Katie Couric wants a Muslim Cosby Show

Katie Couric wants a Muslim Cosby Show

Thomas Lifson

Deep thinker Katie Couric believes that “a seething hatred many people feel for all Muslims” is such a  major problem that we need a Muslim version of The Cosby Show to give Americans the warm-and-fuzzies about Islam. Ms. Couric, who lives and works in New York, should examine the data on hate crimes in her state (which may be too much to ask from a woman who earns 8 figures yearly for reading a teleprompter summary of the news). Richards Baehr points out:

11 hate crimes against Muslims, 251 hate crimes against Jews in 2010. Not much evidence of any  growth in Islamophobia.But there may be evidence of big growth in hate crimes by Muslims against Jews, once data  on individual crimes is released. Maybe what Katie Couric really meant to say was that there was a need for a new Cosby show with a Jewish family.
For my part, I think there are many comic opportunities for a sitcom about a Muslim family dealing with the dilemmas of living in the Great Satan. Clitorectomies, honor killings, shunning infidelas as unclean, and following the prophet’s great example in killing Jews all have great potential for heart-warming comedy.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/katie_couric_wants_a_muslim_co.html at December 31, 2010 – 11:13:49 AM CST

CBS Features NY Mayor Bloomberg Speculating Bomber Was Mad About ObamaCare–Cheap shot at tea party SHAME on Bloomberg

CBS Features NY Mayor Bloomberg Speculating Bomber Was Mad About ObamaCare

By Brent Baker
Created 05/03/2010 – 19:37

With Katie Couric drawing him out, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg agreed the Times Square car bombing was likely “homegrown” as he proceeded, in an interview excerpt run on Monday’s CBS Evening News, to speculate it could have been placed by “somebody with a political agenda who doesn’t like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.”

Could be “anything,” but the first thing Bloomberg thinks of are those who don’t like ObamaCare, presumably conservatives or Tea Party activists.  

Audio: MP3 clip [0]

From part of Couric’s interview with the mayor aired on the Monday, May 3 CBS Evening News:

KATIE COURIC: Law enforcement officials don’t know who left the Nissan Pathfinder behind, but, at this point, the mayor believes the suspect acted alone.

MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG: If I had to guess — 25 cents — this would be exactly that, somebody-


BLOOMBERG: Home-grown, maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.

CBSNews.com version [1] of Couric’s interview.

Praising Arizona

Praising Arizona


Posted By Heather MacDonald On May 4, 2010 @ 12:05 am In FrontPage | No Comments

This article is reprinted from City Journal [1]

Supporters of Arizona’s new law strengthening immigration enforcement in the state should take heart from today’s New York Times editorial [2] blasting it. “Stopping Arizona” contains so many blatant falsehoods that a reader can be fully confident that the law as actually written is a reasonable, lawful response to a pressing problem. Only by distorting the law’s provisions can the Times and the law’s many other critics make it out to be a racist assault on fundamental American rights.

The law, SB 1070, empowers local police officers to check the immigration status of individuals whom they have encountered during a “lawful contact,” if an officer reasonably suspects the person stopped of being in the country illegally, and if an inquiry into the person’s status is “practicable.” The officer may not base his suspicion of illegality “solely [on] race, color or national origin.” (Arizona lawmakers recently amended [3] the law to change the term “lawful contact” to “lawful stop, detention or arrest” and deleted the word “solely” from the phrase regarding race, color, and national origin. The governor is expected to sign the amendments.) The law also requires aliens to carry their immigration documents, mirroring an identical federal requirement. Failure to comply with the federal law on carrying immigration papers becomes a state misdemeanor under the Arizona law.

Good luck finding any of these provisions in the Times’s editorial. Leave aside for the moment the sweeping conclusions with which the Times begins its screed—such gems as the charge that the law “turns all of the state’s Latinos, even legal immigrants and citizens, into criminal suspects” and is an act of “racial separation.” Instead, let’s see how the Times characterizes the specific legislative language, which is presumably the basis for its indictment.

The paper alleges that the “statute requires police officers to stop and question anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant.” False. The law gives an officer the discretion, when practicable, to determine someone’s immigration status only after the officer has otherwise made a lawful stop, detention, or arrest. It does not allow, much less require, fishing expeditions for illegal aliens. But if, say, after having stopped someone for running a red light, an officer discovers that the driver does not have a driver’s license, does not speak English, and has no other government identification on him, the officer may, if practicable, send an inquiry to his dispatcher to check the driver’s status with a federal immigration clearinghouse.

