21 Reasons Why Sarah Palin Should NOT be Elected Vice-President of the United States

 Not verified with Snopes or Truth or Fiction–but who cares? 

 21 Reasons Why Sarah Palin Should NOT be Elected Vice-President of the United States :  

1) She is a Woman.

2) She does not believe in killing babies, born or unborn.

3) She is NOT endorsed by Susan Sarandon, Jane Fonda, Rosie O’Donnell, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Geraldine Ferrara, Barbara Walters, Helen Thomas, Ellen DeGeneris, Ted Kennedy, Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, Barbra Streisand, David Letterman, or others who fervently believe in a Woman’s Right to Choose (to kill babies).

4) She is married to a Foreigner–a species called ‘Native American’–meaning her five children are half-breeds.

5) She has on more than one occasion expressed PRIDE in the United States of America .

6) Unlike decent, self-respecting Democrats everywhere, she has a 17-year-old daughter who became pregnant out of wedlock.

7) She is a member of the American Riflemen’s Association / actually owns firearms / and knows how to use them.

8) She has killed a moose, among other animals–and spreads the propaganda that it is hunters, through their license fees, that keep American wildlife from becoming extinct.

9) She often does her own grocery and other household shopping.

10) She drives a car, rides a Harley, and flies a plane.

11) She chose to give birth to a defective child, rather than allow a skilled Abortion Doctor to kill it for her.

12) She refuses to apologize for seeking the termination of an Alaskan State Trooper just because he applied  a gentle taser to his 12-year-old stepson (who, of course, happened to be Gov. Palin’s nephew).

13) She is inexperienced. And she refuses to admit that her duties as the chief executive in the State of Alaska are nowhere near equal to those of a public servant who was once a Community Organizer, or that of a United States Senator who has carried the awesome burden of overseeing a staff of political appointees.

14) She has a son who is in the U.S. . Military, deployed to the Persian Gulf –probably making her prejudiced against all the peaceful Muslims in that part of the world.

15) She is on Oprah Winfrey’s ‘Do Not Invite’ list.

16) She professes to be a Christian, but has no ‘Spiritual Adviser’– even though Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who served Sen. Obama in that capacity for 20 years, is now available.

17) She isn’t really a ‘beauty queen,’ as advertised. She was only the runner-up in the Miss Alaska Contest; and Alaska is not a very populous state, anyway.

18) The Obama-Biden ticket is favored over McCain-Palin, 80% to 20%, by our friendly allies in France .

19) Her children are not properly trained in hygiene. (Did you see her 7-year-old daughter shamelessly lick the entire palm of her hand at the Convention, then use it to slick down the hair of her little brother?)

20) She is of mixed English, German, and Irish ancestry–and you KNOW you can’t trust the Limey’s, Krauts, or Micks.

21) Back to No. 1: This is the one that really galls modern, liberal ‘feminists.’ Gov. Palin is a Woman, a female-type wife and mother, who shaves her legs, wears makeup, dresses smartly, often cooks meals for her family, doesn’t give a hoot about the National Organization for Women or the all-powerful Teachers Unions–and obviously will never, ever fit in as a member of the Washington Elite.

 Do we want a person like this

to be the Vice President

of the Unites States?

You  betcha !!!

This could be the game changer

This could be the game changer

By Thomas Lifson

Someone with the unlikely name of Molotov Mitchell has produced a 10 minute and 52 second video [watch it below] that could well change the terms of the election — if enough people watch it. Illuminati Productions has posted it to YouTube. They have provided the voting public a very professionally and engagingly done video generation equivalent of a long detailed article in a place like American Thinker.

It makes accessible to the general public some of the serious questions about Obama’s citizenship status that have been vetted almost exclusively in the conservative web world. You can’t get most voters to focus on print media in order to entertain a series of hard questions on what seems like a far-fetched notion. Especially those voters who rely on the Big Media. They figure that if this were true, they would have heard about it from the old familiar faces.

But you can get people to watch 11 minutes of interesting video raising a slew of questions for Obama, in fact cornering him, on the question of his birth, citizenship, and eligibility for office as POTUS under the Constitution. Especially if people start talking about the video. It’s called viral distribution. A friend emails an Obama-supporting friend and dares him or her to watch.


A lifelong Democrat who has held political office and been a committeeman, Philip Berg, has brought suit over the real questions raised by the absence of a valid Obama birth certificate. His narrative of the various questions Obama has refused to answer is devastating. Graphics and sound are well-deployed to avoid tedium as factual data is conveyed in a way that allows viewers to absorb it. When he contrasts Obama’s behavior when challenged (use perfectly valid legal technicalities to delay) with John McCain’s full disclosure of all documentary evidence under a similar challenge (remember the flap over his birth in the Panama Canal Zone? — who raised those questions, anyway?), there is no doubt in a viewer’s mind that there is something seriously wrong here.


