Biden called for Trump to be put 'in the bullseye'

Seconds before the shot

In March of 2010, Sarah Palin showed a map of 20 Congressional districts that she won with John McCain in 2008. The map marked each district with a set of crosshairs, not on a person. One such district was that of Democrat Gabby Giffords. Palin tweeted: "Don't Retreat, Instead--RELOAD." 

Days later Gabby Giffords was shot by a deranged man and the left-wing press blamed Palin for the violence. Thankfully, Giffords survived but Palin's political career didn't do so well.

On Monday, President Biden appeared on "Morning Joe" and instead of putting crosshairs on a map he made a statement that was significantly more direct: "It's time to put Trump in the bullseye," he mumbled. 

The left-wing press hasn't yet mentioned this nor do I expect they will.

Do I blame Biden for the assassination attempt on President Trump? Of course not, but if the shoe was on the other foot you can bet your bippy they would put the blame squarely on Trump's shoulders like they did to Palin.

After the assassination attempt Saturday, Barack Obama was the first to make a statement, rather than appropriately allowing our alleged President Biden to do so first. An hour passed before Biden made the statement:

"I have been briefed on the shooting at Donald Trump’s rally in Pennsylvania. I’m grateful to hear that he’s safe and doing well. I’m praying for him and his family and for all those who were at the rally, as we await further information. Jill and I are grateful to the Secret Service for getting him to safety. There’s no place for this kind of violence in America. We must unite as one nation to condemn it."

It isn't known whether Biden wrote this himself, had a staff member write it, or used AI. It was generic and smelled like a cow pasture. The statement also fell short of mentioning Biden's bullseye comment.

Kamala Hahaharris' statement seemed to be written by the same bot:

"I have been briefed on the shooting at former President Trump’s event in Pennsylvania. Doug and I are relieved that he is not seriously injured. We are praying for him, his family, and all those who have been injured and impacted by this senseless shooting. We are grateful to the United States Secret Service, first responders, and local authorities for their immediate action. Violence such as this has no place in our nation. We must all condemn this abhorrent act and do our part to ensure that it does not lead to more violence."

We now know the shooter is Swiss cheese. He was a 20-year-old who was registered as a Republican but who donated $15 to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party after Biden was sworn in as President.

According to reports, the shooter is dead, and one attendee was also reportedly killed in the shooting.

But make no mistake, this is what happens when the left and its media calls everyone they don't like on the right, Hitler, and claim they're a danger to the country, a danger to democracy, and just plain evil. Why would any schizophrenic or progressive not want to "save the world" from this evil?

I don't blame the media or even our empty suit President for what one man did, but they sure as hell didn't help matters. The Hitler comparisons need to stop immediately, but they won't. 

The only good thing that came out of this tragedy is that Trump will be President again. He will not become dictator for life, like the left tries to paint him. He already has a four-year track record and we saw that things got better until Biden came along and reversed everything Trump had done.

We saw President Trump after the bullet grazed his right ear, ducked but soon got up, surrounded by Secret Service personnel, and he raised a bloody fist then we read his lips: "Fight!" he said. "Fight!"

Trump has been fighting every day since he rode up the golden escalator and announced his running for President. I can imagine long lines of Trump voters patiently waiting their turn to cast their ballot for him. 

We need him now, more than ever. Biden needs to be fired.

Tweet

Gay basher Joy Reid plans to go after Ivanka to get Trump

MSNBC host Joy Reid, of gay-bashing fame, and her guest, Elie Mystal, put their sanctimonious heads together to openly plot on air as to the best way to "get to" Trump. They concluded that it would be to "go after" Ivanka, his daughter.

Mystal, who apparently sees things in black and white, said in 2016: "Maybe it's time for black people to use the same tools white people have been using to defy a system they do not consent to: jury nullification," referring to a case in which a cop was acquitted of murder of a black person. He added, "White juries regularly refuse to convict or indict cops for murder. White juries refuse to convict vigilantes who murder black children. White juries refuse to convict other white people for property crimes," as seen in an article in The Washington Times.

He obviously forgot about the O.J. Simpson double murder acquittal.

Anyway, Mystal went on about Ivanka, "this is the first time that we have Ivanka . . . in the crosshairs . . . The only way we're really going to get to Trump is if you go after the kids . . . And this [going after Ivanka] could be the only way to do it."

