Bikini Pics of Sarah Palin

When the left heard that John McCain had picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate they knew they were in trouble. The Democrats immediately began to criticize McCain's choice. "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "Gov. Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil, and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same." Senator Boxer pretty much echoed these words as did a myriad of left wing pundits.

None of this Palin bashing has worked. The Republican party base has been invigorated both by the choice and by how well McCain pulled it all off. The dems are in a panic. Here is one excerpt from a blog at PumaPac.org.

"Goodbye Howard Dean. Goodbye Barack Obama. Goodbye Nancy Pelosi. Goodbye Donna Brazile. You have not only lost the White House for the Democratic Party. Today you have brought the Democratic Party to the brink of irrelevancy altogether. John McCain has played you all like a piano.
Today we say GOODBYE to the OLD Democratic Party. The OLD Democratic Party has led us to DISASTER. John McCain and Sarah Palin will win in November by a landslide."

So what do they do now. Look for anything and everything they can find on Sarah Palin that will diminish her in the eyes of core Conservatives. For some reason they believe that that would be a picture of Palin in a swimsuit. The left is scouring the Internet looking for the swimsuit pictures from when she was a beauty contestant.

Is this what passes for serious political discourse in this country. The ability to hold up a picture of your opponent's running mate in a swimsuit. Will someone please find me an adult in the Democratic party.

Strange Bed Fellows

In the previous post, Liberal anti-Semitism, Chuck from Chuck Thinks Right, brought up a valid point with this comment;

"I have always been puzzled by the level of anti-Semitism on the left. It could be the religion issue, but this does not explain why they tend to defend Muslims."

The fact that Liberals defend and, at least tacitly, support the Islamo-fascists is very evident. Even the top two contenders for the Democratic party's presidential nomination have both supported Muslim fundamentalists groups. Obama had to fire an advisor, Robert Malley, after it became public that Malley was meeting with Hamas leaders. There is also the matter of Obama's relationship with the pro-Palestinian, terrorist sympathizer, Rashid Khalidi. Hillary Clinton's associations with Islamo-fascists goes back to the 1980's. The alliance between Liberals and terrorist is a mutual one. Hamas endorsed Obama. So what is with these strange bedfellows? Why would one of America's two major political parties ally itself with America's enemy? You can put the answer on a bumper sticker.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Ironically, this is an old Arabian proverb. If you think about it makes sense. Liberals and Muslim fundamentalists have a great deal in common.

They both hate Zionism.
They both hate George W. Bush.
They both hate the 'war on terror'.
They both hate America's interest in Mideast oil.
They both oppose the war in Iraq.
They both hate the restrictions imposed by the 'Patriot Act."
They both have a profoundly negative message.
They both believe that it is America's freedoms which promote America's immorality.
They both have common enemies, namely the United States (as it is currently constituted) and Israel.

So what is the 'quid pro quo'? What is each of them getting out of this unofficial, unannounced alliance? The Isamo-fascists see clear advantages to an America led by the Democratic party, not the least of which is a weaker, less vigilant America. The Democrats would secretly like terrorism to be a greater threat. An environment in which Americans would be all to willing to trade liberties for security is a Leftists dream.

Democrats always get bent out of shape when anyone suggests that they may be less than patriotic. Just once I would like to hear someone respond, " Oh, how clumsy of me! I really did not mean to question your patriotism, I meant to accuse you of treason!"

Liberal Anti-Semitism

The following is an anti-Semitic rant that was posted on an official Obama website;

They fear peace By Kate Smythe-Blake - July 19th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
EDT Comments Mail to a Friend Report Objectionable Content

The kike filth are trying to steal this election from us. But this is our time. The kike live in fear of peace. They fear happiness. The thought of people living happily in peace without killing each other frightens the horde of kike that runs our government. But when pieces of kike use their kike manipulation tactics to stop Barack, it is time to strike back. There is nothing a kike army can do when faced with progressive people who are determined to achieve peace. We will achieve lasting peace.

This extremely bigoted post is not an isolated incident. Back on June 8th, a post entitled How the Jewish Lobby Works was published on the same website by Juan Carlos (see webshot below).





