Sarah Palin writes a “love note” to President Obama


3,2,1 …. blast off!

In a nutshell, she’s challenged our celebrity President to a “discussion” – no doubt she’d prefer it to be public!  I’d pay to see that:

I’m sure I missed a few things, but the list is just for starters. Along with millions of others, I’m willing and free to discuss these issues with the President anywhere, anytime; and I’m sure any of the four patriots currently running for the GOP nomination would also welcome the opportunity to talk about the problems everyday Americans face due to the abject failure of our current administration’s policies. The President will dismiss all of these problems by saying, “Well, uh, ‘change isn’t easy.’” But considering that candidate Obama promised to turn back the waters and heal the planet, the American people had at least a reasonable expectation that, at the bare minimum, he wouldn’t bankrupt our country.

This latest ad is quite odd, but also quite telling. It shows that our President sure seems fearful of discussing the economy, energy prices, and all the other problems people need addressed. And intended or not, now that his ad opens up the discussion of Barack Obama’s radical past associations and the radical philosophy that shaped his ideas about his promised “fundamental transformation” of our country, I welcome the media to join ordinary Americans in finally vetting Barack Obama. The media failed to do so in 2008 to the detriment of us all. Maybe this time around they can do their job.

Make sure to read the whole thing.

To the #WarOnWomen “feminists” who are launching a “sex strike”


The Huffington Post reports on the latest tactic those in the “War On Women” movement are using to try to “get their message out”:

A group that supports health care coverage of contraception is calling for women to withhold sex from their partners between April 28 and May 5.

“This will help people understand that contraception is for women and men, because men enjoy the benefit of women making their own choices about when and if they want to get pregnant,” Liberal Ladies who Lunch says on its website. “Once congress and insurance agencies agree to cover contraception, we will then resume having sex. Until then men will have to be content with their left hand.”

On its Facebook page, the group charts a brief history of similar “strikes,” starting with Aristophanes’ ancient Greek play “Lysistrata,” where women refuse to have sex until the end of the Peloponnesian War.

The proposal has attracted some negative Facebook reactions, according to The Daily Caller, which reports that an opponent of contraception coverage commented on the “irony of…ceasing sex in order to get free contraception.”

Hmm. I’ve got a much better idea:

How about the more militant “sex striker” gals on the left extend the time frame beyond May 5th to, oh, I dunno – indefinitely, no matter whether or not they “win” the manufactured war they started?  As we all know, abstinence is the most sure fire way of preventing pregnancy, and if these gals don’t reproduce, that means a better likelihood of less liberals inhabiting America some 18-20 years from now.  By the same token, conservative wives – get busy during this time frame! Because, well, I’m sure you get the point …*

*To those of you in “mixed marriages” (conservative spouse & liberal spouse) – you’re on your own. ;)

But what do you really think of Hillary, Bryan?


**Posted by Phineas

Bryan Preston, reacting to the Secretary of State’s comparison of Americans opposed to the new HHS contraceptive and abortifacient mandate to Islamic Salafists who force women to live under the tyranny of Sharia law:

Wormtongue has nothing on Hillary Clinton.You can see in the video that Clinton knows exactly what she is saying, and she relishes saying it. She relishes calling anyone who opposes her regime’s mandates “extremists” and linking us with the worst and most brutal figures in the world.

This is vile, especially coming from a US secretary of state. It insults Americans for the sake of petty politics. It degrades the office that she holds.

Hillary Clinton has lately convinced many even on the right that she would have been a better president than Barack Obama. Personally I’ve never bought into that idea. She is no less of an ideologue than Obama. She is no less of an Alinskyite, she just isn’t as good at the game as Obama is. Her only claim to fame is that she married well, in the sense that she married a man who achieved the highest office in the world. Apart from that, she wasn’t a good Senate candidate and she turned out to be a weak candidate for the presidency. She has been a lousy ambassador for the nation, by turns incompetent and lacking in any sense of America’s history. Like her president, when she could choose to unite Americans, she chooses to divide us.

I’ve never understood the strange nostalgia for Lady Macbeth Hillary Clinton that arose after Obama’s election. Sure, she earned some respect for her hard fight for the nomination, but what would you expect from someone who was seeing the power she had dreamed of all her life being ripped from her claws? And, yeah, I agree: she was shafted by the Democratic National Committee.

But Hillary always was and is of the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party: a statist, an admirer of Alinsky, and the author of ObamaCare’s infamous prequel.

Why on Earth would anyone think she’d be less of a incompetent leftist demagogue than Barack Obama?

Meanwhile, major geek points for working in the Lord of the Rings reference, Bryan. Well done.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

There’s got to be some mistake


**Posted by Phineas

I mean, our far wiser, morally superior liberal brethren can’t be more intolerant of those who disagree than moderates and those evil conservatives, could they?

As Richard Dawson used to say, “survey says!

Study: Liberals More Likely To Block Online Friends Over Political Disagreements

People with liberal views are almost twice as likely as conservatives to unfriend someone on social media over political disagreements, according to a new Pew Research survey.

In every category, people who identified as liberal were more likely to shun their connections over political disagreements. Twenty-eight percent of liberal users have unfriended or blocked someone, while 16 percent of conservatives and 14 percent of moderates admitted to doing the same.

I’m really not surprised, though. As I wrote a friend this morning:

It’s [because of] their outraged self-perception of their own superior virtue: they can’t handle it when it’s pointed out to them that the facts don’t justify their faith in progressivism. Also, because they believe they’re on the side of the angels [i.e., “progress”], anyone who disagrees must be evil, or at least a fool espousing evil.

And not just online. I have a number of liberal friends and acquaintances who are sent (and I only exaggerate a bit) into sputtering paroxysms of indignation at the merest suggestion that, for example, the welfare state has harmed African-Americans more than it helped, that private accounts would be a good reform for Social Security, or that the New Deal was an overall failure. They don’t just disagree and offer counter-arguments (or wave away yours with a simple “nonsense”); they act like you’ve just sprouted horns and a pointed tail.

Not that this doesn’t happen on the Right, to be fair. I’ve several times online run into “True Conservatives” who meet any disagreement with all-caps shouts of “RINO!” and worse. There seems to be a certain subset of people who get their sense of self-worth from their politics and who don’t know how to handle an argument when challenged. Call it a question of maturity.

But, as the Pew study suggests, the intolerance is far more common on the Left than on the Right or in the Center. Along with a lack of maturity in some, I suspect, it has much to do with a problem at the core of the Progressive vision, itself: democracy requires disagreement, but Progressives are ambivalent toward democracy, hence they can’t really respect disagreement.

And so, in the end, their arguments come down to “shut up, he explained.”

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)