Sarah Palin: Putting up with a cad like Levi Johnston just might make her Mother of the Year

Colleen O'Connor, political columnist for the San Diego News Network, has suggested that Sarah Palin should be nominated for Mother of the Year - not for taking care of a special needs child - not for having a son in Iraq - not for caring for a her teenage daughter and her baby - BUT for putting up with Levi Johnston! More and more Johnston has over played his cards and has become a bore. His mean spirited attacks have shattered his credibility.

Here is an excerpt from her article which is compulsive reading:

Thus, enter Levi Johnston, the stand-up kind of guy that every parent dreads.
For a few dollars (or lots more), Johnston will tell sordid little remembrances about Palin and her family. True or not, who is to say?
What is absolutely true, is that Johnston’s lack of discretion (let alone chivalry) has given even liberal media columnists reason to pause, and reassess, their dislike of Sarah Palin.
As New York Times columnist, Gail Collins, writes, “For the first time in my life, I feel sympathy for Sarah Palin.”
After reading the Vanity Fair piece, Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post calls Levi, “an opportunistic creep.”
These columnists are not referring to his desire to pose for Playgirl magazine, or his desire to “go out and do a movie, maybe even be a celebrity.”
Their revulsion for Johnston’s behavior stems from his non stop whines about the Palin’s domestic life. A life he would not have been privy to had his potential in-laws not welcomed him into their home. Read the full article at The San Diego News Network:

The Anchorage Daily News carries an article titled:Levi Johnston takes on Sarah Palin in magazine story

ACCUSATIONS: Levi's claims about ex-governor don't jibe with past quotes. This article further erodes Johnstons credibility. Read the full article here

Fox News Video: Bill O'Reilly Hammers Liberal hypocrisy on George Tiller and Abortion

Bill O'Reilly in his talking points memo exposes liberal hypocrisy on human rights issues. He contrasts liberal reaction to waterboarding of three individuals with the liberal perspective on brutality perpetrated by liberals. He hammers the liberal position on late term abortionist George Tiller. According to the New York Times mass murderer Tiller is a hero. Tiller brutally murdered and tortured 60,000 unborn children. Clearly liberalism is a godless and morally bankrupt philosophy.
This talking points memo is vintage O'Reilly.

Bill O'Reilly Declares War On The New York Times - 2/2/09 ("Its War Absolute War")

Below is an excerpt from a New York Times editorial titled The Nativists Are Restless. It attacks Bill O'Reilly and imputes racist motives to him. Naturally he has taken umbrage at the imputation of racism. He has declared war on the New York Times with the words "Its War Absolute War"

It is easy to mock white-supremacist views as pathetic and to assume that nativism in the age of Obama is on the way out. The country has, of course, made considerable progress since the days of Know-Nothings and the Klan. But racism has a nasty habit of never going away, no matter how much we may want it to, and thus the perpetual need for vigilance.

It is all around us. Much was made of the Republican mailing of the parody song “Barack the Magic Negro,” but the same notorious CD included “The Star Spanglish Banner,” a puerile bit of Latino-baiting. It is easily found on YouTube. Google the words “Bill O’Reilly” and “white, Christian male power structure” for another YouTube taste of the Fox News host assailing the immigration views of “the far left” (including The Times) as racially traitorous...

Fight The Palin Smears

A new website called Fight The Palin Smears is now up and running. As its name implies it is designed to counteract the vicious campaign of character assassination from elements in the Democratic Party and its media supporters. It is highly effective.

The selection of Sarah Palin has sent shockwaves through the Democratic Party and its media allies. The problem for Obama is that Palin has executive experience as Governor of Alaska whilst he has none. She has charisma and is highly talented. She has become an object of hate for the Left. Not content with impugning the candidates integrity elements in the pro Obama media have questioned her right to run as John McCain's running mate on the basis that Palin has five children and that she should remain at home to rear them. To the forefront in the latter campaign is the New York Times. It has taken fright at the possibility that Palin may actually help swing the election in favour of John McCain. Palin's children are being used by The New York Times and other media organs as a battering ram to destroy her and thereby smooth the path to power for Obama. As far as the NY Times is concerned conservative women have no right to contest the presidency. This stricture does not apply to Nancy Pelosi who is a Liberal. Pelosi is on the correct side of the political fence.