The Times then alleges that the law “empower[s] police officers to stop anyone they choose and demand to see papers.” False again, for the reasons stated above. An officer must have a lawful, independent basis for a stop; he can only ask to see papers if he has “reasonable suspicion” to believe that the person is in the country illegally. “Reasonable suspicion” is a legal concept of long-standing validity, rooted in the Constitution’s prohibition of “unreasonable searches and seizures.” It meaningfully constrains police activity; officers are trained in its contours, which have evolved through common-law precedents, as a matter of course. If the New York Times now thinks that the concept is insufficient as a check on police power, it will have to persuade every court and every law enforcement agency in the country to throw out the phrase—and the Constitution with it—and come up with something that suits the Times’s contempt for police power.

On broader legal issues, the Times is just as misleading. The paper alleges that the “Supreme Court has consistently ruled that states cannot make their own immigration laws.” Actually, the law on preemption is almost impossibly murky. As the Times later notes in its editorial, the Justice Department ruled in 2002, after surveying the relevant Supreme Court and appellate precedents, that “state and local police had ‘inherent authority’ to make immigration arrests.” The paper does not like that conclusion, but it has not been revoked as official legal advice. If states have inherent authority to make immigration arrests, they can certainly do so under a state law that merely tracks the federal law requiring that immigrants carry documentation.

The Times tips its hand at the end of the editorial. It calls for the Obama administration to end a program that trains local law enforcement officials in relevant aspects of immigration law and that deputizes them to act as full-fledged immigration agents. The so-called 287(g) program acts as a “force multiplier,” as the Times points out, adding local resources to immigration law enforcement—just as Arizona’s SB 1070 does. At heart, this force-multiplier effect is what the hysteria over Arizona’s law is all about: SB 1070 ups the chances that an illegal alien will actually be detected and—horror of horrors—deported. The illegal-alien lobby, of which the New York Times is a charter member, does not believe that U.S. immigration laws should be enforced. Usually unwilling for political reasons to say so explicitly, the lobby comes up with smoke screens—such as the Times’s demagogic charges about SB 1070 as an act of “racial separation”—to divert attention from the underlying issue. Playing the race card is the tactic of those unwilling to make arguments on the merits. (The Times’s other contribution today to the prevailing de facto amnesty for illegal aliens was to fail to disclose, in an article [4] about a brutal 2007 schoolyard execution in Newark, that the suspected leader was an illegal alien [5] and member of the predominantly illegal-alien gang Mara Salvatrucha.)

The Arizona law is not about race; it’s not an attack on Latinos or legal immigrants. It’s about one thing and one thing only: making immigration enforcement a reality. It is time for a national debate: Do we or don’t we want to enforce the country’s immigration laws? If the answer is yes, the Arizona law is a necessary and lawful tool for doing so. If the answer is no, we should end the charade of inadequate, half-hearted enforcement, enact an amnesty now, and remove future penalties for immigration violations.

Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor of City Journal, the John M. Olin Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and the coauthor of The Immigration Solution: A Better Plan Than Today’s [6].

Federal Government Outpaces Private Sector in Job Creation

Federal Government Outpaces Private Sector in Job Creation

May 4th, 2010

by Frank Newport, Gallup

Gallup’s Job Creation Index for April reveals significantly more hiring within the federal government than in the private sector. Both show a substantially more positive picture than state and local governments, where firing far eclipses hiring.

Gallup’s Job Creation Index is based on the percentage of American workers who say their employers are hiring minus the percentage who say their employers are letting workers go. The overall Index value for American workers in April tilts positive, with 27% of workers saying their places of employment are hiring, and 22% saying their employers are letting people go — resulting in an overall +5 Job Creation Index.

These overall numbers, however, mask significantly different patterns across employment sectors. Based on these reports from workers, the federal government is a growth industry, while employment at state and local governments is shrinking.

By almost a 2-to-1 margin, federal employees say their employer is hiring rather than firing, giving the federal government a relatively robust +18 Job Creation Index for April.

Read More:

How do you say ‘under the bus’ in Hebrew?

