A few months prior to the 2008 election my friend The Destroyer of Colons asked me, “When Bush is gone, who are liberals going to hate?” He was only half joking. “Not to worry,” I assured him with a smile, “liberals can always find someone to designate as an object of their hatred.”

When I was in high school the priest who was teaching our Senior year psychology class had us write an essay based on the quote, “If God did not exist man would have to create him.” This was many years ago, but I recall my conclusion being something to the effect of saying that given mankind’s emotional and psychological needs if God did not exist we would have to create some divine being to believe in to give our lives greater meaning.

This was actually a blog post I was kicking around last year, looking back on 2008 when the focus of the left’s anger was directed toward Sarah Palin. It was almost surreal watching the hateful delight they took in watching our press journalistically rape her family while these same “professionals” ignored trivial matters like the horrifically flawed economic policies or lack of experience and questionable past of one party’s actual presidential candidate. Personally I’m not a big Palin fan – I see her as someone with very real flaws to go with some very real accomplishments, but the way she enunciates just grates on me (sorry, that’s just me). Then again, at least I generally agree with the substance of what she’s saying and if her speaking manner is fingernails on a blackboard to me hearing her talk is probably a tabasco sauce enema to leftists. For that matter, the fact that the very mention of her name can send most leftists into a seething, purple-faced rage will always earn her a place in my heart. Not to mention this past summer’s bus tour when the same press who had so much fun dumpster diving through her and her family’s lives were now crying that she was treating them like paparazzi – that was a thing of beauty.

Getting back on topic, it seems that no matter what the time is, the left has to have someone as their focus as their anger. Even in those early days of the Obama presidency when all was right in the world their focus went toward Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck – reliable standbys. And then came the Tea Party. If you missed it the first time, check out my two part posting illustrating the left’s anger toward the Tea Party as told through the five stages of death and dying.

The left threw out every bit of hateful invective that they had in their arsenal. The Tea Party was labeled astroturfers, racists, seditionists, idiots, rubes, and terrorists. Their crowning slur came when none of these charges stuck and the left threw to the most disrespectful, malevolent smear they could find toward the Tea Party – they compared the Tea Party to leftists.

Another interesting case study in leftist anger is the comic strip Doonesbury. While I once enjoyed it as an actual comic, over the last decade it’s morphed into a sounding board for the angry and bitter leftist, Garry Trudeau. From 2000 – 2008 his range of topics could be summed up as:

• Hatred for George Bush
• Hatred for Fox News
• Hatred for George Bush
• Hatred for Schwarzenegger
• Hatred for George Bush

And of course, during the 2008 presidential campaign Sarah Palin joined this crowd. Mix in some patronizing, if not outright disdain for the military, and that pretty much sums up every comic not involving the personal lives of the characters, although these themes are generally woven in as well. One would expect that with a president as spectacularly inept as President Obama, Trudeau would have a field day. So naturally his strips have become focused on hated for Palin, Donald Trump, the Tea Party, and of course sympathy for the OWSers and their distaste for… prosperity?

After following the progression of Bush-Chaney-Palin-Limbaugh- Beck-Tea Partiers-The Un-Romney of the Month, we find ourselves at Tim Tebow. For those of you unfamiliar Tim Tebow is a pro football player, and is currently the starting quarterback for the Denver Broncos. He has gained fame for his erratic style of play, leading his team to several improbable come-from behind wins. That made him famous in the sports world, but what took him beyond was his religion. To build on Dr. John’s analysis, Tebow became famous for combining his unusual talents with his spiritual beliefs. Tim Tebow is a devout Christian, and is quite public about it. “Tebowing”, the act of kneeling and bowing one’s head in prayer with fingertips on your forehead has become a national sensation in itself. He gained some notoriety for painting scripture verses in his eye black while playing college ball at the University of Florida. Tebow also caused a minor uproar during last year’s Super Bowl when he starred in an ad for a Pro-Life group, telling about how his mother had an at risk pregnancy where abortion was recommended, and how happy Tim Tebow and his mother were that she chose to have him. This created a bit of controversy, but no more than if a tasteful Pro-Choice ad had aired during the Super Bowl starring a famous female athlete. An example off of the top of my head would be if a top track star mentioned how getting pregnant in high school would have cost her a college scholarship and ensured a life in the impoverished place where she grew up. An ad like that would have gotten some criticism on the right, and would probably have blown over as quickly as Tebow’s ad did.

But then Tebow did the unforgivable – he became a famous Christian who is open about his faith. With the Denver Broncos’ poor play early on in the 2011 season Tim Tebow, who opened the season at #3 on the Broncos’ depth chart at Quarterback, was now the starter. And he started winning. And winning. And winning ugly. The team adjusted its offense to make the best use of Tebow’s athleticism and, let’s face it, terrible passing accuracy. Tebow had this strange habit of playing badly for three quarters and then pulling out an almost miraculous victory. I saw one person nickname Tebow “Uncle Miltie”, based on an NSFW-ish story about the late comedian Milton Berle that ends with the punch line, “just enough to win.”