The bullying of Sarah Palin -by elements in both the media and Democratic Party -with the express intention of destroying this woman of the highest integrity- is a blot on American democracy. Perhaps the DailyKos and the New York Times will now campaign to remove the right to vote from conservative women.

Obama's pretence to move to the centre on Abortion is a sham designed to mislead Catholics and Evangelicals

Barack Obama and his supporters in the media have begun a campaign to win a large segment of the Evangelical Christian vote. Some apologists in the media have stressed that Obama is moving towards the centre. Obama is the master of verbal obfuscation.

He is endeavouring to pretend that his beliefs are in tune with those of orthodox Catholics and Evangelicals. Nothing could be further from the truth. He has the most liberal voting record in the Senate on social matters. He supports and voted for partial birth abortion. Of course his apologists in the Washington Post, The New York Times and other liberal organs attempt to paint a picture of movement to the centre on social affairs. They along with Obama are attempting to mislead Evangelicals and Catholics. After all if Obama siphons off sufficient Evangelicals and Catholics he is home and dry.
So Obama is moving towards the centre on social affairs, is he? What does move to the centre really mean?

• Is Obama prepared to vote against abortion? No


• Is Obama prepared to put an end to partial birth abortion? No


• Is he prepared to appoint conservative judges? No


• Is he prepared to eschew his general liberal voting record? No

So all this talk of movement to the centre is hot air. It is an enormous sack of gas.It is sanitised language geared to sewing confusion among Evangelicals and orthodox Catholics. Obama and his liberal cohorts are engaged in a wilful campaign of misinformation and lies.
Articles in various liberal organs deliberately omit his extreme liberal record on abortion whilst emphasising any slight genuflection towards Evangelicals and Orthodox Catholics.
Obama is an extreme liberal on social affairs and an extreme left wing politician on the economy.
He is attempting to square the circle. This is not possible on social affairs. You are either in favour of abortion or you are not. You cannot bridge the unbridgeable.

The reality is Obama as exemplified by his voting record on abortion has contempt for the beliefs of conservative Evangelicals and orthodox Catholics.
Obama consistently emphasises the importance of Christianity in his life. Unfortunately he has facilitated the breaking of the Fifth Commandment by his votes on abortion.
Obama consistently speaks about women’s rights. But there is never a mention of the right to life of the unborn child. Where Obama is concerned God’s wishes are sidelined.God does not enter the equation. Obama is a secular humanist first and a Christian second. Obama’s religion is Secular Humanism with a little sprinkle of Christianity thrown in for good measure.
So the reality is that Orthodox Catholics and Evangelicals hold diametrically opposed positions from Obama on social matters.

No Catholic or Evangelical should vote for Obama because of his stance on abortion. Obama supports the anti–Christian position . He is opposed to God's wishes.
We are all answerable to God if we facilitate abortion in any way. You cannot compromise between good and evil. You opt for one or the other. There is no half way house. It is a case of God's wishes versus Obama's flowery rhetoric, which justifies and supports the culture of death. Evangelical African Americans who may be tempted to vote for Obama must put God first. They should vote for McCain on the basis of his strong anti-abortion stance.

New York Times-Roger Cohen attacks the Irish electorate's rejection of Lisbon Treaty in "The Muck of the Irish"

The following are some excerpts from his article in the New York Times titled The Muck of the Irish (Which I rebut):

"…But when it comes to sheer electoral crassness, it’s hard to beat what the Irish have just done. I can’t think of a country that’s benefited from European Union membership more than Ireland. It has catapulted itself in a few decades from beer-soaked backwater to the Celtic Tiger whose growth rates, foreign investment and rags-to-riches story were the envy of every languishing small nation with a thirst for a makeover.

Enormous E.U. farm subsidies, access for foreign investors to the E.U. market, and the liberation from a Britain complex afforded by new European horizons all contributed to the rebranding of Ireland. Dublin was suddenly hip; the peat bogs were passé. No wonder the Irish adopted the euro with élan while the British shrunk from “the Continent” and stuck with sterling.

