Saturday, July 10, 2010

Newsreal...Has Some Fun

I can't resist:

Levi Johnston, The Liar: Are His 15 Minutes of Fame Finally Up?

Well, it wasn’t really 15 minutes of fame. It was more like 15 minutes of toolish media whoring, filled with prevarications for which the media itself was a more than willing pimp. On Tuesday, Levi Johnston finally admitted the shocking news that he was, in fact, lying. By shocking, I of course mean the total opposite of shocking. I’m fairly certain that Uterine Forensic Specialist ™ , Andrew Sullivan, will say that Sarah Palin’s magical uterus hoodwinked Levi into apologizing.

“Last year, after Bristol and I broke up, I was unhappy and a little angry. Unfortunately, against my better judgment, I publicly said things about the Palins that were not completely true,” he tells PEOPLE exclusively. “I have already privately apologized to Todd and Sarah. Since my statements were public, I owe it to the Palins to publicly apologize.”


“So to the Palin family in general and to Sarah Palin in particular, please accept my regrets and forgive my youthful indiscretion,” Johnston says in the statement. “I hope one day to restore your trust.”

No biggie. Just a “youthful indiscretion” — a whopping one year ago. I suppose we are to assume that liar years are like dog years. Let’s flashback to those days of yore from the time of his “youthful indiscretion.” Levi Johnston was given platforms at every major news organization, the worst of which was CBS where he said “I’m Hiding ‘Huge’ Things About Palin“. Evidently, the only things that he was hiding were his decency and his brains, neither one of which is “huge.”During the same appearance, he went on to say:

“I think the biggest hit we’ve had on, like, the Vanity Fair, you know, people really look on, is when she called her kid retarded,” he said. “I mean, I’ve got a lot of people talking about that.”

Oh, a hit! So glad that bashing and lying about your child’s family was such a hit! Moreover, the Palins refer to Trig as “their little angel.” If they ever used the word “retarded,” I’m pretty sure they were talking about you, Levi. This is evidently beyond your comprehension, but perhaps the Palins didn’t treat you with hugs and kisses and cookies because, you know, you impregnated their teenage daughter. People are funny like that.

At the time, Sarah Palin issued this statement:

"CBS should be ashamed for continually providing a forum to propagate lies. Consider the source of the most recent attention-getting lies — those who would sell their body for money reflect a desperate need for attention and are likely to say and do anything for even more attention.”

Exactly. CBS should have been ashamed. But are they? Apparently not, as they have yet to acknowledge Levi Johnston’s admission that he is a big, fat liar. CBS would be ashamed — except for the pesky fact that they have no shame. It’s hard to have shame when you spend all your time on your knees as media lapdogs. The media was all too ready to promote anything at all to make that icky “beauty queen” Sarah Palin look bad, like a bunch of jealous high school kids gossiping and spreading false rumors about the popular girl.

While it’s unfortunate that Bristol doesn’t have the same excellent taste in men as her mother, she did inherit her class. Bristol issued the following statement:

Part of co-parenting is creating healthy and honest relationships between the parents. Tripp one day needs to know the truth and needs to know that even if a mistake is made the honorable thing to do is to own up to it.

That’s really who it’s all about – baby Tripp. For his sake, I hope that Levi has matured more than the jokers at CBS. I also hope he finally realizes that he has a child and starts acting like a father and not a self-interested attention whore, craving publicity from people whom he is too stupid to realize have been using him and laughing at him, not with him. Perhaps he should print out the following and use it as reference for how to not act in the future.

Friday, July 9, 2010

William Henry Seward

We know William Henry Seward primarily as the man who brokered the deal that bought Alaska for the United States. Back then, Alaska was called "Seward's Folly." He is listed as one of Governor Palin's heroes.

Some of Seward's bio:

The 12th Governor of New York, United States Senator and the United States Secretary of State under Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson. An outspoken opponent of the spread of slavery in the years leading up to the American Civil War, he was a dominant figure in the Republican party in its formative years...

On the night of Lincoln's assassination, he survived an attempt on his life in the conspirators' effort to decapitate the Union government. As Johnson's Secretary of State, he engineered the purchase of Alaska from Russia in an act that was ridiculed at the time as "Seward's Folly", but which somehow exemplified his character.

