere came unglued.  One guy even shot his TV in disgust.  They invented some bizarre tea party conspiracy and became convinced there had to be major voter fraud in action.  The liberal left cannot comprehend that a lot of people really like people they despise.  They hate Sarah Palin.  They hate anyone associated with Sarah Palin.  They cannot comprehend the concept that people would judge Bristol Palin based on what they saw with their own eyes.  A lot of people, including a lot of Democrats, decided they liked Bristol Palin.  She ended up making it to the finals and came in third.

What happened with regard to Dancing with the Stars really matters with regard to a Sarah Palin run for President.  The only thing certain is that there are going to be a lot of Republican candidates for President.  Sarah Palin’s base support is rock solid and it is a significant percentage.  As long as there are several other candidates, she is always going to be one of the top vote getters. She may not win, but she definitely won’t lose.   Her supporters are her supporters and everyone else will split the remaining vote.  This is exactly how Bristol Palin survived the early stages of Dancing with the Stars, when she frankly did not perform very well.  Her core support was solid and the rest of the vote was split.  Later, when she performed remarkably well, she gained additional support.

As of now, the following people have been “mentioned” as possible candidates for the Republican nomination for President.   I will put them in Alphabetical order:

Haley Barbour                                                           Governor of Mississippi

Mike Bloomberg                                                       Mayor of New York

John Bolton                                                               Former Ambassador to the UN

Scott Brown                                                              Massachusetts Senator

Jeb Bush                                                                    Former Governor of Florida

Chris Christie                                                            Governor of New Jersey

Charlie Crist                                                              Former Governor of Florida

Mitch Daniels                                                            Former Governor of Indiana

Jim DeMint                                                               South Carolina Senator

Newt Gingrich                                                          Former Speaker of the House

Lindsey Graham                                                      South Carolina Senator

Mike Huckabee                                                        Former Governor of Arkansas

Bobby Jindal                                                             Governor of Louisiana

Gary Johnson                                                           Former Governor of New Mexico

Fred Karger                                                              Gay Rights Activitst

Bob McDonnell                                                         Governor of Virginia

Sarah Palin                                                                Former Governor of Alaska

Ron Paul                                                                    Texas Representative

Tim Pawlenty                                                           Former Governor of Minnesota

Mike Pence                                                               Indiana Representative

David Petraeus                                                         General

Mitt Romney                                                             Former Governor of Massachusetts

Wayne Root                                                               Libertarian Candidate

Marco Rubio                                                              Florida Senator

Rick Santorum                                                          Former Senator from Pennsylvania

John Thune                                                               South Dakota Senator

Donald Trump                                                          Businessman 

This is not even the entire list.  This list will be quickly winnowed down to size.  The initial cuts will be made primarily on who is unable to raise sufficient cash.  If you can’t quickly raise millions of dollars for your campaign, you have no chance of staying in the contest.  Following are the people who “won’t” have that problem. 

Mike Bloomberg

Mike Huckabee

Sarah Palin

Ron Paul

Mitt Romney

Donald Trump

Here are the people who may have trouble raising funds, but do have good name recognition and that could change:

Haley Barbour

Scott Brown

Jeb Bush

Newt Gingrich

Lindsey Graham

Bobby Jindal

Tim Pawlenty

David Petraeus

Marco Rubio

Rick Santorum

Note:  I didn’t put Chris Christie on this list because I don’t think he will run.  If he does run, he could run the table. 

Unless something unusual happens, the rest of the list is unlikely to raise enough money to compete for very long.  Obviously the potential field is way too crowded and will need to be cut down quickly.  The first step in the process will probably be some straw polls.  I do not know who will win those polls, but Sarah Palin will always be in the hunt.  She may not win any of these straw polls, but she will survive.  Ultimately this will probably get down to about four or five candidates.  Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee will probably be in the mix.  There is also likely to be another, more conservative candidate and possibly another, more moderate (think liberal) candidate. 

But here is the reason why Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee have to be very afraid.  The only way someone is going to take that nomination away from Sarah Palin, if she decides to run, is if she ends up in a one on one contest where those people opposed to her unite behind one candidate.  In a three way contest she will pull about 40% minimum.  History has shown us that neither Mitt Romney nor Mike Huckabee is likely to give up his dream of being President until it is too late.  In effect, Palin could pull a McCain.  McCain never had a majority of Republicans supporting him; in fact there were probably a consistent majority who opposed him.  But, since this was a three way race, with conservatives split between Romney and Huckabee, he ended up with the nomination.