Richard N. Weltz

For those diehard leftists who still adhere to the cult of Obama to the extent that they cannot/will not recognize his campaign against Israel and for the Palestinians in particular and Muslim Arab causes in general, his latest efforts to “throw Israel under the bus” should come as a wake-up call.
For the first time in memory, the US has announced that it is ready, willing, and able to allow the UN Security Council to pass one of its long string of anti-Israel resolutions — all of which have previously been vetoed by us — if the Netanyahu government doesn’t yield to Obama’s pressure to give in to Abbas’s demands (which, incidentally, violate agreements between Israel and the Bush administration and have the effect of trying to predetermine the future of Jerusalem as something other than the undivided capital of Israel).
As reported in Monday’s Wall Street Journal:
JERUSALEM-The White House brought Palestinians back on board for derailed Mideast peace talks with a pledge that the U.S. would consider allowing a United Nations Security Council resolution-if one should arise-condemning Israel for building in disputed territory, according to officials briefed on the diplomacy. …
Withholding a veto from a U.N. resolution critical of Israel…would be a significant reversal of decades of U.S. policy of largely unwavering support for Israel in the body.
The U.S. has vetoed more than 40 U.N. resolutions critical of Israel since 1972-at least three of them explicit condemnations of Israeli construction activity in East Jerusalem.
The New York Times, although minimizing the major policy shift in a brief en passant paragraph, confirmed the cave-in:
Separately, these officials said, Mr. Mitchell’s deputy, David Hale, indicated to the Palestinians that if Israel proceeded with the construction of 1,600 housing units in Jerusalem’s ultra-orthodox neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, the United States would abstain from, rather than veto, a resolution in the United Nations Security Council condemning the move.
If that isn’t clear enough for the Obama apologists who claim to support Israel, I can’t imagine what would be.

