Sarah Palin On Fox News Sunday This Morning Tells Chris Wallace She Has Video (Audio?) Of “Corrupt Bastards” In Media Conspiring to Create False Stories To Embarrass Joe Miller
Sarah Palin told Chris Wallace this morning that her supporters have video of the “corrupt bastards” in the media conspiring against Joe Miller.
Here is the tape and transcript of reporters at Anchorage CBS affiliate KTVA conspiring to fabricate stories to embarrass Joe Miller.
Here the “reporters” discuss trying to find a child molester that they can claim is a Miller supporter:
TRANSCRIPT OF KTVA AUDIO
FROM OCTOBER 28, 2010
FEMALE REPORTER: That’s up to you because you have the
experience but that’s what I would do…I’d wait until you see who
shows up because that indicates we already know something…
FEMALE REPORTER: Child molesters…
MALE REPORTER: Oh yes…Joe Miller’s…uh…get a list of
people/campaign workers which one’s the molester
FEMALE VOICE: You know that of all the people that will show up
tonight, at least one of them will be a registered sex offender.
MALE REPORTER: We need to find that one person…
FEMALE REPORTER: The one thing we can do is ….we won’t
know….we won’t know but if there is any sort of chaos whatsoever
we can put out a twitter/facebook alert: saying what the… ‘Hey Joe
Miller punched at rally.’
FEMALE REPORTER: Kinda like Rand Paul…I like that.
FEMALE REPORTER: That’s a good one.
Calling these people “corrupt bastards” is too charitable.
UPDATE: KTVA defends its “corrupt bastards” saying that “while the tape is real the allegations are untrue.” Sort of like Dan Rather’s “fake but accurate” defense of his knowingly using forged documents in a fabricated news story about George Bush’s National Guard service.
Hey, were they hoping to find a registered sex offender in the crowd and then to try and link him to Joe Miller or not? Damn straight they were. They’re corrupt bastards. Nobody needs to link Lisa Murkowski with these corrupt bastards or any other corrupt bastards. It’s understood that she is surrounded by corrupt bastards and always has been.
I suggest this bumper sticker: PISS OFF THE CORRUPT BASTARDS — VOTE FOR JOE MILLER
Obama loses it in Connecticut campaigning for Blumenthal. Here we see how Obama is not used to criticism and is mystified that anyone would disagree with him. He does not handle it well.
The hecklers are left-wing boorish clowns wanting more funding for World AIDS. Obama tells them to go heckle the other side, certainly low-rent for the President of the United States to sic hecklers on anyone. But this is not only rather despicable of Obama, he’s wrong on his facts. The Bush administration spent $10 Billion of U.S. taxpayers’ money on fighting AIDS in Africa.
Natural Rights are those rights which every human being has by virtue of having been born.
Natural rights do not come from government — government can uphold and protect natural rights or government can infringe and destroy them.
Political laws that uphold natural rights are good laws — political laws that cut against natural law are bad laws and lead to horrible consequences.
There are two basic natural laws — Do everything you agree to do, and do not intrude on the rights or property of others.
Obama lied, my health insurance died…
More and more Americans will be having that experience as they come to see for themselves that one of the hidden agendas of Obamacare is the dismantling of private markets in health insurance. The purpose is to pave the way for a complete Canadian-style government takeover of all health care in the U.S.
A friend whose mother was a Canadian “subject” (as in “subjugation”) was recently hospitalized where she contracted two infections that were possibly worse than the original illness for which she was hospitalized. Her bad experience was relatively minor compared to the horror stories that are regularly reported in the Canadian health care system, many of which involve people dying of treatable diseases before their place in the queue to see a doctor comes around.
Obamacare must be repealed and any Republican who states that he or she will not vote to repeal Obamacare does not deserve our vote. It makes no difference that Obama will veto any bill to repeal. Forcing him to veto it will crystalize the issue and focus the problems that are developing because of Obamacare squarely on his shoulders.
From the Miami Herald on October 2, 2010:
It took Sen. Lisa Murkowski five attempts to pass the Alaska Bar Exam, a piece of her biography that’s gone unreported until now, when she faces a long-shot write-in bid for another term in her Senate seat.
