Joe McGinness Does Palin A Favor

By now, most people have heard this story. Here's an excerpt:

Sarah Palin’s family attorney John Tiemessen has written a letter to Maya Mavjee, the publisher of the Crown Publishing Group, a division of Random House, that Palin may sue her, the company, and the book’s author Joe McGinniss “for knowingly publishing false statements” in his book released last week, “The Rogue,” ABC News has learned.

So now, it has come to this. Flat out lies.

Actually, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. This is just Liberals doing what they always do. They can't find any skeletons in Palin's closet by seeking the truth, so, they make things up.

When will they learn? They are fighting a battle they cannot win. Surely they are beginning to get the message by now.

Sarah Palin been investigated ad nauseum, she's had every moment of her life scrutinized under a microscope.

The media wolves descended on Wasilla, Alaska in packs during her 2008 Vice Presidential campaign, rabid in their eagerness to discover some tidbit of damaging charges about her. They found nothing but unsubstantiated gossip, which in the end, proved to be false.

She's had her private e-mails hacked. They found nothing.

They've combed through her public e-mails with a fine tooth comb. They found nothing.

They've invented full blown scandals out of rumors and gossip. All ultimately refuted.

Despite all their efforts, they've been unable to find any dirt on her at all. She is squeaky clean.

Sadly, this fact only feeds the frenzy. The total lack of any evidence of immorality or malfeasance makes her even more hated by the left.

Sarah Palin needs to run for President. This is why I say that:

The only campaign strategy the left ever uses to win elections is character assassination. Without that, the Democrat's political positions are weak and cannot withstand honest in-depth investigation. When faced with questions of integrity or morals, Liberals always come down on the wrong side of the fence.

Their only recourse is attack.

It's kind of sad, really. As Lone Ranger has penned, "[Liberals] are like house flies that criticize the air-worthiness of a Stealth fighter.'

She has continually demonstrated that her character is unassailable, so nothing the left can do or say can defeat her.

There is only one credible charge the left has against Palin:

She quit.

Yes, she quit. That charge is true.

I admit, I used to believe she had no chance of victory in a Presidential race solely because of that incontrovertible fact. But, as it turns out, even her resignation was a logical calculated move that was motivated solely by her dedication to the people of Alaska. Even in her resignation, the left can find little honest objection.

Not that they won't try to make her resignation a major issue, of course.

A drowning man will always reach out for anything that floats in an effort to stay above water. In the vain hope of creating a demon out of Sarah Palin, they will grasp at any straw.

But, that's not enough now.

Joe McGinnis has shot himself and his fellow leftists in the foot by publishing this latest pack of lies.

The only segment of the American people that the Democrats need to convince are the independents, and the independents are now going to have sympathy for Sarah Palin and only derision for anyone who would resort to lies to besmirch her.

She will have the sympathy vote.

The left's plan has backfired.

Only, they don't know it yet.

This should be interesting.

Liberals Protest Justice..Again

"There's a reason more than a dozen courts have looked at Davis' case and refused to overturn his death sentence. He is as innocent as every other executed man since at least 1950, which is to say, guilty as hell." ~ Ann Coulter

Troy Davis was executed by lethal injection yesterday amid protests from the typical bleeding heart Liberal sob sisters who deny eyewitness testimony. Thirty four eyewitnesses saw Troy Davis ruthlessly and callously gun down Savannah Police officer Mark McPhail, and yet, they insist there were only 9 witnesses and that 7 of them recanted their testimony.

As usual, Liberals utilize half truths, obfuscation, and outright lies to present their case.

Here are the facts: On the night of August 18, 1989, occupants of a passing car shouted obscenities at Davis and a friend as they left a party. Davis shot at the car, and a bullet struck one of the passengers in the face.

Later, Davis showed up at a local Burger King and involved himself in an argument between another man and a homeless man over a beer. Davis began pistol whipping the homeless man when Officer McPhail, moonlighting as a Restaurant Security guard, intervened. Davis ran, then wheeled around and shot the cop, walked over to his body and shot him again...

...smiling.

Davis was apparently afraid the police would connect him with the earlier shooting and thought that murdering a police officer would somehow get him off the hook.

These are the facts of the case, affirmed by the testimonies of 34 separate eyewitnesses, and supported by real physical evidence.