Taking Advantage of an Oil Crisis

Taking Advantage of an Oil Crisis

By Brian Sussman

Days after being elected in November 2008, President-Elect Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, spoke to a Wall Street Journal gathering of business leaders and stated that the economic crisis facing the United States is “an opportunity to do things you could not do before.”
“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Emanuel said.
And why should we think this administration isn’t letting the Gulf of Mexico oil crisis go to waste?
Don’t be fooled for a moment. History proves that the Gulf leak is a messy dream come true for hardcore environmentalists — -many of whom surround Mr. Obama.
Travel back in time to the 1969 oil spill of the coast of Santa Barbara. A Union Oil drilling platform six miles off the coast sprang a leak, allowing hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil to seep into the Pacific and wash ashore. The cameras of the world’s media rushed to the scene to focus on oil-coated birds stuck in muck. The newly hatched ecology propagandists soaked it up.
The nation’s first outspoken congressional environmentalist, Wisconsin Senator Gaylord Nelson, immediately flew to California to see the crisis for himself. An anti-capitalism Democrat, Nelson returned to Washington angered at the oil industry, vowing, we’re told, “to do something to wake America up.”
Nelson’s friend, Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich, worked vigorously with the senator to make the Santa Barbara spill a major national issue. Of course, Ehrlich’s longtime friend and associate John Holdren is now Barack Obama’s handpicked Science and Technology advisor.
Emotions still run high in ultra-liberal Santa Barbara over the 1969 leak. Even today, as black, marble-sized balls of coagulated crude are often found interspersed on the beaches of Santa Barbara, deceptive local activists will direct naïve eyes toward the oil platforms offshore, fervently declaring that capitalism and big oil are to blame for the tar balls on their sand. But this observation is total fraud. There is so much oil just beneath the ocean floor off Santa Barbara that the black gold is constantly seeping into the open waters at a rate of up to 170 barrels per day.
However, thanks to persistent environmentalists, that 1969 event has kept further oil and gas exploration and development off-limits on the west coast to this day.
Twenty years later, in 1989, the Exxon-Valdez oil tanker ran aground in Alaska, creating the largest oil spill in U.S. history. (By the way, at the current rate of flow, the Gulf leak will not surpass the amount of oil discharged in the Valdez accident for about a month and a half.) Keep in mind that the Valdez accident had nothing to do with an oil rig or platform — it was caused by the extremely poor judgment of the ship’s captain.
Nonetheless, the freak accident was successfully used by environmentalists to place massive swaths of Alaska off-limits to the oil and gas industry. It wasn’t until 2007, when the Bush administration lifted a long-standing moratorium on drilling in Alaska’s Bristol Bay, that oil companies were granted access to begin plans to harvest the 230 million barrels of oil and natural gas liquids — plus the 6.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas — in that remote corner of the Arctic. 
However, despite the fact that there have been no leaks, spills, or errors by the oil companies working Alaska since 1989, President Obama reversed the 2007 Bush decision, shutting the lid on the Bristol Bay oil fields. 
Now we have the 2010 Gulf spill. Judging by the past, I predict that this crisis will be effectively used by the Obama administration and environmentalists to prevent harvesting fossil resources from the Gulf for decades to come.
Additionally, one has to wonder why team Obama moved so slowly in responding to this situation. Certainly their gross inaction allowed the leak to grow into a full-blown disaster. Just look at the timeline of events (hat tip to deepseanews):
  • Tuesday, April 20. While finishing a well project for British Petroleum (BP), a Transocean rig called the Deepwater Horizon explodes and catches fire approximately 42 miles Southeast of Venice, Louisiana. U.S. Coast Guard District Eight command center receives report at approximately 10 p.m. Of the 126 people on board at the time of the explosion, 115 crewmembers were accounted for. Search begins for missing 11.
  • Thursday, April 22. The fire rages. A second explosion occurs, causing the rig to sink.
  • Friday, April 23. Search for missing crew members is suspended. The oil slick grows.
  • Saturday, April 24. Remotely operated vehicles discover that oil is escaping from two leaks in a drilling pipe about 5,000 feet below the surface. The leaks appear to be releasing 1,000 barrels a day.
  • Sunday, April 25. The oil slick now covers 600 square miles and is about 70 miles south of the Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana coastlines.
  • Tuesday, April 27. Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal takes action and requests Coast Guard set up protected booms near several wildlife refuges. Meantime, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar say they are expanding the government’s investigation of the explosion that caused the disaster.
  • Wednesday, April 28. The slick nears to 20 miles east of the mouth of the Mississippi River. BP states a controlled test to burn the leaking oil was successful late Wednesday afternoon.
  • Thursday, April 29. Governor Jindal declares a state of emergency, and the federal government sends in skimmers and booms to prevent environmental damage.
    President Obama says that BP is “ultimately responsible for funding … cleanup operations.” Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) immediately drafts legislation to suspend any plan for further offshore exploration and drilling until a full investigation of the disaster and the development of new protocols are developed.
  • Friday, April 30. Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) follows Senator Nelson’s lead and calls for immediate hearings with BP executives.
  • Sunday, May 2. Twelve days after the initial disaster began, President Obama flies to the Gulf coast and delivers a speech. Janet Napolitano blames delays on government response on fairy-tales: “Mother Nature has not exactly been friendly,” she told ABC News.
Now we discover that if U.S. officials had followed up on a federal Gulf oil cleanup plan crafted in 1994, it is possible that the spill could have been kept under control and far from land. However, the feds did not have a single cleanup boom on hand. (The booms are made of flame-retardant fabric and have two pumps that push water through its 500-foot length; two boats tow the U-shaped boom through an oil slick, gathering up about 75,000 gallons of oil at a time, and that oil is dragged away from the larger spill and ignited.)
Instead, we’ve learned that eight days after the initial explosion, officials had to purchase a boom from a company in Illinois.
According the Mobile Press Register,
In the days after the rig sank, U.S Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mary Landry said the government had all the assets it needed. She did not discuss why officials waited more than a week to conduct a test burn.
At the time, former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration oil spill response coordinator Ron Gouguet — who helped craft the 1994 plan — told the Press-Register that officials had pre-approval for burning. “The whole reason the plan was created was so we could pull the trigger right away.”
Gouguet speculated that burning could have captured 95 percent of the oil as it spilled from the well.
The foot-dragging Obama administration and inept federal agents have allowed an environmental disaster to fester. The only leader who seems to be taking a proactive stance is Governor Jindal.
Meantime, environmental activists of all stripes will seize this crisis as a greasy, golden opportunity and use it to shut off access to America’s natural resources, I predict, for decades to come.
Brian Sussman is author of the new bestseller Climategate: a veteran meteorologist exposes the global warming scam. 