Murkowski, who graduated in 1985 from Willamette University’s College of Law in Oregon, wasn’t admitted to the Alaska Bar until November 1987. She flunked the exam in July 1985, February 1986, July 1986 and again in February 1987. She passed on her fifth try in July 1987.
Murkowski said that although her failures on the exam aren’t something she talks about regularly, she’s never hidden them. It’s an example of how she “stayed in there,” Murkowski said, “and I did not quit.”
It’s a good thing she’s not from Wyoming where a “three strikes and you’re out” policy exists. Flunk the Wyoming Bar the third time and you’ll have to move to Alaska if you still want to be a lawyer. But what does it mean that someone had to take the Bar Exam five times before they passed it? Well, how would you feel if you found out the night before your surgery that your doctor flunked his medical boards four times? OK, she’s not going to perform surgery on anyone. But flunking the bar several times right out of law school does tell you something about that person.
You see, the Bar Exam is not particularly difficult. It’s just that one must do certain things that require a fair amount of effort in order to pass. First, one must at least stay awake in law school. Second, one must memorize a lot of Constitutional law and the common law of England from 300 years ago during the two months immediately preceding the date you sit for the Bar Exam. Third, one must learn a lot of basic things that are particular to the law of the state in which one takes the Bar.
All that’s not particularly taxing on the brain, but it does require one to make a fairly large effort of concentration and study. It’s safe to say that anyone who makes it through any decent law school and then flunks the bar 4 times in a row is simply refusing to do that work, or is not capable of deep concentration. Either way, that person probably won’t make a great lawyer nor should voters feel very good about sending that person to represent them in the United States Senate.
If she would not make the effort to prepare for the Bar Exam it’s a pretty good bet she’s not making much effort to understand the legislation she’s voting on in the Senate, and she should not be there. Sadly, the same could probably be said about at least half of the Senators who are there. Happily, there are also a few who shine, e.g., Barasso, Coburn, DeMint, Inhofe, Sessions, Shelby, Thune, and ….well, that’s about it. Maybe after Tuesday there’ll be a few more.
However, there is also some new evidence that Murkowski flunked the Bar so many times because she’s just dumb. In a interview with Rachel Maddow she said that thinking something is unconstitutional simply because it isn’t in the Constitution is “not mainstream.”
From his radio address to Hispanics on Univision this Monday:
‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’
By “enemies” he means his fellow Americans who don’t agree with his liberal policies.
Establishment Republicans are going around talking about how they plan to “work with Obama after the election.” They seem to think that’s possible, that Obama will move to the center, that Obama will work with them. This sort of thinking explains why the Tea Party Movement exists. The old guard Republican establishment is asleep at the wheel, out of touch, doesn’t pay attention, doesn’t get it, or worse, delusional. If they would only listen, they would have heard Obama on Monday in a speech in Rhode Island say this as part of his “car in the ditch” metaphor:
“We don’t mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”
Can you imagine the fire storm that would be ignited if any White Republican said anything of that sort about Obama? What kind of man uses metaphors and rhetoric against other people that he knows are self-restrained from responding with anything similar about him? A self-absorbed malignant narcissist is what kind.
Obama reserves his real anger and inflammatory rhetoric for his fellow Americans who disagree with him. We have never heard him come even close to using such language when talking about Islamic terrorists who are killing Americans and Israelis, and generally plotting to wreak havoc throughout the Western world.
Shannon Love at Chicago Boyz gets to the heart of Obama:
Leftists have long accused non-leftists as vilifying and seeking to attack “the other”. Leftists have lectured us for decades about how non-leftists mark out those deemed outgroups, e.g., foreigners and our own native criminals, and then sought to direct the violence-based coercive power of the state against those outgroups. In short, non-leftists like to shoot Nazis and hang serial killers.
However, leftists also wish to direct the violence-based coercive power of the state against other human beings. However, they make it clear that directing the power of the state against foreigners and native criminals is barbaric and seldom, if ever, needed. Attacking foreigners and criminals is beneath them. Only Neanderthals think like that. All dictators and criminals need is a stern talking to. Who then do they wish to direct the power of the state against?