Crosshairs? Sounds a like something Sarah Palin got attacked over regarding Gabrielle Giffords back in 2011. Oh wait, she's a Republican. But there's an article in The Washington Post that sheds light on the facts.

And do you remember when MSNBC's Chris Matthews attacked Palin for using the same language? Here's a flashback .

Reid also got into the act and pointed out that "there is this finding . . . that you can't indict a sitting President. But it doesn't say anything about a sitting President's daughter."

Pretty disgusting stuff coming from a woman who's used to saying disgusting stuff about gays and a man saying it about white people.

Hello fellow conservatives. At this time of year when everyone has a hand out for a hand-out, I don't. I simply want you to follow Brain Flushings and check out the ads on this page. It's free, I'm free and you're free to follow me or not. I hope you do. 

I hope you have a wonderful Christmas.

Tweet

Sarah Palin excluded from Sen. John McCain's funeral

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has been excluded from Sen John McCain's funeral, according to Breitbart News. She was McCain's running mate in the 2008 presidential election and was constantly attacked by the media and SNL for not being a Democrat while being a woman.

"I can see Russia from my house," was never said by Palin, but Tina Fey made a cottage industry out of her impression of her to the extent that gullible viewers [aka liberals/socialists] of the show believed Palin actually made that statement.

Originally, People magazine reported that Palin was not sent an invitation and this was later confirmed by Breitbart News. She was told by intermediaries to stay away from the entire ceremony, possibly due to her refusing to move to the left along with McCain's occasional leanings.

People magazine believes the invite was not sent at the behest of the McCain family, and the news comes ten years to the day when McCain announced Palin as his running mate.

Ms. Palin now has the distinction of joining President Trump on the list of the banned.

But Palin, unlike Trump, never bad-mouthed McCain nor criticized him. Trump, on the other hand, said that McCain was not a war hero because he was captured, and for Trump, real heroes don't get captured.

This was simply the wrong thing for Trump to say. McCain was clearly, unmistakably a war hero. He was shot down twice in Vietnam and the second time when flying his A4 Skyhawk over Hanoi, he "punched out" [ejected] and was captured and tortured. He was offered early release because his father was the top-ranking military officer, but he refused, knowing it would be propaganda for the North Vietnam cause and demoralizing to the men left in prison.

Yes, like his politics of not [and mostly I didn't] John McCain was a hero and my brother.

Trump was wrong not to keep the flag at half-staff until after the interment, but at least he got it right a bit later, probably under pressure from his top staff.

When the news broke of McCain's death, Palin said: "Today we lost an American original. Sen. John McCain was a maverick and a fighter, never afraid to stand for his beliefs. John never took the easy path in life--and through sacrifice and suffering he inspired others to serve something greater than self.

"John McCain was my friend. I will remember the good times. My family and I send prayers for Cindy and the McCain family."

Last year McCain reportedly said he was sorry he chose Palin as his running mate, but even after that, Palin never said a negative thing about him and always honored him. Even after being excluded from the funeral, she refused to criticize him.

People quoted a source close to the Palin family: "[O]ut of respect for Sen. McCain and his family we have nothing to add at this point. The Palin family will always cherish their friendship with the McCains and hold those memories dear."

Sen. John McCain will be laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery on Sunday.


Please follow Brain Flushings and take a moment to visit the sponsors on this page. Thank you.

Tweet

Sarah Palin going after the "Gray Lady"

Photo: Fox News

Sarah Palin plans to subpoena about two dozen New York Times staffers in her defamation lawsuit against the canary cage liner.

Lawyers for The Times arguing for the case to be dismissed said that Palin's lawyers served notice that she plans to subpoena "23 non-party current and former Times reporters, editors and other employees--most of whom had nothing to do with the editorial issue," as per the court documents obtained Wednesday by the New York Post.

The former governor of Alaska's legal team apparently plans to ask the "Gray Lady" to produce "every internal communication it has has since 2011," in order to obtain "documents that might reveal, among other things, their 'negative feelings' toward her," the Times told the judge on Wednesday.

The so-called 'paper of record' had no comment.

Palin's lawsuit stems from a Times editorial on June 14, just a few hours after House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) was shot and seriously wounded at a Republican congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Va. Ms. Palin alleges the editorial tied her to the January 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D- Ariz.). 

The editorial, attributed to the Times' editorial board titled "America's Lethal Politics," initially linked Palin's rhetoric to the shooting that killed six people and wounded thirteen others, including Giffords.