We are talking about the Presidency and this guy stonewalls?


The only way Obama can satisfactorily resposnd is to release his supossed Hawaiian birth certificate. If he has it, why hasn’t he released it? If he does release it, game over. So why drage this out on technical grounds? It doesn’t make sense.

If this video gets widely viewed and discussed, Obama’s support will crumble in the face of continued stonewalling.

I am grateful for the efforts of the people who put this op together. It is brilliantly timed. I do know that there are one or more smart Democrats who haven’t forgiven Obama and who don’t want to see him elected. They know how to design and implement really effective plans to get things done.

They might even want to get Obama thrown off the ballot and replaced by the second place finisher before Election Day. Or, if the Democratic Party stonewalls and the court delays, pick up the pieces.

Watch it and see what you think.


Hat tip: Clarice Feldman

Thomas Lifson is editor and publisher of American Thinker.

Update: All the filings to date in the court action of Philip Berg are available here.

McCain calls Obama a liar

McCain calls Obama a liar
Oct 6 03:44 PM US/Eastern
Associated Press Writer

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) – Republican John McCain is calling Democratic rival Barack Obama a liar.The GOP presidential candidate told a campaign rally: “Sen. Obama has accused me of opposing regulation to avert this crisis. I guess he believes if a lie is big enough and repeated often enough it will be believed.”

In some of the harshest language yet, McCain said the campaign comes down to a simple question: Who is the real Barack Obama?

McCain drew the loudest cheers when he said the Democrat has written two memoirs but “he’s not exactly an open book.”

Trailing in the polls, McCain and his advisers say they will hammer that theme as the campaign heads toward the Nov. 4 election.


Cameron Interviews Post-Debate Palin



ST. LOUIS –- Fox News’ Carl Cameron conducted the first post-debate interview with Sarah Palin this morning. The extensive interview went over last night’s Vice-Presidential face off, her debate prep, campaign strategy, media access and the hits she has been getting for not having more access to the media, and of course the much talked about and criticized interview she did with CBS’s Katie Couric.

Palin told Carl that she was “annoyed” at some of the interviews she has done, “Ok I’ll tell you honestly the Sarah Palin in those interviews is a little bit annoyed because it’s man no matter what you say you are going to get clobbered. If you choose to answer a question you are going to get clobbered on the answer,” Palin said. “If you choose to try and pivot and go on to another subject that you believe that Americans want to hear about you get clobbered for that too.”

She then aimed to defend herself for some of the criticism she got for the Couric interview. She was blasted for not answering Couric’s question on any of the periodicals she reads or even a Supreme Court decision that she disagreed with. She defended some of the circular answers she gave the CBS anchor saying that she did not get to cover some of the topics she saw as important, “But in those Katie Couric interviews I did feel that there were a lot of things that she was missing in terms of an opportunity to ask what a V.P. candidate stands for. What the values are represented in our ticket. I wanted to talk about Barack Obama increasing taxes, which would lead to killing jobs. I wanted to talk about his proposal to increase government spending by another trillion dollars.”

She then slammed Barack Obama calling him disqualified to be President of the United States, “Some of his comments that he has made about the war that I think may in my world disqualifies someone from consideration as the next commander in chief.” Palin said, “Some of his comments about Afghanistan and what we are doing there supposedly– just air raiding villages and killing civilians. That’s reckless. So I wanted to talk about things like that. So I guess I have to apologize about being a little annoyed, but that is also an indication of being outside that Washington elite and being outside the media elite also and just wanting to talk and just wanting to talk to Americans without the filter and let them know what we stand for.”

Stay tuned to Fox News all day as Carl Cameron reports on his interview with Palin. Also keep checking back here as this is just the first installment of my blogs on their tete a tete

‘Insanity’ and ‘Obscenity’: McCain Criticizes Pork In Bailout Bill He Voted For


Jesus Christ Was NOT a Community Organizer!

Worse than Watergate — But Invisible in the Media

Worse than Watergate — But Invisible in the Media
By Alan Nathan
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 5, 2007

President Clinton’s Former National Security Advisor was caught stealing and destroying classified documents from the National Archives (before the 9/11 Commission could read them), but his actions have garnered less media attention than a fly breaking wind.  Sandy Berger illegally removed four documents, hid them under a construction trailer for later retrieval, then cut three of the four with scissors upon returning to his office. He admitted to lying about it when first questioned by their officials, according to a December 20, 2006, report by Inspector General Paul Brachfeld.   