The end of regular season’s performance (losses) by Tebow and the Broncos have bought Tebowmania back to Earth, but during his ascent and decline and once again ascent in his playoff win over the Steelers we’ve seen no shortage of venom from the left directed at this young man. David Schuster, the always reliably unhinged Bill Maher, even one of the more rational leftists in Bill Press all took their turns attacking Tebow. Heck, even The Nation, not exactly known as a sports publication, had to write several articles on the quarterback that the left loves to hate.

Why all of this hatred for someone who has done nothing wrong, or broken any laws? For that matter, while some may find his openness about his faith obnoxious, Tebow isn’t out trying to beat everyone he meets over the head with a Bible and preaching conversion. You know what else he isn’t doing? He’s not doing drugs. He’s not driving drunk. He’s not participating in dog fighting rings. He’s not bringing guns into nightclubs. He’s not fathering children out of wedlock to several different mothers. And he’s not murdering anyone. Granted, the matelote in each of the scenarios I just mentioned have gotten varying degrees of scorn for their actions, but none that were so ideologically centered. So why do leftists give the athletes in the categories I just mentioned a pass while directing so much venom at one man who most people would actually be happy to see their sister or daughter dating? It’s the same reason the left has so much hatred for the likes of Sarah Palin or the Tea Party.

They have to. Leftist policy just doesn’t work in the real world – look at Communism in Soviet Russia, Europe’s socialistic gradual death spiral (and that’s despite the US subsidizing their national defense) or or that matter, look no further than the White House. When Oregon was considering an Obamacare/Romneycare-esque health care mandate The Destroyer of Colons mused, “I hope that this bill passes, just so we can show leftists once and for all that government run health care doesn’t work.” I just shook my head and responded, “That won’t happen. Leftist policies never fail because they are bad ideas, only because greedy individuals refuse to throw enough money at their bad ideas.”

This is what leads to the Left’s permanent state of anger. When your bad ideas don’t work you can either reflect on them and learn from it, or you can cling to your bad ideas and be angry because nobody gets your genius. Without introspection as an option, a target must be found – hence the left’s continuous rotating figurehead as the object of their anger.

Even worse is how badly it is often misdirected. Look at the OWS’ers and their anger at… something. Granted, most of the movement is made up of Unionistas, career grievance mongers (Code Pink, ACORN, etc), students who have no idea what the real world is like, and criminals. These are all traditional Democrat-leaning groups, but at some point one would think that the Obama-rose-colored glasses have to come off and the realization has to set in that the president and Congress are the reason our economy is flagging. Maybe people who demonize profitability and threaten to punish the prosperity that leads to job creation are why companies are afraid to hire. On a personal level, maybe their facial piercings, lack of personal hygiene, and sense of entitlement are why nobody wants to hire them for any of the ever-scarcer job openings. Sorry, but the 12-16 years spent getting gold stars and being told you’re special for just showing up are over.

Again, rather than look at the causes of their unhappiness it is easier for the left to lash out in unthinking rage. The worst example that would actually be comical if it weren’t so disgusting was the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. So blinded by their hatred for Sarah Palin were the leftists that they had to manufacture an excuse to pretend that she was somehow responsible for the shooting. To make matters worse, when she called them on their idiocy, they double downed on stupid and got even angrier at her simply for pointing out the error of their ways. And the sad part is the lefties started shrieking about how classless and stupid Palin was for doing so, when the place they should have been looking was the mirror.

This is not to say that all leftists are constantly out looking for someone to hate to fill the void in their lives. I understand that the tone of this post is a lot more accusatory than what I usually write but, as I dispel my own straw man a better question does come from it. Why does there always seem to be someone in the news who is the object of leftist anger, and why is it so viscous?

So where will Tebow go? Maybe he fizzles out by losing to the New England Patriots this weekend as badly as he did a few weeks ago, or maybe he goes on to win the Super Bowl.

"Only Tim Tebow can save us now!"

My favorite take on Tebow came in ESPN columnist DJ Gallo’s weekly satire of Peter King’s "Monday Morning Quarterback." In this week’s "The Hangover" Gallo speculates as to where Tebow may be in twelve years:

"Will a wholesome, handsome ex-football star who can draw the religious vote and appeal to the tens of millions of Oprah-loving pop psychologists win 51 percent of the vote in the 2024 presidential election? No, he will win 91 percent of the vote in the 2024 presidential election. The 9 percent who don’t vote for him will just be hard-core Raiders, Chargers, Chiefs, Alabama, LSU, Georgia and Ron Paul fans."

Tebow for President in 2024!

I’m kidding, of course. The only person to get Brother Bob’s coveted endorsement for president is none other than the great Stannis Baratheon.

But until then we have Tim Tebow.

Orlando Jones may be best known for his days as a comedic TV pitchman. This latest suggestion, though, is no laughing matter.