The Times posted a correction the following day, admitting that "no such link was established," and at least a dozen people read the correction because that's generally something people skim over or disregard because it's so small and visually insignificant.

In addition, the editorial claimed, wrongfully, that an ad from Palin's political action committee put "Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized crosshairs" [apparently suggesting they were being targeted with a rifle scope].

The Times also corrected that statement, admitting that the crosshairs on the map targeted "electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers."

Well gee, it's almost the same thing . . . if you're the fake news New York Times. 

The lawsuit stated "The Times used its false assertion about Mrs. Palin as an artifice to exploit the [Scalise] shooting." It added, "The Times published and promoted its editorial board's column despite knowing . . . the false assertion that Mrs. Palin incited [Tucson shooter Jared] Loughner to murder six people. In doing so, the Times violated the law and its own policies."

The substitute pooper scooper has reportedly claimed that Ms. Palin has no case because she can't claim malice, the legal standard for claiming defamation.

Perhaps the NRA can claim malice for her if it's proven she cannot because the Times is no longer unbiased--they clearly have a leftist agenda. But really, they always did.


Tweet

Palin sues NY Times for defamation

Former Alaska Governor, vice presidential candidate and butt of Tina Fey jokes, Sarah Palin, is suing the New York Times over an editorial that claimed that her website was responsible for the January 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) that also killed six others and wounded thirteen.

The suit claims that The Times defamed her in a June 14 editorial, published just several hours after the shooting at the GOP practice field in Alexandria, Virginia for the congressional baseball game. The shooting seriously wounded House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and several others.

The editorial titled "America's Lethal Politics" used verbal calisthenics to link the Giffords shooting to Palin's website and then posted a correction the following day saying "no such link was established." 


So people who only read the editorial didn't get to read the correction, as is often the case with fake news and often the intention of the organization that posted the bs.

The editorial also lied claiming that an ad from Palin's political action committee put "Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs [sic]." The Times also corrected that lie and admitted the crosshairs on the map targeted "electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers."

"The Times used its false assertion about Mrs. Palin as an artifice to exploit the [Scalise] shooting," Palin's attorney stated in the suit. "The Times published and promoted its Editorial Board's column despite knowing . . . the false assertion that Mrs. Palin incited [Tucson shooter Jared] Loughner to murder six people," it went on. "In doing so, the Times violated the law of its own policies."

Mrs. Palin is seeking damages in an amount to be determined by a jury. The Times had no comment.

Hopefully, Mrs. Palin will take the 'Gray Lady' to the cleaners--she's quite dirty.

Tweet

Gray Lady goofed again--corrects editorial about Palin, sort of

The paper of record (LMAO) New York Times, had to correct their Fake News editorial in which they stated as fact a debunked load of garbage that Jared Loughner, the schizophrenic who shot Gabby Giffords in 2011, was inspired to do so by a map circulated by Sarah Palin showing a bullseye.

The editorial titled "America's Lethal Politics," was posted on Wednesday and social media went bonkers. 

The editorial read, in part:

"Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin's political action committee circulated a map targeting electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs."

The Times ran the editorial after Wednesday's shooting at a GOP congressional baseball practice, leaving 4 wounded, including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and Matt Mika.

The rag posted a correction at the foot of the editorial online, rather than prominently posting it at the top:

Correction: June 15, 2017

An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.

Loughner's home was searched by authorities after the shooting and documents were found showing he had planned the shooting in advance.

"I planned ahead," a signed note left in a safe by Loughner read. "My assassination."

A letter was also found in the safe that Giffords wrote to Loughner on August 30, 2007, thanking him for attending a "Congress on Your Corner" event, according to an FBI affidavit.

The FBI said at the time of the shooting that Loughner had targeted Giffords, while The Times keeps targeting the truth. Now both sides are calling them out for being Fake News.

A tweet by New York Post editor John Podhoretz said, "The NYT editorial falsely claims Loughner shot Giffords dueto a target on a photo. It's not yet 11. They can change it. Let's see."

Even far left-wing Mother Jones senior editor Ben Dreyfull tweeted, "This NYT editorial is, in fact, stupid. Palin didn't make that loon shoot Gabby Giffords. "Rhetoric" didn't make today's whacko shoot either."

So maybe the left is slowly coming around and seeing that the real blame for these horrific acts need to be placed squarely on those who actually perpetrate them.