We already knew that in September of 2005, Berger was sentenced to pay a $50,000 fine and complete 100 hours of community service for taking and destroying documents never meant to leave the Archives in October 2003. However, at the time of his plea bargain, much of this story was never reported, and most of us were unaware of just how premeditated had been his cloak and dagger exercises. 


Well, now we know, but little of it is making the headlines or the airwaves. Why? Why is it that secret material failing to reach the 9/11 Commission never ignited explosions of press inquiry? He was chosen by Clinton to provide these after-action reports of the 2000 millennium terror plot to the Commission investigating the state of our intelligence on terror before the September 11, 2001 attacks. Wasn’t that beyond a conflict of interest? Why didn’t the Commission send someone not connected to the investigation? 


And don’t embarrass yourself by even imagining that Berger, his attorney, and all of his apologists are to be taken seriously when they contend that the documents still exist in their entirety and were submitted to the Commission. As Virginia Republican Representative Tom Davis accurately pointed out when commenting to the Associated Press, “Working papers of National Security Council staff members are not inventoried by the Archives.” He added, “Consequently, there is no way to ever know if the 9/11 Commission received all required materials.”  


Nobody on the Commission (or on the planet) can assert to have the full accounting of an original tally never known. Why?


Because if it wasn’t inventories, you have no beginning number!

This all screams the question, “Why has the media allocated so little focus on this?” The normal order of things would suggest that we learn from our predecessors. While that remains true for most professions, the same cannot be said of the journalism community.


When debating a judicial nominee’s state of neutrality, one requisite is paramount: Does he have a greater allegiance to his vocation than he does his politics? When judges are meeting such standards, then both the liberal and conservative judge shall rule far more similarly to one another than would two fellow liberals or two fellow conservatives not meeting that requisite. 

 The average reporter also once had a stronger loyalty to his craft than his biases – perhaps the path to the good old days is through the future, and current journalism majors can lead us back to excellence.   Today however, the media’s five-to-one ratio of liberals to conservatives (as was reported by the Pew Foundation in 2004) is having a deleterious impact on us all in that we’re only fully protected when the GOP commit the offense.   

Don’t get me wrong, as a centrist I’m delighted with the media exposing Republican criminality. But why should citizens be more vulnerable to other charlatans simply because they are Democrats receiving less scrutiny from their brethren in the Fourth Estate?


Every once in a while a story of great magnitude arises in a way that provokes such little initial coverage that it effectively hides in plain sight. When this occurs, it’s either because the original news worthiness appears to be at a lower level of importance, or because those with direct and indirect vested interests have enough aggregate influence so as to play down the story in question.


The Watergate scandal is an example of the first; Sandy Berger removing and extinguishing protected records of national security exemplifies the second. 


In the Watergate burglary fiasco that revealed President Nixon covering up his campaign’s attempt to steal papers from the Democrats, there were political operatives wielding their influence to conceal the event. Thankfully, those operatives were far outweighed by a press more interested in journalism than anyone else’s political agenda. Consequently, what was originally reported as a garden-variety breaking-and-entry would later be understood as a grotesque violation of public trust.


What happened to that kind of passionate investigative journalism? Sandy Berger stealing and destroying classified documents is a story with so many startling facts already in evidence, even the layman newshound should think to ask, “What else is being hidden and what are the motives?”

Why is robbing national security documents less important than robbing campaign documents?

Classified Info

Classified Info
By Joel Mowbray
The Washington Times | January 3, 2007

With the release of an internal investigation last week, we now know that former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger not only knowingly flouted laws for handling classified documents, but he went to incredible lengths to cover his tracks and thwart investigators.

While Mr. Berger’s “punishment” was a pittance of a fine, former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin has been financially ruined and sentenced to 12 and a half years for passing along far less-classified information to unauthorized third parties.

Unfortunately, disproportionate justice is inherent to the legal system. The written playbook might be the same for various cases, but different judges and different dynamics can lead to dramatically disparate results.

But what excuse is there for the wildly different media coverage of the two cases, both of which came to public attention in the summer of 2004?

Given the nature of each man’s actions and the starkly different status each enjoyed in the public eye, the media actually was justified in providing dissimilar coverage. Only the press got it exactly wrong.

One man verbally disclosed classified information devoid of sources or methods. The other snuck five different versions of a top-secret document out of a secure facility.