The former soda slinger who spent years telling people to “Make 7 Up Yours” fired off a series of tweets on October 22nd following the death of deposed Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. After discussing Kanye West’s trip to Occupy Wall Street, Jones wrote, “Libyan Rebels kill Gaddafi, if American liberals want respect they better stop listening to Aretha & kill Sarah Palin(:”

[link]

No very funny. Especially in the light of these words:

“At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differentl­y than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds,”

But sadly, you know they don’t mean a word of it.

But that’s not all.

Here’s a screencap of the HuffPo title on the front page

Notice that the HuffPo title reads:

“Actor Suggests Liberals Should Kill Sarah Palin, Angers Conservati­ves”

It implies that only conservatives are angered by the plea for murdering someone- as long as it is a conservative.

By the time you read this, it may already have gone down the memory hole.

One imagines that Jones will likely appear on the CBS Early Show or Today, followed by an appearance with Piers Morgan and then a visit to The View, where Joy Behar cannot comprehend why Jones’ words bother anybody.

Thus instead of Jones being properly ostracized, his flagging career is revived.

Which was probably the entire point of it all.

The Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Sc. I
I am a tainted wether of the flock,
Meetest for death: the weakest kind of fruit
Drops earliest to the ground.

True Love Often Overlooks Previous Indiscretions,

Conservatives traditionally resist government intrusion into the home and personal lives of American citizens: Liberals tend to welcome the guiding hand of government into every facet of modern life. This is one of the fundamental differences between Liberalism and Conservatism. During the GOP Debate, Rep. Bachman called Governor Perry on his issuance of an executive order in 2007, requiring all girls in Texas to receive Gardasil, unless a waiver was signed by her parents. Gardasil by Merck, prevents infection of the more common strains of human papilloma virus. These particular viruses, once established, can initiate genital warts, as well as cervical, anal, vulvar, and vaginal cancers. The vaccine Gardasil prevents the infection and consequently prevents the associated diseases.

Texas lawmakers blocked the EO, arguing that the vaccine was too new to be considered safe, others argued that the order preempted parental rights and that the vaccine would encourage young girls to become sexually promiscuous at an early because of a false sense of security provided by the Gardasil.

The Flirtatious and Promiscuous Scarlet Has A Difficult Time Choosing From Her Many Suitors

Michelle Bachman provided an example of personal anecdotal evidence to stress the risk of injecting the vaccine into young girls. Apparently a young mother told her that her daughter suffered mental retardation after being injected with the vaccine. Thus this is more than enough proof for Bachman to refute the scientific studies of over 20,000 women and girls who were injected with the vaccine prior to FDA approval.

The studies concluded that the vaccine was 100% effective, an almost unprecedented result. The most serious side effect was redness, soreness, and swelling of the injection site.

Gardasil may be considered one of the most extraordinary risk-benefit ratios of all pharmaceuticals.

We have government intrusion in our lives; we are now required to wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets. People accept the fact that seat belts make crashes more survivable, as do motorcycle helmets, but the helmets interfere with the image of a bad ass on a motorcycle. Therein lies part of the conflict; much of our choice of transportation is based on an image. An image that we subscribe to and emulate within our own psyche and an image that we want to cultivate in the minds of those who view us. Yet the motorcycle road racer would never consider running down the track at speeds approaching two hundred miles an hour without a helmet, but if helmets save lives in motorcycle wrecks by lessening head trauma, how many lives could be saved if drivers and passengers of cars and trucks were required to wear a helmet. Surely head trauma is a major cause of death on the highway.

Since nearly all people engage in sexual activity, all of us are exposed to the papilloma virus. A rarely discussed fact is that certain men are carriers of the infection. Although they suffer no ill-effects, if they have multiple partners, they can spread the infection to many others, bringing misery and death as an unseemly gift of their sexual prowess.

The public would be enraged, Conservatives particularly, if these carriers of this often lethal infection were identified on the internet so that potential partners could have a choice in avoiding the infection of Don Juan types intent on serial infection of vulnerable maidens. Consequently, we allow carriers to continue to spread untold misery and death among females as a cost of our Constitutional freedoms.

A woman may only have one partner in her sexual life, but if that partner is a carrier of the infection, she will more than likely suffer through one or more of the associated diseases and death as a result.

Will we Conservatives be able to face our daughters and granddaughters if they have contracted one of the dreaded diseases and tell them that it is only collateral damage and a cost of our freedom; she may die secure in the knowledge that she contracted the disease as a free woman and she may now die a free woman, she can also take solace in the fact that the man who infected her will be free to infect many more women and their other partners as well, all in the name of freedom.

We may all rest assured that scientific minds like Michelle Bachman’s can recognize a potential problem when a woman complains that her twelve year old daughter suffered mental retardation after being injected with Gardasil.