Yet here we have the Irish, in a fit of Euro-bashing pique worthy of the worst of little-Englandism, rejecting the renegotiated Lisbon treaty essential for the functioning of an expanded 27-member E.U. Biting the hand that feeds you does not begin to describe this act of bloody-mindedness………………………………"

Comment:

To put it mildly this article is insulting and reeks of condescension and ignorance. It is written from a distance and is littered with half-truths. The use of the term beer-soaked backwater is a cheap shot. There is an element of the Paddy bashing about it often heard in British upper class circles. Sure Ireland has benefited from EU membership. Certainly we have access to the huge EU markets. Sure farmers have benefited from EU subsidies. This was not a vote to leave the EU. It was a vote for an improved version of the Treaty.

Cohen makes no effort to investigate possible causes for the defeat of the referendum. Rural Ireland revolted against the oppressive burden imposed by EU bureaucracy. Un-elected Commissioners have made decisions, which have severely worsened the quality of life in rural communities. Mountains of bureaucracy and quotas hamstring farming and fishing. EU agriculture Commissioner Peter Mandelson is viewed as a second Cromwell who is prepared to sell out EU farmers at the WTO. EU Commission restrictions on turf cutting proved the last straw for many. Rural Post Offices are closing because of EU competition rules in the postal service. Often the postman is the only visitor to the isolated homestead of an elderly person.

Fishermen watch as Irish waters are denuded of fish by EU trawlers. Ireland with 16% of the EU sea area has only 4% of the fish quotas. EU trawlers have taken at a conservative estimate €50 billion-€60 billion worth of fish. Some estimates are as high as €120 billion. Ireland is in all probability a net contributor to the EU.

Many small businessmen dependent on farmers and fishermen voted No.
Other businessmen voted No fearing that the 12.5% Corporation Profits Tax is under threat. And it certainly is.

Working class communities in Waterford, Cork, Limerick, Dublin and other cities came out against the Treaty fearing that paid employment has become a race to the bottom under pressure from EU decisions on workers rights and immigrants.
Others assessed correctly that the EU Commission is undemocratic.
There are fears that the EU courts will legalise abortion in Ireland.

Also there is the fear that an EU army would compromise Ireland’s neutrality. Many female voters feared that their sons could be sent to war.

Stupid comments from some French and German politicians and from Jose Manuel Barroso angered the electorate. So you see Mr Cohen your diatribe failed to detect the reality on the ground. In short you are out of touch.

New York Times claims on McCain a non-story

John McCain has denied having an affair with a Washington lobbyist- Vicky Iseman- after a report on the issue appeared in the New York Times newspaper.
This affair was alleged to have taken place eight years ago.
McCain also denied that he had ever improperly aided companies represented by Iseman as chairman of the senate commerce committee.
This is a rehash of an old story and appears calculated to damage McCain’s fund raising and organizational efforts. It has done nothing to enhance the credibility of the New York’s Times. The newspaper appears to have scored a spectacular own goal. This is yellow journalism at its best. The New York Times approach is to give McCain something to deny. Machiavelli would be proud of this effort at character assassination.


Today at news conference in Toledo, Ohio and accompanied by his wife Cindy he said, "Obviously I'm very disappointed in the article. It's not true. I've served this nation honourably for more than half a century. At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust.”

The newspaper alleged that aides had urged McCain and Iseman to stay away from each other before his failed presidential campaign in 2000.
Cindy McCain said “More importantly, my children and I not only trust my husband, but know that he would never do anything to not only disappoint our family, but disappoint the people of America. He's a man of great character,”

In the 1980s John McCain was one of five senators accused of trying to influence banking regulators on behalf of Charles Keating, a savings and loan financier who was later convicted of securities fraud.

The Senate Ethics Committee found that McCain had been guilty of "poor judgment" but that his actions 'were not improper" and did not deserve punishment.

McCain’s performance at the press conference was calm assured and presidential.
His wife Cindy was dignified. This should boost his poll ratings. The unjustified attack may encourage many sceptical conservatives to throw their support behind McCain. He may yet thank the New York Times.