Update From Cochise County, Arizona

Update From Cochise County, Arizona

By T.J. Woodard

I had hardly received word from the editor that my first report from south east Arizona would be published before more excitement occurred here — this time even closer to home.

Saturday morning the headlines in all the area papers covered the shooting of a Pinal County Deputy by drug smugglers.  The reports indicated the officer was ambushed by drug smugglers using AK-47 rifles.  How do we know these things?  This time the ambush failed and the officer survived. 
But there is a lot of news in this report that destroys the liberal reports of those grandmothers crossing the border so they can make beds in cheap hotels.  First, the Sheriff called it an ambush.  This destroys the idea that drug violence has not crossed the border.  Next, the drug runners used AK-47s.  Last time I checked (and my military training confirmed this), the AK-47 was made in Russia by Kalashnikov.  But what happened to all those reports of American guns going south to the drug cartels?  Perhaps that is another bit of mass media misinformation. 
These events took place in Pinal County, about 130 miles from my home.  What is more disturbing is what happened Saturday night.
I am a volunteer umpire for the local little league. I have 11 seasons behind the mask and am working on number 12. In between innings of a hotly contested ball game my wife ran up to the fence behind home plate and informed me that two men, speaking Spanish, were in the back yard.  She had immediately departed from the house and called the Border Patrol.  She’s a smart one — I don’t need my wife confronting drug traffickers, leave that for me.
Knowing my family was safe and away from the house I went back to work calling balls and strikes.  Within a few minutes I could see the Border Patrol helicopter flying over the neighborhood with its searchlight looking for the culprits.   It was irritating to watch.  This is not supposed to be happening in America.
When the game ended about 45 minutes later I went straight home.  Looking like an actor from a very low budget science fiction movie, I put on my hockey style face mask, grabbed my .45, and while still wearing my chin guards and chest protector cleared my own house.  I wanted as much protection as I could get in case of a physical fight.  I envisioned an illegal alien asking me if I was going to eject him from the game.
Fortunately, nobody was in the house.  I had cleared buildings before, but that was in Iraq.  It was very, very disturbing to have to clear my own house, checking bedrooms and closets, armed and ready to kill, right here in Arizona.  For those who say we’re over reacting — come on down and spend a few weeks.  I can take you some places that will scare the heck out of you.
Sunday I finally got to the sports page of Saturday’s local paper.  Unfortunately, even there I could not avoid the issue of illegal immigration there with a headline about the Major League Baseball union opposing the Arizona law.
Of course, one of the people complaining about the law is the manager of the Chicago White Sox, Ozzie Guillen. Guillen says he won’t come to Arizona next year if he’s invited to the all star game here in Phoenix next year.  He further states “As a Latin American, it’s natural that I have to support our own.” 
Mr. Guillen, as an American it’s natural that I protect my home. I have a solution for your dilemma.  Go home.  Go back to Venezuela.  And take the Baltimore Orioles shortstop Cesar Izturis with you.Izturis showed his ignorance of the law and the issue by stating “What if you’re walking on the street with your family and kids? They’re going to go after you.” 
It seems Mr. Izturis fell right into the liberal talking points of those who don’t support Arizona’s law.  Perhaps he is excited and thriving on the hype associated with the issue because of the absolute dismal performance of the Orioles (yet again this year) and nobody is excited to see a game in Baltimore.  They already have the worst record in baseball.
Both Mr. Guillen and Mr. Izturis are welcome to return to their home in Venezuela.  Perhaps they can find a team there that will pay them what they get paid in America — and I’m sure Hugo Chavez won’t ask them for anything.  Please, both of you, go back to your fascist dictator. 
There is a lot of very good baseball here in southern Arizona.  If MLB takes the all star game from Chase Field, or otherwise causes trouble for Arizona, they will lose a lot of fans.  It looks like the time has come to become an avid University of Arizona Wildcat fan.  They’re better than the Orioles.      
TJ Woodard is a retired Army officer who lives less than 10 miles from the Mexican border.  He carries a pistol even in his own house in order to be prepared to defend his family whenever necessary.