As a Conservative, I realize that strict adherence to any ideology leads to fanaticism; common sense must be injected into the mix to keep the ideas and goals viable, but interposing uninformed personal opinions and ignorance into any situation is counter productive and nearly as offensive as falsifying data under the premise of science.

Hypnos and Thanatos (God of death) carrying dead Sarpedon, while Hermes watches.

Jake Tapper appeared on the Dennis Miller radio show last week and basically admitted to the bias in the MSM. He acknowledges the fact that the media completely ignored Obama’s Medal of Honor gaffe while the media jumped all over Palin’s and Bachmann’s recent gaffes:

Tapper at one point seemed on the verge of admitting the media liberal bias. He allowed, “But the question is, okay, and removing the ideological bias, and I don’t- do not generally disagree that there is-” Unfortunately, Miller interrupted him.

The White House correspondent attempted to shift the issue to one of sexism, suggesting that Hillary Clinton dealt with much harsher criticism than Obama. However, Good Morning America, where Tapper frequently appears, fawned over both.

As Scott Whitlock points out above, the Democrat girls got plenty of love. So Jake’s point that maybe its not ideological bias but instead it’s anti-woman bias doesn’t hold up.

How about this gaffe by Obama, overlooked long ago:

Click here to view the embedded video.

As the author at Verum Serum acknowledges…the gaffe isn’t that big of a deal but it IS a gaffe, just as Palin’s and Bachmann’s were. Minor and inconsequential. But the MSM went apes**t over theirs but they blackout and ignore Obama’s.

Ace:

They always do this. They will eat razors before they admit to any liberal bias. They will confess to a hundred biases, even some they do not actually have, before they will admit to a liberal bias.

Let me give you an example I always give. If the Black Correspondent’s Association (or whatever) claims the press has a subtle anti-black bias, the media will consider this and meet with that association and consider implementing reforms/safeguards to ensure against such bias continuing. They’ll have a panel discussion on Nightline or Meet the Press to seriously consider this bias.

Same thing with anti-woman bias. Or anti-Muslim bias.

The press is perfectly willing to consider the possibilities it is biased in many ways, and take seriously such complaints.

Except for one, of course. The one bias they will not admit to having, ever, is a liberal ideological bias. (And note– the biases they’re willing to cop to tend to require them, to cure those biases, to adopt even more anti-conservative positions. Biased against women? Include more feminist voices. Biased against Muslims? Make sure the country knows about anti-Muslim “hate” in the form of racial profiling. Biased against blacks? Agitate for preferences, quotas and so on.)

Why? For two reasons:

1. That is the bias they are most flagrantly, obviously guilty of, and no one likes confessing to their real flaws. People will cop to lesser flaws and non-flaws all the time. But not their deep dark dirty laundry.

2. Because they absolutely despise conservatives. Because they hate conservatives so much that they view this entirely as political actors, and if conservatives “win” a little on this point (as a serious discussion about it would represent), then they lose.

They won’t admit it because they are selling a narrative rather than reporting the truth.

As Journolist taught us all, they have an agenda.

Lord Bute is aiming a blunderbuss at colonial America; a member of Parliament, tells Bute “I give you that man’s money for my use”, the American responds, “I will not be robbed”. To the right, a blindfolded, Britannia is ready to stumble into “The pit prepared for others” behind her, “The English Protestant town of Boston” is in flames. On the left is a monk with a gibbet and a cross, behind him, a Frenchman with sword raised; on a cliff and forming the backdrop to Bute, is the city of Quebec.

Published: April 1. 1775

Most of us write Emails at our fastest typing speeds. We never assume our writing of little notes will be put under the microscope for the scrutiny of the world, including the halfwit name callers we see commenting on Liberal blogs. After this latest invasion of Sarah Palin’s emails, that idea of writing personal informal notes is a dangerous myth. Use your short cuts and cute abbreviations at your own peril, the Liberal Media now owns and controls everything you write.

They are having problems finding fault or corruption within Sarah Palin’s Emails, but they can subjectively condemn them as being the product of an eighth grader’s intellect.

I am the recipient of Emails from many educated people, some with doctorates. The notes all have at least one flaw. These cyber friends write their personal notes and make grammatical errors, misspellings, word omissions, and various other mistakes; how could these bright minds make these mistakes? It is very simple, they assume these are personal and private conversations with a friend and confidant; indeed, they are not meant to be examined like the Federalist Papers. They are considered confidential notes similar to a trusted conversation that may be whispered from the other side of the word, but now, we know the Liberal Progressives have demanded that such conversations can be made public and dissected at their whim.

Are we entitled to our privacy, can we expect to keep our personal communications from the scrutiny of this, want to be totalitarian regime, and those of the future. Should we now write every Email as if we were writing a formal letter to a college dean. Are we to assume that our personal correspondence can be used against us by totalitarian regimes of the future: letters can be burned and disappear forever, but a simple Email written at 60 words per minute will long survive your funeral.

Take care my friends, its possible the Thought Police may soon be evaluating your every message of the past and the future.