But I doubt it. Give it a few weeks and we'll see.


Tweet

Hillary Clinton's emails may be recovered

It is possible that copies or logs of Hillary Clinton's emails are stored on servers of companies she used for her private email domain. If so, these additional emails would provide more information to hackers and they would also allow federal agencies investigating the former secretary of state's server to compare those records with what she turned over to the State Department in December.

Hillary said she handed over all work-related emails to State, but if you believe that, you might think that dark cloud above you is a gaggle of chickens coming home to roost.

The Daily Caller interviewed an IT pro who explained that mail exchange records (MX records) for Hillary's email domain, clintonemail.com, indicate that emails entering her server first entered via MxLogic, a spam management and compliance company now owned by McAfee. It's unclear if her outbound email also went through MxLogic, but it's a good bet that it did.

An apparent IT expert interviewed by TheDC, and whose last name is Walker (first name not given) said, "I'd bet to some extent that [Clinton's] emails are sitting in an MxLogic data center either on the server used to service her domain, or within their elaborate backup system. Even if she somehow wiped the data from MxLogic through their interfaces, it probably still exists somewhere within their organization."

Walker admits the company might not have the actual contents of the emails, "but they do have logs of all of the transactions that took place." He was also surprised that Hillary's server configuration was pointing to MxLogic's servers, not her own.

"If I'm in the business of hiding email servers from governments I think I would point my MX record directly to my mail server and handle my anti-spam problem on my own server, and not through a third-party company," Walker said.

Another IT expert (who wishes to remain anonymous due to the Clinton's history of causing others to mysteriously commit suicide) has been looking into the Clinton email scandal and says he has no doubt that McAfee "has log files of all the email traffic that passed through their firewall to or from clintonemail.com."

This same expert believes that a congressional committee investigating the Clinton's server setup "should require McAfee to describe in detail the disposition of transaction logs kept by their servers covering email transfers to and from clintonemail.com." And if they destroyed the logs, they need to ask McAfee why and when.

Unlike some Americans, I have no doubts about Hillary Clinton.

Some people think she's God's gift to womankind; I see her as God's "Punk'd" to women. She pays them less and in countries that oppress women, she takes bribes from their leaders as a "donation" to her foundation.

Some people think Hillary is as truthful as Mother Theresa. I see her as truthful as her husband, Bill, when he said, "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." 

Some people see Hillary as a strong, competent leader. Those people have Hillary confused with Carly Fiorina, Condoleezza Rice, Sarah Palin, and Michele Bachmann.

Hillary Clinton is a fraud. She was impotent as Secretary of State but the liberal media never challenged her on those supposed accomplishments.

Somehow the liberal public is convinced that she has a date with destiny to be our next president. I hope her date with destiny is in a federal prison if she is found guilty of the charges regarding national security. It is unacceptable for there to be two rules  of law: one for the public and another for high-ranking politicians.

We have become a nation cleaved in the middle by this administration, led by a man who promised to bring us together, to end racism and poverty, to part the ocean. He hawked "Hope and Change."

Now intelligent Americans are hoping to change what Obama has brought to us and what Hillary Clinton would carry on if somehow she becomes our next president.

But some liberals vote based on the demographics of the liberal candidate, not with logic and facts. They want the first black president to be followed by the first female president, but they don't have a problem with schools like Washington University to ban words like 'female.' 

As things stand now, Clinton's emails may be recovered by the FBI and handed over to the Benghazi committee and scrutinized to find if any classified information was sent or received on her server. 

Whether or not the FBI finds she lied about the emails she sent or received, there should be no mistaking the fact that Hillary Clinton is not fit to be president.

But since when has that fact gotten in the way of liberal voters?

Tweet

HBO Has BO

When I want to see a fictional representation of current events, I turn on MSNBC. When I want to see a disgusting display of political fiction that shamelessly portrays conservatives as racist scum not worthy of even a modicum of respect, I flip over to HBO.

But I'm kidding. I don't watch MSNBC or HBO.

Recently (but not too recently since my computer crashed and I just got it back a few hours ago) I heard that the HBO series "True Blood" played an episode that showed a fundraiser for a fictional Ted Cruz. There was a political fundraiser at the George W. Bush Presidential Library and it insults the GOP and coined the term "Republi-cunt." 