So, while I am not predicting Sarah Palin will win the Republican nomination, particularly this early in the race, she has at least as good a chance as anyone else.  Then the question becomes whether or not she can win the Presidency.

I like Sarah Palin, but I would not consider her to be my first choice to be the next President of the United States.  I would prefer a candidate with more executive experience.  Even if one believes that Barack Obama represents their values, he clearly is naïve and incompetent.  We are paying a terrible price for that incompetence.  Next time we should be careful to elect someone with the leadership and experience necessary to do the job.  In addition, Sarah Palin may be more valuable working on the outside.  But, compared to most of the other candidates, and certainly compared to Barack Obama, Sarah Palin is definitely qualified. 

It is extremely easy and unwise to underestimate her.  What is most remarkable is that unlike all of the other candidates, she does not have a huge staff.  For example when she appears on Fox News she does this in her own studio in front of a television camera operated by her husband Todd.  There doesn’t even appear to be anyone else in the room.  Yet she answers question, even on complicated topics, quickly without hesitation.  I do not know of another politician who is equally capable of doing that.  She is a very rare commodity in national politics, she is her own person.  Sarah Palin says what she means and she means what she says.  She does not need a professional staff to help her determine the best position to take with regard to important issues.  She recently said that if she does run for President, she will not rely on a professional campaign staff.  Perhaps that is because she cannot find anyone more capable of understanding the key issues. 

The best way to tell which player is great is to watch how the other team responds to them.  For example Barry Bonds was possibly the best offensive baseball player in history.  He was so feared that on more than one occasion the other team walked him with the bases loaded rather than let him hit.  They would rather give up one run than four.  The same is true in all sports.  Watch which player receives the most attention from the other team and there is the real super star.

Democrats are not bothering to attack obvious front runners like Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, but they are attacking Sarah Palin.  That tells you everything you need to know.  They know who they need to fear.  As long as the main stream media and the Democratic Party continue to attack Sarah Palin, you can bet your bottom dollar that THEY think she is a real threat.  If they ever stop talking about her then and only then should she be concerned.    

 TDM

The size of the person is directly proportional to the size of the person or thing that upsets them!

George Bush was on Hannity promoting his new book, Decision Points.  Bush did not need a Teleprompter to tell us what he thought.  This is a very capable man, far removed from the incompetent boob portrayed in the main stream media.  But what was really stunning was the interaction between George Bush and his former staff.  The George Bush that they described in private was the same George Bush we saw in public.  It was easy to see why these people admired him and respected him.  Dana Perino said it best. She said it was an honor to be the spokesperson for a President who made decisions based on his values.  She said she did not need to worry about what the New York Times said the next day because he did not make his decisions based on his personal popularity.  She said he was a man of integrity who made decisions for the right reasons.

There were numerous times when Bush showed a graciousness and humility that was clearly genuine.  He talked about meeting an Army Sergeant who had lost both legs in Iraq.  Bush visited this soldier in the hospital and in an attempt to encourage him invited him to run with President Bush sometime.  Bush said he was shocked when he got a message that this soldier had received state of the art artificial limbs and was ready to take Bush up on his offer.  There were pictures of Bush and this man running on the South Lawn of the White House.  It was clear that Bush was deeply moved and he was humbled by the experience.  But the most remarkable comment was by the soldier who said that President Bush was a humble man.  He meant it.  Bush was President of the United States, but he treated that soldier as an equal and was genuinely inspired by him.  In Bush we had a President who took the job, not himself, seriously.  No one, watching that show, could possibly doubt the sincerity or the depth of compassion demonstrated by George Bush.  He said that the reason he was so proud to be Commander in Chief was that he was able to come in contact with so many of the outstanding people who serve in our military. 