Obama and the Progressive Socialists have their own survival to consider and they are becoming desperate. Is it possible that they might want to investigate all Emails that are disdainful of their governance.

It’s true, most of us will never warrant an invasion of our privacy, but if you rise in the political world to achieve fame or fortune, rest assured you will come under scrutiny. However, this scrutiny is a double bitted ax. You can trust that many Democrat politicians are extremely worried that their previous personal communications can now be examined by the media and the public, virtually at will.

It is hilarious when unintended consequences bite you in the hind end. In case they think they can delete all the self-incriminating Emails, they might as well not waste the effort, they are preserved better than any historical document in the national archives, grammatical errors and all.

There are many who would relish digging into the personal lives of politicians to catch them taking bribes and cheating on their wives, but it is infinitely better to catch them in the act, than to destroy personal liberties. Of course giving alleged criminals like Rangel a pass because of his sanctimonious indignation at being accused of crimes that we lesser souls could expect to do prison time for and then slapping his hand is an indication we can no longer trust the House to pursue its own investigations. We are left wondering if he knew too much about the corruption among the other House members to be prosecuted with true justice. Maxine Waters is another case that arouses suspicion among the public.

Freedom is not a political issue, the pendulum should be a double edged sword. I probably detest corruption more than the average American and I don’t care from which side of the aisle a criminal or pervert sits on, corruption is corruption, but we must maintain our freedoms. To encroach on our freedom to find every criminal in government would be counter productive and destroy our government and its freedom. We will never catch all the criminals, but it is far better to have a few get away than to compromise our liberties.

In Dickens’ Oliver Twist, Mr. Bumble is told “the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction”. To that Bumble replies “If the law supposes that, the law is a ass—a idiot.”

The press is also a ass. Specifically, the NY Times, WaPo, the LA Times and mostly, Politico.

Unemployment is brutally high, Obama is doing nothing about jobs, the EPA is carrying out Obama’s edict to make electricity rates skyrocket, the stock market is tanking, the economy is grinding to a halt. What does Politico find important?

Their continued effort, along with the NY Times, WaPo, and the rest of the idiot media, to destroy Sarah Palin.

A commenter at Bill Jacobson’s blog wryly notes

The Washington Post thinks it’s “harassment” to request Michael Mann’s files from the University of Virginia (their Memorial Day editorial http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harassing-climate-change-researchers/2011/05/27/AG1xJMEH_story.html) but it’s cool with requesting and obtaining and asking for citizen-journalists to go through 24,000 of the State of Alaska’s emails involving Sarah Palin.

Have a look at some of the stories that dominate Politico today and they all center the same thing:

Long-lost Palin surfaces in emails

Palin emails: No bombshells
By MOLLY BALL | 6/11/11 7:10 AM

The bitter disappointment is palpable. And the list of hot stories goes on:

Many of the highly-anticipated messages deal with the mundane business of government.

- Palin emails show media distrust
- Family didn’t want special treatment for son
- Palin praised Obama for ‘flip-flopping’
- Bush joked with Palin on VP buzz
- Palin sought meeting with Obama aide
- Commissioner pitched Fey head-to-head
- Gingrich advised Palin on PR

And there was this bombshell:

Palin, staff were excited when McCain named her to the ticket (via Glenn)

The left wing media is quite selective in who it wishes exposed and embarrassed. The LA Times won’t release a video of Barack Obama feting a Jew hater in 2008. CBS won’t release the full content of an open mike conversation Obama exchanged with donors. They attempt to eviscerate Palin yet they offer full protection to Obama. Politico has a long history of Palin Derangement Syndrome.

Apparently not satisfied with the truth, Politico enlisted two authors to fabricate a Palin quote out of thin air in another effort to smear Palin. They wrote:

Will Sarah Palin’s intensifying rivalry with Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) cause the former Alaska governor to run for president?

The first female Republican vice presidential nominee clearly believes she is the one who has paid the heavy dues by bearing the brunt of the “liberal elite” attacks to help build the tea party, social conservative wing of the GOP.

Palin’s bus tour had some of the hallmarks of a primal scream: “I built this constituency, not Bachmann, not anyone else,” she said. Looking at it through her eyes, she has a point.

Palin never said it. They made it up. They put those words in her mouth.

When they were caught in the lie, Politico was quick to defend it as an “innocent mistake.” If Politico didn’t such a long history of Palin bashing one might entertain the notion that it was a mistake, but that simply doesn’t hold water.

Paul Goldman is former chairman of the Virginia democrat party and Mark Rozell is a Professor at George Mason University, so the odds of his being anything other than a liberal are about zero. The two collaborated previously in an article about Barack Obama which the word “obsequious” doesn’t come close to describing.

A president needs the public to trust him to take the country in the right direction. This connection is not a product of office work but a work of art.

Obama, a brilliant and successful policy wonk in the Oval Office, is overexposed. But the skinny guy with a left-hand jump shot who plays hard, shoots the breeze with the guys, marvels at a beautiful wife able to outshine him and cherishes two adorable daughters who can melt his heart is underexposed.