The real Ted Cruz called it "misogynistic and profanity-ridden," and said he was surprised "HBO is suggesting that hard-core leftists are blood-sucking fiends . . ." I believe he was being politically correct in referring to HBO that way--they are much worse and seem to represent what the left is all about.

There were also plans, I heard, to invite Sarah Palin to appear in a cameo where she would be unwittingly depicted as the surly term implies. Governor Palin was wise enough to decline their offer, but you get the picture.

John Nolte from Breitbart News discussed the situation and remarked " . . . pop culture's mean-spirited and degrading cruelty towards Republican women is now the norm, not the exception."

Where is NOW in all this? Do they only defend Democratic women? Do they refuse to defend Republican women or Muslim women who are abused with genital mutilation and other forms of physical assault, not to mention the lack of basic rights?

I imagine they're hiding next to the boys of GLAAD. (Maybe GLAAD will attack Nelsan Ellis instead of Islam--he quit "True Blood" because he didn't want to play a gay part.

When it comes to real civil rights, the left is not really civilized and they have no real courage.


Tweet

Martin Bashir Flushed Away

Martin Bashir, that lovable, cuddly, and trendy, British "journalist" has decided to call it quits from MSNBC since suggesting almost three weeks ago, that someone should defecate in Sarah Palin's mouth. He also called her an idiot on that broadcast, as well as others. I wonder why he's resigning--he's just being his old, liberal self.

Bashir issued a statement to Mediate via email that read: 

"After making an on-air apology, I asked for permission to take some additional time out around the Thanksgiving holiday.

Upon further reflection, and after meeting with the President of MSNBC, I have tendered my resignation. It is my sincere hope that all of my colleagues, at this special network, will be allowed to focus on the issues that matter without the distraction of myself or my ill-judged comments.

I deeply regret what was said, will endeavor to work hard at making constructive contributions in the future, and will always have a deep appreciation for our viewers--who are the smartest, most compassionate and discerning of all television audiences. I would also wish to express deepest gratitude to my immediate colleagues, and our contributers, (sic) all of whom have given so much of themselves to our broadcast."

MSNBC's Alec Baldwin & Martin Bashir: What a Pair of Sweethearts

Martin Bashir is a great example of someone who heavily depends on the psychological defense mechanism of projection. Calling Sarah Palin an idiot, a woman who successfully governed the state of Alaska, by a liberal fake journalist on a TV station that has as many viewers as can fit on my sofa, is  projection. Martin, the basher, is a fool. 

MSNBC is run by bigger fools and proved it by hiring Alec-Choke-and-Die Baldwin, a homophobic, overcompensating, pseudo-macho man who never met a female Fox News reporter he didn't drop an "F Bomb" on. Baldwin's show It's Dark Out and I'm Scared was suspended for two whole weeks after he told a reporter to do something that was homophobic clearly implied by Baldwin's language, which is too disgusting to repeat.

The Fox-Google Republican Debate

"Not payin' for illegal's education is heartless"

I just finished watching the Fox-Google Republican Debate. I feel this was the best one of the three debates. I can't help but like Newt and his directness and intelligence when he finally gets the chance to speak. Michele Bachmann wore red, indicating that she was feeling her oats, and I thought she also made some good points. She was in the Spin Room afterward and spoke with Sean Hannity, explaining her thoughts on immigration and how she would seal off the border whereas Perry is too moderate on this issue, and it doesn't sit well with conservatives--Bachmann may just get back some of those people that Perry won over before he joined the debates.

Perry and Romney slugged it out, as predicted, but I think Perry was kind of flat, and when he spoke about the 32 year old woman who had cervical cancer and who approached him about her dilemma regarding her health care, I didn't think he was being genuine. In fact, it seemed like he was doing his Texas rodeo thing of throwing the bull. But the worst thing he did was to say that people who were against supporting college funding for illegal aliens were heartless. Romney destroyed him with his comeback and Perry deserved the beatback. I cannot believe any normal conservative would not see it as unfair for illegal aliens to pay in-state financial rates for college and out of state Americans pay $100 thousand more for tuition--not only does it not make sense, as Romney put it, but it isn't fair.


One thing that came out of this debate, that should be perfectly clear to anyone who is fairminded, is how the Fox News team handled the questions. Nobody on the panel did a Brian Williams and editorialized their left wing agenda with such a snarky question as he did over the death penalty (see video). Nobody went gently into the night with softball questions like the liberal media did with Obama in his run for the White House. It was a fair debate with questions coming from the public and the panelists, and overall, the debaters handled it well.