Thirty-four people in the busy Burger King parking lot witnessed this horrific event. One of them, an Air Force Airman, saw the events clearly enough to positively identify Davis as the shooter. He explained on cross-examination, "You don't forget someone that stands over and shoots someone."

His was not one of the testimonies that was supposedly recanted.

Only two of the seven alleged "recantations" actually recanted anything of value -- and those two affidavits were discounted by the court because Davis refused to allow the affiants to testify at the post-trial evidentiary hearing, even though one was seated right outside the courtroom, waiting to appear.

This would seem to indicate that the recantations could easily be destroyed upon cross-examination, and Davis knew it.

One of the other 5 "recantations", from the vagrant's girlfriend, wasn't a recantation at all, but rather reiterated all relevant parts of her trial testimony, which included a direct identification of Davis as the shooter.

But, you won't hear these facts from the media. They have already concluded, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary, that Davis was an innocent man.

On what do the media base their assumptions of his innocence?

Troy Davis' word.

That is all the media and their Liberal lapdogs require to sanctimoniously proclaim Davis' innocence.

The word of a morally bankrupt man who was, at the time, desperately grasping at straws to prevent his just punishment.

Facts be damned.

This time, reason and logic won out over unreasonable emotion, but what about the next time? And the next? And the next?

Every time the media comes down on the wrong side of the moral fence, one more little piece of our collective common sense gets chipped away, demonstrating, once again, that the pen is indeed mightier than the sword.

The Tea Party Debate

"Americans are tired of spending money we don't have on programs we don't want!" ~ Governor Rick Perry

Blog buddy Wintery Knight posted the recent Tea Party Republican debate in a series of videos on his blog. I didn't watch the debate live. In my experience, watching Presidential candidate debates is just a tad less exciting than watching paint dry.

But, as I am still undecided on who I would most like to see nominated, I decided to endure the pain and force myself to watch the videos.

I must admit I was pleasantly surprised. And fascinated.

Other than being somewhat disappointed that now and then the candidates failed to directly answer the questions posed to them, I found the whole debate enlightening, and helped me begin to form a more informed opinion of the candidates.

Wintery Knight thinks Michele Bachmann won the debate but he admits she is his favorite, so of course, he's biased.

Here is my opinion (as if anybody really cares what I think) of the candidates based on what I saw:

Jon Huntsman: I've heard little about him previously, but what I've heard about him thus far is negative. Conservatives seems to think he is a RINO. I saw no evidence of that charge in Monday's debate. Admittedly, he didn't say much that was controversial either way. I am still undecided on him, although, I tend to trust my Conservative friend's judgment, with qualifications.

Herman Cain: I like Herman Cain. What I've seen of him so far, I like, and I have learned more about him than I have several of the others. I like the fact that he responded to the questions asked of him directly. He didn't avoid the tough questions, but instead, met them head on. Obviously, he is not a politician, and that could work in his favor, but in the end will probably cost him the nomination.

Michele Bachmann: I also like Michele Bachmann a great deal. She espouses the Conservative idealism that I wholly support. However, it disturbed me that she (and some of the others hammered Rick Perry on the "forced Vaccination" issue which, by the way, he admitted was a mistake). Apparently she and the others didn't get the memo that the vaccinations had an "opt out" clause. Why Perry didn't explain that in plainer terms is beyond me. That little dust up will be blown completely out of proportion by the Democrat attack machine, otherwise known as the media.

Count on it.

That said, she is correct in making the bigger point; that government mandating any kind of personal choice is unconstitutional, and oversteps Government bounds.

Mitt Romney: As much as I want to dislike him, I have to admit he acquitted himself well. He gave good Conservative answers to the questions, and even defended his "Romneycare" program in the State of Massachusetts well. I was a bit chagrined that he often seems to dodge the direct questions with indirect responses, but he is a politician, after all. Probably more of a politician than the others. It also concerns me that, as a so-called Conservative Republican, he was elected Governor of a very Liberal state. If he somehow managed to convince Liberals to vote for him there, he must have used some very Democrat type tactics to do so.

I still don't trust him. Is he a flim-flam man, or is he legit?