Thanks to Little Green Footballs for the webshot. Blogs, such as Little Green Footballs, have been instrumental in exposing these hate filled posts. They have since been removed from the Obama site.

Liberal anti-Semitism is nothing new and it has been expressed by even prominent liberal Democrats. Former Democratic Senator Fritz Hollings was denounced by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for his statements in opposition to the Iraq war. Hollings had said, "With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer. President Bush's policy to secure Israel....[S]preading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take votes away from the Democrats." House Democrat James P. Moran (VA) had to step down from a party leadership post after he expressed similar opinions.

Jesse Jackson called Jews "Hymie" and referred to New York as "Hymietown." Jackson friend, the anti-Semitic Minister Louis Farrakan publicly threatened the life of the reporter who exposed Jackson's anti-Semitic remarks and warned Jews not to harm Jackson. Al Sharpton called Jews "diamond merchants" during an uprising in the Crown Heights district of New York, and said, "If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house."

In 1974, Hillary Rodham called Bill Fray, the campaign manager of then boyfriend Bill Clinton, a "f---ing Jew bastard." In 1986, when Clinton consultant Dick Morris asked for a raise, Hillary screamed at him, "Money! That's all you people care about is money." Arkansas state trooper Larry Patterson claims that during the Clinton's numerous verbal brawls, " it was quite common" for both Bill and Hillary to refer to one another as "a Jew bastard" or "a Jew motherf---er."

Jimmy Carter also got a lot of heat following the release of his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. The title itself was enough to raise eyebrows. The ADL's Abe Foxman wrote to Carter that "In both your book and in your many television and print interviews you have been feeding into conspiracy theories about excessive Jewish power and control. Considering the history of anti-Semitism, even in our great country, this is very dangerous stuff." Carter, apparently not deterred at all by the controversy, traveled to Damascus, Syria earlier this year to meet with the exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in spite of Israeli and U.S. objections.

Liberals love the United Nations (UN). To them the UN is the first and last stop in resolving all international disputes. They do not seem the least bit bothered by the fact that the UN is also notoriously anti-Semitic. On Sept. 7, 2001, just days before the 9/11 attacks, the UN World Conference Against Racism began in Durban, South Africa. Contrary to it's name the conference gave a global stage to pro-Palestinian anti-Semites. The unfolding hate fest included the distribution of leaflets depicting Jews as Nazis, fanged beasts, and bloodsucking money-hungry parasites. Despite the Sudanese genocide in Darfur, the UN General Assembly has issued no resolutions condemning Sudan, but has condemned Israel 22 times for how it deals with anti-Israeli terrorists, the Palestinians. There are those, and I count myself one of them, who believe that the UN supports the abolition of the state of Israel.

There are undoubtedly numerous anti-Semitic blogs and websites on the Internet. I have had the misfortune to have come across couple of them. Nogw.com is an extensive website totally devoted to the conspiracy theory that the President, along with the Israelis, engineered and executed the 9/11 attacks. Liberal white boy claims in the description of his blog to be a self loathing Christian. I can believe that since he is also a hate filled bigot.

How is it that egalitarian, open minded, and tolerant Liberals become hate filled anti-Semites. The answer is; they are Marxists. Marxist believe that religion is the 'opiate of the masses.' Religious people are not willing to trade their spiritual faith for the secular Marxist faith in dialectical materialism. The Jewish people have always suffered persecution because of their faith. Mohammad originally viewed the Jews as potential allies. However, when the Jews of Medina refused to convert to Islam, he had all the Jewish men slaughtered and the women and children taken as slaves. Liberals view Jews, as well as Christians, as a bar to achieving their goals.

Liberals, as Marxists, fall prey to an age old stereotypical view of Jews as a money hungry people. Since Liberals accept this stereotype, they view Jews as the movers and shakers in our capitalist society, the oppressors of the masses. They, the Jews, are a deeply entrenched part of a system that Liberals are trying to overthrow. They are the enemy.