The left is obsessed with dominating and controlling their fellow non-violent Americans. They either want to make people permanently dependent or they wish to force others to behave as leftists believe best. Everything in their ideology, including their foreign policy, revolves around forcing their fellow Americans to do something they otherwise wouldn’t do. That is why Obama only uses harsh rhetoric and shows passions when vilifying his fellow Americans. In his mind, we are his only enemies of significance.
It is one of the dark ironies of the 20th Century that when leftists complain about military spending, especially during a shooting war, they are really talking about diverting force from killing foreigners and instead directing it at Americans.
Obama is a wholly typical leftist. If you’re not dependent on Obama, you are his enemy. He will be more angry at you than at outsiders who are actually killing Americans.
I hope I haven’t quoted so much you won’t go and read the whole thing. It’s just so good and all went together, but please don’t let that stop you. You will find some pretty good comments there also.
UPDATE: Obama told Al Sharpton on the radio today that if Republicans take over the House he will “be fighting them day and night.”
Are you listening Republican establishment leaders? You still think you’re going to be able to work with this guy? Well, there is one way you could. Just ask him what he wants you to do and then do it. Yeah, that’ll work.
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that Arizona’s requirement, enacted in 2004, that one must offer proof of citizenship in order to register to vote violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution on the grounds the National Voter Registration Act has superseded Arizona’s law.
The three-judge panel was made up of Judge Sandra S. Ikuta (left) Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor(center) sitting by designation, and Chief Judge Alex Kozinski (right). The Sandra’s needed 66 pages to explain their ruling. The judges acknowledged that voter fraud is a problem in Arizona but found that the NVRA prohibition on perjury in registering to vote gives adequate protection against voter fraud.
So you don’t need to lock the door to your house or your car. Laws against larceny give adequate protection against theft.
Chief Judge Kozinski filed a strong dissent, in which he said:
As the majority belatedly acknowledges 47 pages into its opinion, we don’t come to this case with a blank slate. A prior panel has already held in a published opinion that Proposition 200 isn’t preempted because the National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) “plainly allow[s] states, at least to some extent, to require their citizens to present evidence of citizen- ship when registering to vote.” Gonzalez v. Arizona, 485 F.3d 1041, 1050-51 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Gonzalez I”). That is law of the circuit and therefore binding on us. See, e.g., Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899-900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Even if it weren’t, it’s law of the case and can’t be lightly dis- regarded for that reason. See, e.g., Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1322 (9th Cir. 1991). The majority refuses to accept the consequences of this reality. First, it evades law of the circuit by creating an exception that is squarely foreclosed by a recent unanimous en banc opinion. The majority then weakens our rules governing law of the case by declaring that Gonzalez I’s interpretation of the NVRA is “clearly errone- ous” when it’s clearly not. Because I believe that we must take precedent seriously and that Gonzalez I was correctly decided, I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the NVRA preempts Arizona’s voter registration requirement.
We may have thought that once Sandra Day O’Connor retired from the U.S. Supreme Court we would no longer have to endure any more of her
idiotic peculiar Constitutional rulings, but apparently she is not content with retirement and feels the need to inflict her fellow citizens with more of this sort of nonsense.
It seems to me that if this decision conflicts with a previous unanimous en banc ruling, as Judge Kozinski states, it is ripe for en banc review with a high likelihood of being overturned there. That will be quite delicious.
UPDATE: Andrew McCarthy has a excellent analysis of this travesty of a judicial opinion at Retired O’Connor Still Making Trouble:
The decision in the case, Gonzalez v. Arizona, was not actually rendered by Ninth Circuit judges, only one of whom agreed with it. . . . the deciding vote was cast by the supposedly retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Justice O’Connor claims the power to sit by designation on cases in the federal appellate and district courts, despite the fact that she is now an overt political activist. Under the rules of judicial ethics, that ought to sideline her as a jurist. But of course, a politician can get a lot more accomplished wearing a robe.
Read all of McCarthy’s analysis here.
Those opening lyrics from the Buffalo Springfield tune For What It’s Worth (1967) came to mind with the new PPP poll showing the Colorado governor’s race possibly taking a turn for Tom Tancredo. John Hickenlooper is down to only a 3-point lead over Tancredo as Maes sinks into oblivion.