Yet once again, Sarah Palin has defeated them. She has allowed the press to show just how demented it has become. She has amply demonstrated that the left wing media have devolved into paparazzi. Politico is nothing more than tabloid journalism fully immersed in the Barack Obama tank. The same media that hounds Palin mercilessly has no interest in the absence of Barack Obama’s records.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made this point in 2008, saying “Our investigation suggests Senator Obama could have had his records archived so that they are available to the public, but, to this day, he does not want a complete paper trail of his time in the Illinois State Senate. Where are his office records?”

This continued persecution of Sarah Palin is going to backfire. The press may unwittingly do something Sarah Palin might not have been able to do on her own. In their mendacious efforts to destroy her the press may just rehabilitate Sarah Palin’s image into that of a genuine Presidential candidate.

You go, girl.

The media obsession over Sarah Palin has reached a new low as the State of Alaska plans to release thousands of her email correspondence during her tenure as governor of Alaska:

Over 24,000 e-mail messages to and from Sarah Palin during her tenure as Alaska’s governor will be released Friday . We’ll be posting them here, and are inviting you to comment on the most interesting or most noteworthy sections. Please include page numbers and, where possible, a direct excerpt. We’ll share your comments with our reporters and may use facts or related material you suggest to annotate the documents displayed on The Post site. We may contact you for further details, by way of your registered e-mail with the Post, unless you specify otherwise in the comments.

Oh, we know what they are salivating for: Anything that can be used to ridicule, humiliate, and damage Palin.

It isn’t just WaPo doing this, but the NYTimes as well, among others.

What is with their obsessive hatred of her?!

Certainly in some cases, she invites the media attention; but even when she doesn’t, the media can’t seem to get enough of “the politician who doesn’t fear them“:

Amid frenzied speculation over her potential presidential-campaign plans, former GOP Alaska governor Sarah Palin launched an all-American road trip with her family this Memorial Day weekend. Establishment media types didn’t get reserved seats or advance notice of her itinerary. Palin rubbed the Washington media mob’s institutional sense of entitlement right back in its face. “I don’t think I owe anything to the mainstream media. I want them to have to do a little bit of work on a tour like this,” she jabbed.

Robbed of the reflexive genuflection customarily paid by publicity-seeking candidates to the political press, scribes, cameramen, and producers on the campaign trail began howling louder than the Rolling Thunder Harleys that Palin rode along with on Sunday in Washington, D.C. One miffed CBS News producer, Ryan Corsaro, pouted that the O. J. Simpson–style media caravan giving chase to Palin had created hazardous working conditions for all the intrepid news correspondents.

“I just hope to God that one of these young producers with a camera whose bosses are making them follow Sarah Palin as a potential Republican candidate don’t get in a car crash, because this is dangerous,” Corsaro said. Puh-lease. As if traveling America’s highways to historic tourist spots were akin to driving in an armored tank on Baghdad’s road of death.

In Philadelphia, a pair of news helicopters braved treacherous conditions to monitor the enemy on the ground. Soon, editors tracking the story from their cubbies will be filing workers’ comp claims asserting exposure to secondhand exhaust fumes from Palin’s bus. And I’m counting the minutes until some cub reporter double-parks somewhere in hot pursuit of Team Sarah and demands that she pay his ticket. I mean, how dare Palin “make them follow” her!

As my friend and blogging colleague Doug Powers put it: “Reporters whining about Palin are like kids who can’t reach the cookie jar because she keeps moving it.”

For more than two years, Palin-bashing journalists (on the establishment left and the right) have mocked the conservative supernova while milking her for headlines, circulation, viewership, and Web traffic.

They lambaste her as trivial, while obsessing over her shoes, glasses, and hair — and turning one of her misspelled words on Twitter into Watergate.

They label her a grievance-monger for calling out media double standards and then kvetch, moan, and wallow in a pool of self-pity when she doesn’t spoon-feed them coveted political scoops.

They call her dumb and then run around in circles trying to figure out her “mystery” tour and blame her for “faking them out.”

Perhaps conservative supporters should participate in sifting through the emails for anything that will reflect positively upon her? After all, WaPo and the NYTimes are asking for reader help…

Also blogging:
Brutally Honest
HotAir
Summa This, Summa That

The USS Stark (FFG 31) burns and lists to port on 18 May 1987, one day after the guided missile frigate was struck by two Iraqi-launched Exocet missiles. The attack killed 37 sailors.

The New Sovereign Investment Fund of Libya or of Colonel Qaddafi, there is no distinction in the money funds of Libya or Qaddafi, invested $1.3 Billion with Goldman Sachs; the bank used the funds on stock options at a variety of international banks and a collection of currency bets. Two years later, the Libyan fund had lost 98% of its value and was worth only $25.1 million.