Finally, Liberals have bought into the notion that there is a Jewish conspiracy to exert power and control over the governments of the world. This stereotype has been around since the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was being circulated in the 19th century. This publication was extremely useful to Hitler in justifying the Holocaust and has been run in a 41-part series on state run Egyptian television. The Protocols have long been proven to be both fictional and a hoax, but it has not deterred those who need it as an excuse for hate.

Given the long and terrible history of persecution which the Jewish people have suffered, it is inexcusable for any sane and civilized person to be a party to it's continuation. Then again, liberals are neither sane nor civilized.

Heil Obama

Senator Obama's recent overseas tour is being viewed by Democrats as a huge success and by Republicans as completely irrelevant. In my opinion, it was way over the line. As a candidate for President it is appropriate for him to visit the theaters of military operations in order to obtain a first hand impression of the situation. However, for Obama, or any candidate, to arrange meetings with foreign leaders and to make political speeches on foreign soil is both arrogant and presumptuous. Obama is not in a position as, as yet, to make U. S. policy or to represent America's interests abroad. He is a U. S. Senator and his powers of representation ends at the border.

I am particularly offended by Obama's visit to Germany. The privilege of speaking at the Brandenburg Gate is one that is earned, not granted. Obama has done nothing to warrant being given that opportunity. In addition, he chose to speak to thousands of German citizens, but chose not to visit wounded U. S. troops in the hospital at Landstuhl. This speaks volumes about where his loyalties lie. To date, the Obama campaign has offered seven separate and distinct excuses as to why he did not go to Landstuhl. The DOD has said that he was both expected and welcome as long as his visit was in his capacity as a U. S. Senator. In other words, he could not bring his campaign staff and hangers-on along with him. It seems clear that this is the reason that Obama chose not to go.

That Barack Obama was able to draw thousands to hear him speak in Germany has certainly reinforced his 'rock star' persona. The thought of Obama standing before and ocean of people chanting his name is filling the hearts of liberals with such joy that they can hardly contain their glee. There have been many leaders, some quite evil, who have had the charisma to draw thousands to hear them speak. Hitler is a good example. Undoubtedly, the most charismatic chancellor that Germany has ever known, but when he finally ended his political career (by putting a bullet in his head), Germany was a heap of smoldering rubble.

What has Obama done to deserve all of this nearly messianic adoration? His campaign slogans are rather generic. On his campaign posters we read things like, "Yes we can", "Change", and "Progress". 'Yes we can' do what? Nationalize one seventh of the U. S. economy with universal health care. How is that a good idea? What has the government ever been able to do better and cheaper than the private sector? Most government social programs swallow up seventy percent of every tax dollar coming into them just to run the bureaucracy. Think about it. Seventy percent of one seventh of the U.S. economy disappearing into a huge bureaucratic black hole. I am not going to try to do the math, the figure would be in the trillions of dollars. The Europeans know this. They have had government run health care for some time. Perhaps that is why they came out in such huge numbers to hear Obama speak. Misery loves company.

When Obama speaks about change, in large part he is talking about changing the way things are done in Washington. This is certainly appealing to most people, myself included. The most corrupting practice in

Washington today is legislative earmarks. Many in Congress, on both sides of the aisle, have used earmarks to enrich themselves and their family members. It is a practice with needs to end if we are going to really change the way Washington does things. But, Barack Obama has not come out strongly in favor of ending the earmarks, only the public disclosure of them. Obama has not given full disclosure himself as to his earmarks. However, those which have been disclosed reveals that one of his earmarks benefited the hospital which employed his wife. How can we believe that he will clean up Washington when he has clearly been part of the problem.

Obama speaks of 'progress'. Conservatives know exactly what he means by progress. One would have to be more than a hundred years old to be able to recall a time when a political progressive was something other than a socialist. When Obama was being criticized recently by McCain on his flip flopping, Obama said this; "I am someone who is no doubt progressive." Since he has said it himself, all of America should have no doubt as well.

The ability of a leader, or potential leader, to draw thousands of people to hear him speak is no indication that said leader will lead well. The popularity of a message is no guarantee that the message is sound and will bring the expected results. Barack Obama's notions of governance are not new, they are the same old socialist ideas, dusted off and polished up to look new. They have all been tried with disastrous results.

America's answer to Barack Obama on election day should be a simple one.