While it doesn't appear that any of the candidates are ready to jump off the bandwagon, I thought Johnson should have considered it; but after seeing a Fox poll asking who people believed won the debate, Johnson actually did a lot better than I would have guessed, and came in second with about 14% of the vote--a total surprise as I thought he appeared nervous and unsure of himself. What do I know?


I like Ron Paul, not as a candidate, but as an uncle. I can see him telling me his thoughts about the world, and I could listen to him for hours, then I would use what is useful and discard what was crazy with his thinking. For example, his beliefs about Iran are not accurate and his permissiveness regarding their nuclear program are incredibly dangerous. Iran is a clear and present danger, a nuclear threat, and populated by a suicidal people who believe they will get to heaven by killing us. Not a good idea to say they have the same rights as the rest of us to have nuclear weapons. I rest my case with Ron Paul (notice how you never say only his last name because it's also a first name).


Rick Santorum seems like a bright guy, but when he speaks, he looks pained. I always get the impression that he's constipated. But Santorum had the guts to give an opinion on Iraq and Afghanistan and would continue our efforts there--you don't have to agree with him to see that he is, at least, a guy with principals.

Herman Cain rocks, but I don't believe he has a chance in getting the nomination. If he did, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. His "9-9-9" plan actually sounds interesting and rather practical--I just wonder if it would work. I like the straightforwardness of his approach and his sharp answers. I worry, however, that he'd get eaten up in the political arena if he became president, and I suspect I'm not alone in that thinking.


Well, that's the way I see it for now--this will likely change as time shows us the flaws and inconsistencies of the candidates. For now, I'm going with Romney, but that's just for now. He is probably the best choice to beat Obama, and Obama must be beaten if this country is to succeed and not go the road to socialism. Sarah Palin waited too long to jump in, I believe, and she would be too much of a distraction at this point. I think it will be important to discover who she ends up endorsing, so let us wait and watch.

I'd love to know what you think.  




Tweet

Those Magnificent Besturds, the MSM

The New York Times and Washington Post have sent an army of liberal media anarchists to Juneau, Alaska to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin. They came away with nothing more than to say she's a hardworking neophyte governor. Nothing. These rags pretending to be nonpartisan newspapers even asked their readership for help in scouring the 24 thousand emails--free labor for a media that supports socialism because they suck too much to profit from capitalism and must resort to begging--still came away with nothing incriminating. I wonder what they would have found on Obama, or even Hillary, or Bill.  Would they have found that Hillary did, indeed, have the hots for Huma Abedin Weiner? Or that Bill, did indeed, have something to do with all the supposed suicides and strange deaths of people who opposed him? Or that Obama does indeed have ties to Louis Farrakhan, Jeremy Wright, and a host of imams involved with terrorism really exist? It's pathetic and laughable at the same time, but it isn`t very funny.


Why go after a woman who hasn't even said that she was running for president?  And the way they went after her was so blatantly disgusting. Could you imagine the dirt that would come out if they`d gone after Clinton--Hillary or Bill, take your pick--it would make Weinergate look like a Mother Teresa newsreel.

I believe the reason the media wants to destroy Palin has more to do with her charisma, and the liberal`s lack of it now that Obama`s has faded, than her political intentions. But that isn't to say the media doesn't want to ensure that Obama gets re-elected. The media is indistiguishable from the Democratic campaign in and of itself.  Palin is an attractive women living in the tough climes of Alaska, a state that remains male dominant because of it's toughness on the individual. Sarah Palin hunts, rides snowmobiles, fishes, sets up campfires, and if given the chance, I'm sure she could log roll with the best of 'em. So this, I believe, is what the media is afraid of--the notion that the American public would vote for her based on her style, her looks, and her emotional appeal.  The media is not saying much for the intelligence of the American public, are they? But the truth is, this is how we vote.

If only women voted, John Kerry's hair would be president today, like JFK`s was, but thankfully, men also vote as do women who aren't impressed by Kerry and his bag of war hero lies. [When the only war videos you've got to show for yourself are taken and narrated by you, then I would be suspicious--and then, why even have war hero videos in the first place?] Kerry is probably the most hated Vietnam war veteran amongst his Vietnam war veteran colleagues. But we must  never forget that even though he lied about the Swiftboats and his heroism, he`s also an idiot.