Palin and the Leftist Elites

Palin and the Leftist Elites

By Mark W. Hendrickson

Sarah Palin is one of the most intriguing (and polarizing) personalities to emerge on the national political stage in a long time.  The way that many conservatives embrace her and many liberals vilify her illustrates in microcosm the yawning political divide in America today.
We can draw insights about Palin’s significance in America today from a trio of three markedly disparate historical figures: Ronald Reagan, the late Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, and the Gospel of Matthew’s King Herod.  The connection between Sarah Palin and Ronald Reagan is fairly simple and straightforward.  They share conservative convictions and a special gift of communication.  Palin is reminiscent of Reagan in the way she resonates, inspires, and energizes conservatives. 
Less apparent are the links that may be drawn between Palin and the long-departed Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises — and Palin and the much-longer-ago-departed King Herod.
The connection between Palin and Mises occurred to me while rereading Mises’ 1944 book Bureaucracy.  Mises wrote, “…the educated strata are more gullible than the less educated.  The most enthusiastic supporters of Marxism, Nazism, and Fascism were the intellectuals, not the boors.”  Indeed, Marx, Lenin, et al., were intellectuals, and the leaders of socialism have been relatively well-to-do educated folks like Bill Ayers, not salt-of-the-earth blue-collar folks.
Mises continued this insight with a penetrating passage that is uncannily relevant today:
The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement.  They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty.  They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship.  They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent.  They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office. 
And what is the antidote to the grim utopian schemes of leftist intellectuals and politicians?  According to Mises, “Just common sense is needed to prevent man from falling prey to illusory fantasies and empty catchwords.”  In other words, people as down-to-earth and common-sensical as Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin.
Indeed, the fury directed against Palin by leftists is so overwrought, and at times maniacal, precisely because her innate common sense is so powerful and effective when she dares to declare that the emperor of government economic planning has no clothes.  Like Mises and Reagan, Palin understands with utter (and to leftists, frightening) clarity that leftist utopias have no practicality or viability, but are, in Mises’ words, “illusory fantasies.”
Like most people, self-important intellectuals don’t like their cherished dreams and aspirations dismissed as fantasies.  What really agitates them, though, is that they remember how effective that attractive, winsome fellow from non-elite Eureka College was in explaining how counterproductive, inefficient, and ultimately destructive Big Government is.  Now intellectuals on the left are scared to death that the attractive, winsome gal from the non-elite University of Idaho has the same convictions as Reagan and the same common sense that Mises identified as the antidote to socialist nostrums.
The left can’t stand the fact that Palin, like Reagan, isn’t one of them.  Like Reagan, she is not an “intellectual.”  She doesn’t share what Thomas Sowell dubbed “the vision of the anointed” — progressive elitists’ unshakable faith in their grandiose plans for regimenting our lives.  To leftist intellectuals, it’s okay to have a president who thinks he visited 57 states, a vice president who has claimed that Franklin Roosevelt went on television to calm the people after the stock market crash of 1929 (no TV yet, and Hoover was president) and a Speaker of the House who has insisted that we must switch from fossil fuels to natural gas.  All ignorance, error, and mental dullness can be forgiven as long as one subscribes to the political catechism, “The government must control economic activity.”  What is unacceptable, even evil, to them is someone like Palin who doesn’t subscribe to the same catechism, who just doesn’t “get it.”
Here is where Herod the Great enters the story.  We read in the Gospel of Matthew that Herod feared any threat to his power; thus his vile order to slaughter male babies in the hope of killing off the one with the potential to mature into a leader who would threaten his hegemony.  The political left is a modern Herod, desperate to halt Sarah Palin’s political career now, before she can grow more formidable and possibly develop into her generation’s Reagan.
Indeed, it has been amazing to see the scorn, vitriol, and even hatred, directed toward this woman who dares to defy the left’s narrow, preconceived notions of what political positions a female politician should be allowed to hold.  It was comical to see how Democrats fell all over each other to distort Palin’s autobiographical Going Rogue as an attack on John McCain.  Why would Democrats rush to defend one Republican from an (alleged) attack by another Republican?  Might it have something to do with the fact that they perceive McCain as a “good Republican” — one who will compromise and cuts deals — where Palin would not? 
I have no idea what the future holds for Sarah Palin.  It is indisputable, though, that the left regards her as their worst nightmare — an articulate, attractive, effective communicator and advocate of conservative principles with Misesian common sense and Reaganesque potential.  That is why she is the object of their Herod-like verbal thrusts today.
Mark Hendrickson teaches economics at Grove City College and is Fellow for Economic and Social Policy at the College’s Center for Vision & Values.