This image of Bush was far removed from the way he was presented in the main stream media.  This caused me to wonder why Democrats and their supporting liberal main stream media went so far out of their way to destroy this man.  It clearly wasn’t just because Bush is a Republican or even a conservative.  It wasn’t because of the war in Iraq.  It also wasn’t because of an abrasive personality.  Even his enemies acknowledge that George Bush is friendly and warm if you meet him in person.  I finally realized that they hate him for the same reason they hate Sarah Palin.  Bush represented something that the liberal left cannot tolerate.  He is a moral man.  He does not pretend to be perfect, but he is a man who tries to make decisions based on moral values.  Bush sees the world in terms of right and wrong.  He does not subscribe to the principle of moral equivalence.  Liberals see the world in shades of gray and they are deeply intolerant of people who see things in terms of right or wrong.

I believe that some of this is also carry-over from Bill Clinton.  When the Monica Lewinsky story broke, a majority of Democrats in the Senate said that if Bill Clinton had lied under oath that they would vote for impeachment.  However, at some point they decided that it was better for them politically to vote against impeachment.  They justified this on the basis that when Clinton lied it was just about sex and “everybody does it.”  In order for them to justify excusing what Clinton did, they had to convince themselves that all other politicians are the same.   They had to convince themselves that all politicians are corrupt and immoral. 

Then Bush poured salt on the wound by promising to restore dignity and honor to the Presidency.  Liberals were outraged.  If there was a need to restore dignity and honor to the White House, then how could they justify their support of Bill Clinton?   Democrats had to either destroy Bush, or to endure a brutal self-assessment of their own moral character. 

Suppose there is a group of students who decide to cheat on a test.  But one student refuses to go along because he thinks that would be morally wrong.  The cheaters could tolerate him saying he didn’t want to participate because he didn’t want to risk getting caught.  But they cannot tolerate him saying he won’t do it because it is wrong.   They become angry and accuse him of being self-righteous.  This is because when one is wrong and one knows he or she is wrong, it is very disturbing to be confronted with a moral person.  At that point one has to either confront his or her own lack or character or convince themselves’ that it’s ok because the other person is equally flawed.

The liberal left and the mainstream media had to destroy Bush.  They had to convince themselves that he was equally corrupt.  This is why they accused him of doing special favors for big oil in exchange for some vague personal financial gain, although there is no evidence of that.  That is why they felt he had to be abusing the terrorist surveillance program for political purposes although there is not one single example of that.  That is why they had to believe that he had some ulterior motive for ordering the invasion of Iraq even though there is no evidence of that either.   It is why they had to accuse him of lying about the intelligence prior to the war when they knew he was telling the truth.  It was not enough for them to disagree with him on issues, they had to hate him.  They had to attack him the most vicious personal way possible.   Bush then infuriated them even more by failing to respond in kind to the politics of personal destruction.   He could have at least had the decency to lose his temper and launch some personal attacks of his own.  But Bush never did that.  I cannot find a single example of Bush launching a personal attack on anyone.  He frequently disagreed with people on policy issues but he never made it personal.   That made the liberal left even angrier:

Proverbs 25:21-22

If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:  For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee.

I strongly believe that one of the reasons the liberal left hated George Bush was that deep down they knew he was a kind and generous man.  When he refused to lower himself to their level, he heaped coals of fire on their head with kindness.

They are doing the same thing with Sarah Palin.   Liberals fear Sarah Palin for several reasons.  As a result of that fear, they must hate her.  They fear her because she is a skilled politician with an incredible ability to connect.  They also fear her because she sneers at their value system.   One of the big problems we have today is with RINOs who abandon their principles in their desperate search for approval by the cultured elite.  Sarah Palin does not make that mistake.  She literally told the liberal press that she neither sought nor wanted their approval.  Liberals and the cultured elite are not upset because Sarah Palin is not one of them, but rather because she does not care what they think. 

I do not hate Barack Obama.  I think he is a lousy President.  I also think he has dangerously radical values.  I think he is doing great damage to the country, but I do not hate him.  I wish him and his family good health and prosperity.  I would just like to see him removed from a position of power which enables him to do great damge to a lot of innocent people.

I strongly believe that the size of the person is directly proportional to the person or thing that upsets them.  Basically, that means don’t sweat the small stuff.  It also means don’t sweat the small people.  I have had to remind myself of that on more than one occasion.  I eventually realized that if I allowed myself to be obsessed with hatred because of what someone did or said, I was just lowering myself to their level.  The only way I could hope to prevail was to not let small people have a big impact on my life.

George Bush and Sarah Palin understand that.  Their liberal opponents who feel compelled to hate them and launch never ending personal attacks don’t.    

TDM