Hickenlooper 47 — Tancredo 44 — Maes 5
PPP stands for Public Policy Polling. Here is what they said when announcing this new poll:
Tom Tancredo continues to surge as Dan Maes’ support completely collapses in the Colorado Governor’s race and John Hickenlooper now leads the race by only a 47-44 margin with Maes getting 5%.
Hickenlooper’s been unable to rise above the 47-48% mark in PPP’s polls over the last three months. When Tancredo and Maes were splitting the vote relatively evenly it looked like that would be enough to win but now Hickenlooper really appears to be at risk of losing
PPP has Tancredo ahead of Hickenlooper with Independents and even has 10% of Democrats committed. His ability to win will depend, according to PPP, on getting those 9% of Republicans who still support Maes to change their minds. Who in the world are those Republicans? They must be the ones who believe Elvis is still alive and riding around in the SouthWest on a Harley. Or maybe it’s Dick Wadhams and the Republican old guard in Colorado, who have led the Colorado Republican party into minority party status.
Hickenlooper’s getting 87% of Democrats to 10% for Tancredo and none for Maes. Tancredo has the 73-14 advantage with Republicans with 9% still going to Maes. His path to victory is dependent on that 9% continuing to decline. Tancredo also now has a 46-44 advantage with independents.
Hickenlooper remains the slight favorite but this race looks more and more like it could produce one of the most shocking outcomes in the country on election night.
Now, here is why it ain’t exactly clear what is happening in here. PPP is a liberal polling firm operating out of North Caroline for liberals. Here is what is clear…nobody at PPP wants Hickenlooper to lose this election. So what’s up with this poll? Is it legit?
There are two possible answers.
The most hopeful is that this is a legit poll that the libs running PPP don’t like but they are reporting it honestly because the election is close and they have their credibility to protect. It’s one thing to announce a phony poll several weeks before an election while there is still time to correct before the election and nobody will remember it. But to intentionally put out a phony baloney poll just before it is about to be refuted risks losing future business.
On the other hand, this could be a over-optimistic poll for Tancredo intended to shore up Democrat turnout. If they believe their numbers show Hickenlooper is oh-so-close but that it depends on turnout, they could be rolling the dice to see if this poll can get those Democrats who might stay home if they think Hickenlooper already has it in the bag.
The second answer is most likely the correct one because PPP wins either way. If Tancredo wins they look like they rightly spotted a last minute surge. If Hickenlooper wins their strategy worked, Democrat insider fat cats will know what went down and their future business with Democrats will be assured. Either way both parties will continue to take them seriously, and dumbbell Republicans might even hire them in the future.
Bad lines being drawn,
Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong.
It’s time we stop, hey what’s that sound?
Everybody look what’s going down.
The Buffalo Springfield band was named after the steam roller company of the same name.
The fruitcake lefties that are still blaming George W. Bush for the Obama deficits need to look carefully at this graph, which is from the Office of Management and Budget:
Obama tripled the Bush deficit in one year. It’s fair to blame Bush for being an irresponsible steward of the U.S. finances, because he was. But to let Obama off the hook by trying to blame Bush for the Obama deficits, as so many lefties are wont to do, is like a defense lawyer trying to plea bargain Sherman’s march down to misdemeanor trespass.
Nancy Pelosi gave her inaugural speech upon being elected speaker of the House in January, 2007 by smugly promising “No New Deficit Spending.” Since then there has been $5 Trillion of deficit spending.
At least she didn’t say, “Read my lips.”
George H.W. Bush will keep the credit for that memorable phrase. But here is one that Pelosi and Company will always have all to themselves:
We’re finding out.
60 Minutes reports the real unemployment rate (17% nationally, 22% in California). Another October surprise for Democrats? Except this is no surprise to anyone that didn’t just wake up from a coma. The only surprise is that CBS News is willing to talk about it.
Vodpod videos no longer available.
The real unemployment rate counts not only those who are looking for work but also those whose benefits have run out and those who have given up looking but remain unemployed.
“Why is it okay for Nina to express opinions, as she has tartly, sharply, unashamedly and openly” while serving as “an honored correspondent” for NPR, while Juan Williams, “because he expresses his opinions, gets canned from NPR?… It’s completely illogical and hypocritical.”