I must remember to separate my personal feelings about Romney from the facts, and make up my mind based on the facts. It is difficult to leave my emotions out of the decision. Because if I can't, I'll have to vote Democrat. (snark)

Rick Perry: He was very impressive, considering I still don't know as much as I should about him. It bothers me that, although he says Texas created jobs and lowered taxes, the other candidates say the jobs created were mostly public sector jobs and he raised taxes in his state.

Also, he was once a Democrat, and even worked for Global Warming Con man Al Gore. I don't know. Can a Democrat switch parties without bringing Liberal baggage with him?

Can a stupid man suddenly become intelligent?

Ron Paul: A one issue candidate. Every answer he gave was tied to his belief that the current wars we are engaged in overseas are unnecessary. Even if true, can we really expect our enemies to stop attacking us? I think not. America's presence in the Middle East is at least helpful in keeping our enemies at bay. One of the candidates (I forgot which one) also brought up the highly publicized incident in the 2008 Presidential debates in which Paul blamed American foreign policy for the 9/11 attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.

I can't forgive him for that. That was just a stupid statement. I don't want that kind of man to be my President. That said, America could do much worse than to elect a Libertarian candidate.

God forbid, America could re-elect Obama.

Newt Gingrich: Again, as much as I'd like him to have done badly, he didn't. He was exceptional. If my opinion mattered outside of this particular forum, I would say the case could be made that he won the debate. I don't like to base my opinion of a candidate on the "electability" quotient, but the fact is, I don't believe he is electable, partially because the media did such a successful hit job on the man when he was Speaker of the House, and partially because there was truth behind their accusations. I have a problem with morally bankrupt candidates. Other than that, he would be an excellent Conservative candidate. Perhaps I was wrong about Romney being the most political of the candidates. Newt could certainly vie for that dubious honor.

Rick Santorum: Another of my favorites, I don't believe I've ever heard him say anything with which I disagree. He has strong Conservative values, and a common sense approach to our country's problems. He did not disappoint in this debate, although, he also didn't get equal time with the others. That's arguably excusable. He has an outside chance for the nomination at best. Even the Conservative media has already counted him out and thus, you won't hear much support for him from the likes of Hannity and Rush, although I'll bet Ann Coulter likes him.

I thought Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Herman Cain had the most memorable lines.

When asked if he agreed with Perry that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme (a statement that CNN's Wolf Blitzer hammered with the typical leftist's predictable persistence) Herman Cain said, "I don't care what you call it, it's broken!"

Incidentally, in 2007, MSNBC's resident rabid Liberal Chris Matthews not only called Social Security a Ponzi Scheme, but "a bad Ponzi Sceme", but I guess it's OK if a Liberal says it.

Newt said, "I'm not particularly worried about Governor Perry and Governor Romney frightening the American people, when President Obama scares them every single day!"

I headed this post with Perry's great line: "Americans are tired of spending money we don't have on programs we don't want!"

While I don't believe anyone can say with any certainty any of the candidates won the debate, I'm sure everyone has their own opinion. Who really wins these things?

It depends on who you're asking.

My Prediction

"Since a politician never believes what he says, he is quite surprised to be taken at his word." ~ Charles De Gaulle

Before Obama gives his "historic" speech tonight, I want to make this prediction about what he will say:

He will claim he has a plan, but will not give any details.

He will blame the problem on Bush and/or the Republicans and/or the tea party.

If I am wrong and he does give details, they will involve higher taxes, and/or "sacrifices".

The words "revenue" and "stimulus" will be inserted in his speech, probably more than once each.

He will claim Americans "want" his policies.

I will not watch his speech. I'd rather stick red hot needles in my eyes then listen to his B.S.

Y'all watch it for me.

Let's see if I'm right.

The Wrath Of Hurricane Irene

"Anger is a signal, and one worth listening to." ~ Harriet Lerner

I've been hearing quite a lot about the "wrath" of Hurricane Irene. The Television news, the radio, and the newspapers are all referring to the intensiveness storm as "wrath".

Let's get one thing straight.

Wrath is defined by the dictionary as:

1. strong, stern, or fierce anger; deeply resentful indignation; ire., and,
2. vengeance or punishment as the consequence of anger.

A hurricane is a storm. It is incapable of possessing anger, resentment, indigence, or vengeance.

Now, it's perfectly acceptable, although probably wrong, to describe a hurricane as a manifestation of the wrath of God, but a hurricane itself cannot be wrathful. It has no emotion.

It is only a storm.