Sarah Palin may or may not run for president; that`s her choice. But whether or not she runs, she sure as hell gave the media a run for their money--or at least their volunteers that didn`t get paid. And they deserved everything they`ve got.

Tweet

Please feel free to comment

Oddball Matthews, E-Mails, and Idiots

So the MSM is hard at work examining Sarah Palin’s e-mails. So hard, in fact, they’ve asked their readership to help them find the dirt among the diamonds. According to Media Research Center, it’s NBC who is most excited about the sleazy search, but so far has come up blank.  Lester Holt announced, “mail call. Thousands of pages of e-mail from Sarah Palin’s time as Governor. What we’re learning about her tonight.”  But what did they learn?

From the top of the Friday, June 10 NBC Nightly News:

LESTER HOLT: Good evening, I'm Lester Holt, in tonight for Brian. Sarah Palin's short rise from obscurity to a source of endless political fascination reached a new level today as reporters lined up to scour thousands of pages of e-mails from her time as Alaska Governor. Looking for deeper insight and clues into her political ambitions. Responding to media requests, the state of Alaska released 24,000 pages of e-mails covering the period from December 2006, when she was sworn in as governor, to September 2008 when she was named John McCain's running mate. With Palin a potential presidential challenger, the question tonight is: Could her foes try to use them to try and define her candidacy? NBC’s national investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff has been examining some of those e-mails. He joins me now from Juneau, Alaska, with more. Michael, good evening.

MICHAEL ISIKOFF: Good evening, Lester. News organizations have waited nearly three years to get access to these documents. Stacks of e-mails from Palin's time as Governor. Palin and the state of Alaska fought having to make them public. But now that they are, a Palin spokesman said today that they show she was a very engaged Governor and that everybody should read them.

Well, David Gregory later had to admit “As Mike [Isikoff] and his team are finding, not a lot of bombshells here.”  My heart bleeds for these slime-balls—needing to dig up dirt on someone who hasn’t even declared her candidacy—are they so scared of her that they need to do this, or is the news just slow this week?  Oh wait, it can’t be slow news what with Weinergate in full swing.

The worst that Michael Isikoff found was that Palin praised something Obama had once said about him giving a great speech in which he mentioned Alaska.  That doesn’t mean she endorses him for 2012 or that she thinks his budget proposal, which received less votes than the number of dead woman found in Ted Kennedy’s car, is a great budget.  But they will continue to dig, because they have to—they must remain joined at the butt to the Democratic party and George Soros. (Notice how Isikoff always looks like he’s smelling something bad?)

On a funnier note, Chris Matthews.

Oddball: Dumbest Guy on TV

Babawawa likes Weiner

Okay, let’s talk about Matthews.  In defending liberal-liberal Anthony Weiner, Matthews said on his show, Hardball, seen by over 30 viewers, that the only reason Weiner was in trouble was because his behaviour offends culturally backwards Christian Conservatives.  Of course this implies that Matthews believes it’s okay to be using your work facility to covertly snap lewd photos of you grabbing your weiner, while looking seductively into the camera in order to tweet it to a half dozen or so young women, including a 17 year old, and to make lewd statements to them, and then to try and blame the journalist, Andrew Breitbart, who discovered this, for lying even though you knew the truth all along, and then to smugly lie to the press and the people who you represent along with the rest of the American public, and to have a pregnant wife who had no idea you were tweeting your junk across America, showing the world what great judgement you have, is a perfectly fine non-Christian, liberal behaviour.   

Tell me Chris Matthews isn’t the world’s biggest douche.  Well, perhaps Barbara Walters ties him for first as she thinks Weiner should stay on and become the next Bill Clinton.  At least he has a foot up and the competition in the male slut division of the race, and let’s face it, Barbara has been known to sleep around with politicians, so maybe she knows what she’s talking about, eh?

Please feel free to comment

Tweet

24 Thousand Emails: Release the Hounds!

In an article by Brian Clark Howard written for Mail Online, June 12, 2011, the emails of Sarah Palin were scrutinized under a Democratic microscope and laid bare for the public to see. The title of the article, "'Trig will be a joy': Sarah Palin plays God in touching email about her unborn son's Downs Syndrome," plants a seed in the reader's mind that Mrs. Palin, as she was so often depicted when she ran as VP against Obama, is a bit whacky. Let's face it, whenever anyone plays God, there must be a screw loose somewhere in the old noggin. At least that's what the liberal media wants you to think.