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Totenberg has been making the most vile accusations of conservatives for several decades, but those opinions are favored by NPR so she remains a star. Juan Williams expressed an opinion that failed to toe the leftist line that NPR stands for, so he got fired. He just got $2 million to sign with Fox News. Nina has to be mightily steamed over that.
You can go to YouCut to cast your vote to cut taxpayer funding for NPR.
This post from October 2nd was about the bombshell testimony of Christopher Coates before the Civil Rights Commission regarding the dismissal by the DOJ of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. Coates testified that the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department was enforcing a policy against pursuing any case under the 1965 Voting Rights Act if the perpetrators are racial or language minorities and the victims are white.
Today The Washington Post has a front-page expose on it, a week before the election. The Post story recounts the racist policy that is enshrined in the Justice Department. Much worse for some of the top lawyers at DOJ is the revelation that this policy exists because the top brass are on record denying it under oath. That’s the sort of thing that begets criminal indictments in Washington.
It appears that some lower level staff attorneys at DOJ have broken their silence and are talking to the Washington Post, and maybe to Congress as well.
Former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams writes at Pajamas Media:
This is the worst possible news for the wrongdoers at DOJ, a week before the midterm elections. While purely anecdotal, I have received numerous emails from people around the country confessing their own mea culpa: that they once could not believe the DOJ could act in racially discriminatory fashion, but now they do. Mounting evidence moves minds.
In this case the crime is bad enough, but as usual, the cover up is what will cause some heads to roll. Not the October Surprise that Democrats might have wished for.
NPR fired Juan Williams for the following statement he made on O’Reilly:
O’Reilly: “The cold truth is that in the world today jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet.”
Juan Williams: “I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I’ve got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”
Juan Williams’ statement is no doubt the thinking of many people. Is there any honest person who would not agree with him? Is he not justified in being nervous when he sees a group of Muslims drawing attention to themselves on an airplane?
But, you see, Williams’ statement does not fit the narrative of political correctness enforced by the liberals at NPR. And since Williams is Black, it is so much worse for him to dare to depart from the script. To actually think for himself and refuse to remain on the liberal plantation in all of his thoughts, statements and deeds will not to be tolerated by the preachers of tolerance. When a Black person, or a woman, or any other of a class that liberals smugly think of themselves as protectors, has the temerity to question conventional liberal wisdom, it’s an affront to their sanctimonious ego which they cannot abide.
In this sense, Williams was fired by NPR because he is Black.
We should fire NPR. That NPR gets tax-payer funded Federal support is a travesty and should be ended forthwith.
Dean of American politics Michael Barone has used the term “gangster government” to describe the Obama administration. The term refers to a government that thinks it is above the law and when confronted with a law it doesn’t like simply refuses to follow it. Examples are the Chrysler bailout when established bankruptcy rules were ignored and politically favored labor unions were given preference over politically unconnected bond holders. Another example was the fishy SEC complaint against Goldman Sachs last April in which the usual manner of bringing such complaints was ignored and it now appears the whole thing was little more than an orchestrated effort to force Senator Chris Dodd’s financial legislation through Congress.
Still another case in point was the Obama’s administration blatant disregard of Federal Judge Martin Feldman’s decision against Obama’s offshore drilling moratorium, an act that would have resulted in a Constitutional crisis if done by a Republican president. Now a brand new specimen of gangster government has been offered by the Obama crew, on the eve of a big election.
Rule making by administrative agencies is governed by the Federal Administrative Procedure Act. The APA requires that all proposed rule changes first be presented to the public by publishing them in the Federal Register. Then there is period of time for the public to submit written comments on the proposed rules. The agency in question must publish its written response to the comments received before announcing the final rules, and before they become effective. This process is referred to as the Notice and Comment period and can continue over a course of several months. Under the APA, an agency may publish new rules without going though a Notice and Comment period only in limited circumstances involving certain emergencies, and such rules are usually temporary.
Now, the Obama administration has published draconian new rules on off shore drilling without first soliciting comments from the public. Judge Martin Feldman ruled yesterday that the new rules are not legal because the procedures of the APA were not followed, and there was no applicable exception.
But of course, the gangster government of Barack Hussein Obama will no doubt ignore the Judge’s ruling, again.
Some worry that the mounting deficits of the Obama administration might cause the U.S. to become Greece. We may be in danger of becoming Venezuela first.