Officials of Libya’s sovereign wealth fund were upset with Goldman Sachs and accused them of malfeasance; mainly, for making trades without authorization and misrepresenting investment deals.

In July 2008, [Mustafa] Zarti, the fund’s deputy chairman, summoned [Youssef] Kabbaj, Goldman’s North Africa chief, to a meeting with the fund’s legal and compliance staff, according to Libyan Investment Authority emails reviewed by the Journal. One person who attended the meeting says Mr. Zarti was “like a raging bull,” cursing and threatening Mr. Kabbaj and another Goldman employee. Goldman arranged for security to protect the employees until they left Libya the next day, according to people familiar with the matter.

Tip-top Goldman bosses, including CEO Lloyd Blankfein and finance chief David Viniar, scrambled to try to figure out how to fix the relationship with Libya and maintain access to its vast fortune. They also feared that word of the massive loss would spook other sovereign funds, so they offered the nation several ways to recoup the money. The last of the offers was made in a June 2010 meeting. Eight months later, the United States froze some $37 billion in Libyan assets as dictator Muammar Qaddafi turned on his rebelling people. Included in that large amount was what was left of Libya’s investment with Goldman.

In July 2008, [Mustafa] Zarti, the fund’s deputy chairman, summoned [Youssef] Kabbaj, Goldman’s North Africa chief, to a meeting with the fund’s legal and compliance staff, according to Libyan Investment Authority emails reviewed by the Journal. One person who attended the meeting says Mr. Zarti was “like a raging bull,” cursing and threatening Mr. Kabbaj and another Goldman employee. Goldman arranged for security to protect the employees until they left Libya the next day, according to people familiar with the matter.

Being enraged with a favored company of Obama might be dangerous to your position and your health; after all, Obama has the U.S. military and if he keeps his intervention small enough, he doesn’t need congressional approval.

relations between Goldman and Gaddafi became increasingly strained, the Wall Street firm made a total of three separate compensation offers to invest in the group on attractive terms between May and June of 2009, including the deal involving preferred shares. Another proposal would have given the LIA unsecured debt in Goldman, promising a stream of payments that would eventually have repaid the losses.

Over the next two years, discussions on these and a series of other compensation proposals were discussed by LIA and top-level Goldman staff – chairman Lloyd Blankfein, finance head David Viniar and European chief Michael Sherwood. However, they were unable to agree a solution and talks are thought to have eventually petered out last summer.

Now a company that can lose 98% of a 1.3 Billion Dollar investment might be first in line to receive Tarp Funds, thanks to Henry Paulson, Ex-Treasury Secretary. Tim Geitner who is connected to the Federal Reserve, who names Mark Patterson, former lobbyist for Goldman Sachs and the man replacing Geitner at the FED is William Dudley, former chief economist at Goldman Sachs.

Just How Close Are GS And Obama

Goldman offered Libya’s securities-wealth fund an opportunity to invest $3.7 billion in the securities firm, the paper continued, one of six options placed on the table over months of negotiations.

The proposals came at the same time Goldman had taken $5 billion in investments from Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. in order to pass the Federal Reserve’s “stress test” to determine whether it had to raise additional capital.

The United States is now one of the NATO allies targeting Libya with rockets in an attempt to get Qaddafi, the decades-long despot, out of power and to see a Transitional National Council take his place.

With all the money wizards of GS and the Obama Administration swapping bunks, is it possible that the financial rip off of Qaddafi was about to become an embarrassment?

What better way to get rid of an embarrassment than to take him out with missiles when he threatens his people, while ignoring other despots that are actually killing their people by the thousands, we are talking about an embarrassment of Goldman Sachs for Muhammad’s Sake! Let’s remember GS used their bailout to start making a profit, they have managed to do so well with their wizardry that they can award 28,000 employees a $600,000 bonus. We can’t lament a few rockets that can help keep the reputation of a company like GS pristine and untainted by corruption. It is imperative that we keep things in perspective.

But damn Obama’s luck, the rockets didn’t kill the Desert Fox and the maniacal fanatics of the Muslim Brotherhood didn’t pull him to pieces, now what is happening to the reputation of Goldman Sachs. Qaddafi wants his money back and the wizards of Obama and Goldman Sachs ain’t looking too clever.

Obama’s promise to rid his administration of lobbyists is a standing joke when it comes to Goldman Sachs. Geitner has reportedly chosen a former GS lobbyist Mark Patterson to be his chief of staff. Patterson worked as a registered lobbyist for GS from 2005 to April of 2010.

It’s natural for Geitner, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs to select a Goldman Sachs insider for the number 2 position. At the Treasury, Jerry Rubin of the Clinton administration, was another Goldman Sachs CEO.

The man chosen to replace Geitner at the New York Fed was W. Dudley former Chief Economist for Goldman Sachs.