One was a low-level career bureaucrat, while the other was just a few years removed from being the president’s national security advisor. One man cooperated with authorities and didn’t even retain a lawyer before being interrogated, while the other lied to investigators and then intentionally destroyed evidence.

While conservative news outlets reveled in the Berger story, the mainstream media was at best blase. Of all the articles about Mr. Berger’s case — from the revelation that he was the subject of an inquiry through the recent release of the National Archives inspector general’s report — only one made it to the front page of either The Washington Post or the New York Times. Coverage of Mr. Franklin’s case, however, earned that distinction more than a half-dozen times.

The Franklin affair started out with a bang. Over seven days, starting in late August 2004, The Washington Post published six distinct stories, three of which landed on the front page. It was a sizzling story. Someone who worked in the Pentagon seen by the media as too pro-Israel was suspected of passing national-security secrets to the Jewish state. The Post even implied that five others — all Jews with “strong ties to Israel” — might also be spies.

In the end, the FBI’s full-court press only netted one conviction of a government official. Mr. Franklin plea-bargained to three counts, including passing classified information to an Israeli government official and two men at pro-Israel lobby AIPAC. (The trial of Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman is slated to begin by the spring.) According to someone with intimate knowledge of the leaked draft presidential directive, the document contained no sources and no methods. It had no sensitive material of any kind. It was nothing more than a policy paper — just a few pages that resembled an opinion-editorial — advocating tougher diplomacy, not war, in dealing with Iran.

Reporters at The Post and the New York Times worked overtime to find new angles in the Franklin case, and that effort yielded considerable ink. On the Berger case, though, the mega newspapers simply reported stories as information came out. There was no digging, no investigative passion. Even the disclosure of the inspector general’s report only happened because of a freedom of information request filed by the Associated Press.

The mainstream media’s palpable disinterest in the Berger case is hardly justified. Many questions remain unanswered. Of the few explanations Mr. Berger and his defenders have actually provided, none passes the laugh test.

Mr. Berger claimed in court last year that smuggling classified documents out of the National Archives was about “personal convenience,” but the inspector general report states that he walked out of the building and down the street, found a construction site, looked to see if the coast was clear, then slid behind a fence and hid the documents under a trailer.

Which part of that elaborate procedure was “convenient”?

According to the New York Times story last April following Mr. Berger’s guilty plea, “Associates attributed the episode to fatigue and poor judgment.” While lying to authorities is bad judgment, it is also illegal. And how exactly did fatigue drive Mr. Berger to use his scissors to shred three versions of the top-secret document?

Despite the report’s devastating blow to Mr. Berger’s excuse machine, it was buried. The Post dumped it on page 7, and the New York Times exiled it to page 36.

Reflecting — or perhaps because of — the respective media attention is the justice meted out to each man. President Clinton’s national security adviser will not see the inside of a jail cell. His $50,000 fine sounds big, but it’s roughly equivalent to a few weeks out of his princely salary. Meanwhile, Franklin has lost half his pension and was given a stiffer sentence than several Islamic terrorists convicted in the very same courthouse.

Just don’t expect the Post or the Times to point that out.

GOP Leaders Seek Probe of Berger Papers


GOP Leaders Seek Probe of Berger Papers
Oct 11 2:25 PM US/Eastern
Associated Press Writer


A group of House Republicans called Wednesday for a congressional investigation into the improper handling of classified documents by President Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger. Berger admitted last year that he deliberately took classified documents out of the National Archives in 2003 and destroyed some of them at his office. He pleaded guilty in federal court to one charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material and was fined $50,000. Ten lawmakers led by House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, R- Calif., and Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., released a letter calling for the House Government Reform Committee to investigate. They asked the committee to determine whether any documents were missing from Clinton administration terrorism records, to review security measures for classified documents and to seek testimony from Berger. Hunter’s spokesman, Joe Kasper, said the Justice Department had asked Congress to hold off on any oversight until the legal case concluded. “It’s important that the House conduct its own review to ensure there is a clear understanding of the facts, and sensitive and highly classified security information is not potentially compromised in the future,” Kasper said. Berger’s lawyer, Lanny Breuer, did not immediately return a call for comment. A spokesman for the Government Reform Committee said the panel was reviewing the letter. At issue is a strange sequence of events in which Berger admitted to sneaking classified documents out of the National Archives in his suit, later destroying some of them and then lying about it. The Bush administration disclosed the investigation in July 2004, just days before the Sept. 11 commission issued its final report. During Berger’s sentencing hearing Breuer characterized Berger as eager to get the facts of the Sept. 11 attacks right when he took the material, which contained information relating to terror threats in the United States during the 2000 millennium celebration.