Howard writes: Reporters found a deeply personal message among the nearly 25,000 emails sent from Sarah Palin's office from 2006 to 2008 while she was Governor of Alaska, in the days since they were released after a freedom of information request.


In April 2008, two weeks before her fifth child, Trig, was born with Downs Syndrome, Mrs. Palin sent a touching email to her friends and family from her official government account--the only one reporters have access to. [Howard had to emphasize that what these creeps did was perfectly legal under the Freedom of Information Act, but we know that they would have loved to get their hands on more dirt to move their liberal agenda forward.]

The Sunday Times suggests that the heartfelt letter may improve how some people view the controversial conservative Repubican [as opposed to controversial liberal Republicans, I guess] who some have accused of being shallow and insincere. [Notice how people make accusations without really vetting a person--hey, they did that with Obama, saying he was the brightest light in the heavens and will lead our country to prosperity, when the only things he is leading us to is more debt, reduced personal freedoms, higher spending, and an undeclared war while he blew his nose on our Constitution.]

Howard admitted: The letter also makes unlikely conspiracy theories that have long been circulating on blogs that Trig was actually born to Mrs. Palin's unwed daughter Bristol. [Liberals love to make disgusting claims that have no truth behind it, while conservatives claim things like "the photo really is of Anthony Weiner's junk.]


Its emergence today will reinforce claims that, far from damaging Mrs Palin's presidential hopes, the dossier of emails have in fact helped her campaign to revealing a more human side to the controversial politician. [How disappointing this must be to the slimeballs in the liberal media who are dying to get something on her--but wait--my own conspiracy theory leads me to wonder if they're doing this on purpose because they believe she could never beat Obama in 2012 and they want her to run.  It's just a thought.]

Mrs Palin pointed out that Trig is a Norse name meaning both 'true' and 'brave victory', and wrote, 'He'll show you what true brave victory really means'.

She also added, 'Trig is no different except that he has one extra chromosome. Doctors call it Down's Syndrome, and Down's kids have challenges but can bring you much delight and more love than you can ever imagine. Just wait and see, let me prove this'.

She also wrote, 'Trig will be his dad's little buddy, and he'll wear Carhartts while he learns to tinker in the garage.

'He'll love to be read to, he'll want to play goalie and he'll steal his mom's heart just like Track, Bristol, Willow and Piper did.

Isn't it obvious how slimey the mainstream media is? They are the real prostitutes of the left and are frequently rewarded by the Democratic administrations for being their sluts. In "Obama Zombies" by Jason Mattera, he discusses how the media is often rewarded by the liberals and metions a few examples: 


Warren Bass of the WaPo as Outlook deputy editor became an advisor to Susan "I hate Israel as much as Obama" Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN.
Daren Briscoe of Newsweek, Washington correspondent miraculously became assoc. director of public affairs for the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Jay Carney was with Time, and now the Press Secretary. His talent--he can talk out of both sides of his mouth and say nothing.
Linda Douglas was with ABC News as a Washington correspondent is the assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services.
Kate-Albright Hanna a CNN producer was transitioned to director of "new media" for Obama campaign and worked for his website.
And the list goes on and ends with Jill Zuckerman who worked for the Chicago Tribune as a Washington correspondent and has become the director of public affairs for the Department of Transportation. [Notice how so many have now become involved with public affairs--much like Anthony Weiner and his public affairs.]

The Palins in Alaska

So here we have another leftist media witch hunt designed to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin and the best they can offer is that she spoke as if she was speaking for God. To me, it was more like writer's license to express herself that way, and truthfully, I found it very sincere, loving, and yes, even Christian. But the left doesn't seem to really 'do' Christian because their dogma is their religion and abortion is merely the "termination of a fetus in a specific trimester." So if someone is murdered when they are say, thirty years old, can we then say that he or she was murdered in their 140th trimester? I didn't think so.

Finally, if the media is checking Mrs. Palin's emails at this point in time, why had they not checked Obama's past prior to his election? Why wasn't he vetted? Of course we know why and the question is rhetorical. It's always this way with the left. 

What has Obama done or proposed that can convince you that he isn't a socialist or communist? What has Sarah Palin said or done that leads you to believe she wasn't an excellent Governor of Alaska?

Your comments are welcome.