Goldman Sachs may as well be considered a part of the federal government. They paid Bill Clinton just under $950,000 for speeches between 2004 and 2007. Their Political Action Committee was the fourth largest donor to Clinton’s campaign, just below Citigroup. The Center for Responsive Politics maintains that Goldman’s Political Action Committee invested over a half million to congressional candidates in the 2008 elections, mostly Democrat incumbents. Goldman Sachs employees contributed more than $5,000,000. Obama received over $1,000,000 from GS for the 2008 election.

How quaint of Obama to promise to limit the influence of lobbyists in his administration. Goldman has had a seat at the table since regulations on finance were began to be unlaced during the Clinton years, they were among the first and largest recipients of TARP funding, receiving $10 billion immediately.

In matters of the economy, we can have faith in the intellect of men like Geitner, who according to Bernanke has two main guiding principles: “Life’s about alternatives” and “A plan beats no plan”. Bernanke also has referred to Geitner’s technique to thwart critics, “spray foam on the runway”; meaning, you take steps to limit collateral damage from crashes.

Would Obama be willing to use our military to cover for Goldman Sachs’ incompetence and corruption?

The answer may be hidden within another question, would Obama be willing to use the military to cover for his own incompetence and corruption?

It seems Sarah is in:

Sarah Palin is launching a nationwide bus tour starting Sunday in Washington, a Palin source has confirmed to POLITICO.

The first stop will be at the annual Rolling Thunder motorcycle rally. Palin will then travel up the East Coast in a trip that will include her first stop in New Hampshire since running as the GOP’s vice presidential nominee in 2008.

Palin will also be stopping at other spots of symbolic national significance on the East Coast, including the Civil War battlefields at Gettysburg and Antietam, and the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia.

And Rush says the establishment, as well as Obama, are pretty worried about her:

On top of the bus tour comes the new movie The Undefeated by Stephen K. Bannon:

The result is a two-hour-long, sweeping epic, a rough cut of which Bannon screened privately for Sarah and Todd Palin last Wednesday in Arizona, where Alaska’s most famous couple has been rumored to have purchased a new home. When it premieres in Iowa next month, the film is poised to serve as a galvanizing prelude to Palin’s prospective presidential campaign — an unconventional reintroduction to the nation that she and her political team have spent months eagerly anticipating, even as Beltway Republicans have largely concluded that she won’t run.

Bannon, a former naval officer and ex-Goldman Sachs banker, sees his documentary as the first step in Palin’s effort to rebuild her image in the eyes of voters who may have soured on her, yet might reconsider if old caricatures begin to fade. The film will also appeal to staunch Palin supporters who have long celebrated her biting rhetoric and conservative populism yet know little about her record in Alaska and have perhaps written her off as presidential material.

“This film is a call to action for a campaign like 1976: Reagan vs. the establishment,” Bannon told RealClearPolitics. “Let’s have a good old-fashioned brouhaha.”

But she hasn’t announced yet…there is not even a peep that she will announce soon. So is she going to run or not?

Make no mistake…if she announces it will send shockwaves throughout the establishment ranks who will do their best to destroy her before she can hurt their favorite RINO’s.

Palin’s role over the last few years has been quite important in helping to rally the opposition to Obama…opposition that seemed impossible days after his inauguration. So you can bet your ass Obama will be worried.

And rumors abound that one of her potential running mates just may be Giuliani.

I’ll have a poll post up later this weekend going through the different scenario changes once she announces. The changes will be enormous.

Great video by Steven Crowder about the liberal attacks on Sarah Palin, specifically the recent Wonkette article attacking her son Trig.

The video is good and he brings up some great points but his article is even better where he points out the hypocrisy in our media today, most especially comedians. Where they were once willing and able to make fun of our Presidents, not so much anymore with Obama:

I’m still waiting for the days where other fellow comedians are willing to take this kind of bold approach to the current administration. I certainly would never condone these kinds of deplorable attacks on the Obama children, but unlike their “assault in flock” patterns on the Palin family, I’ve yet to see comedians even attempt to attack the president’s ideas.

Barack and Michelle are the ones in the White House, so wouldn’t a few digs their way be slightly more, well, relevant?

Ooooh, I get it. That would require the testicular fortitude to step out and take an actual risk. Nevermind. Just keep taking potshots at a one-year-old special needs infant.

Cowards.

And instead of admitting they went over the line when they attacked a child of a conservative leader they instead attacked those of us who are a bit upset with their behavior. When Papa John’s pulled their advertising from the site they then attacked Papa Johns:

I just don’t get these leftists. It’s one thing to criticize Sarah Palin, or any other conservative leader, about their ideas, but it’s quite another to attack their children…especially a special needs child.

Do you think there would have been any outrage from the left if a conservative site had done the same about Obama’s children? You’re damn right, and rightly so. But they don’t have to get mad, because we don’t get that low.

Like I said, I just don’t get the left. If this is indicative of them then I hope I never will.

Oh, btw, after 3 sponsors left the building they finally decided to remove the post and apologized for…wait for it:

“the poor comedic judgment.”

That was supposed to be comedy?