His contemporary Carl Schurz described Seward as "one of those spirits who sometimes will go ahead of public opinion instead of tamely following its footprints."

Did you know that on the night Booth shot Lincoln, an associate of Booth's broke into Seward's bedroom and stabbed him multiple times? I didn't.

Governor Palin made a trip to Seward's home town of Auburn, NY last year to celebrate Seward's Day.

I was flipping through a book of speeches this morning, and this one caught my eye, "The Irrepressible Conflict," by William Henry Seward. It was given in 1858.

Remember, the Republican Party was in its infancy. Fun fact: pro-slavery politicians (and even some who tended to be a tad more moderate, such as Stephen Douglas) referred to Republicans as "Black Republicans" because the party was anti-slavery:

The Democratic party, or, to speak more accurately, the party which wears that attractive name-is in possession of the federal government. The Republicans propose to dislodge that party, and dismiss it from its high trust...The main subject, then, is whether the Democratic party deserves to retain the confidence of the American people....

I have learned, by some experience, that virtue and patriotism, vice and selfishness, are found in all parties, and that they differ less in their motives than in the policies they pursue.

Our country is a theatre, which exhibits, in full operation, two radically different political systems; the one resting on the basis of servile or slave labor, the other on voluntary labor of freemen. The laborers who are enslaved are all negroes, or persons more or less purely of African derivation. But this is only accidental.

The principle of the system is, that labor in every society, by whomsoever performed, is necessarily unintellectual, grovelling and base; and that the laborer, equally for his own good and for the welfare of the State, ought to be enslaved. The white laboring man, whether native or foreigner, is not enslaved, only because he cannot, as yet, be reduced to bondage...[He goes on to provide a fascinating historical narrative and the reasons why slavery is so abominable.]

Having spent my manhood, though not my whole life, in a free State, no aristocracy of any kind, much less an aristocracy of slaveholders, shall ever make the laws of the land in which I shall be content to live...I shall never be a denizen of a State where men and women are reared as cattle, and bought and sold as merchandise.

When that evil day shall come, and all further effort at resistance shall be impossible, then, if there shall be no better hope for redemption than I can now foresee, I shall say with Franklin, while looking abroad over the whole earth for a new and more congenial home, "Where liberty dwells, there is my country."

You will tell me that these fears are extravagant and chimerical. I answer, they are so; but they are so only because the designs of the slaveholders must and can be defeated. But it is only the possibility of defeat that renders them so. They cannot be defeated by inactivity. There is no escape from them compatible with non-resistance. How, then, and in what way, shall the necessary resistance be made,? There is only one way.

The Democratic party must be permanently dislodged from the government. The reason is, that the Democratic party is inextricably committed to the designs of the slaveholders, which I have described.

Let me be well understood...Candidates may, and generally do, mean to act justly, wisely, and patriotically, when they shall be elected; but they become the ministers and servants, not the dictators, of the power which elects them....The motives of men, whether acting as electors or in any other capacity, are generally pure. Nevertheless, it is not more true that " hell is paved with good intentions," than it is that earth is covered with wrecks resulting from innocent and amiable motives.

The very constitution of the Democratic party commits it to execute all the designs of the slaveholders, whatever they may be...

To expect the Democratic party to resist slavery and favor freedom is as unreasonable as to look for Protestant missionaries to the Catholic propaganda of Rome. The history of the Democratic party commits it to the policy of slavery. It has been the Democratic party, and no other agency, which has carried that policy up to its present alarming culmination...

We may concede its claim to date from the era of good feeling which occurred under the administration of President Monroe. At that time, in this State, and about that time in many others of the free States, the Democratic party deliberately disfranchised the free colored or African citizen, and it has pertinaciously continued this disfranchisement ever since. This was an effective aid to slavery; for, while the slaveholder votes for his slaves against freedom, the freed slave in the free States is prohibited from voting against slavery.

In 1824 the democracy resisted the election of John Quincy Adams-himself before that time an acceptable Democrat and in 1828 it expelled him from the presidency and put a slaveholder in his place, although the office had been filled by slaveholders thirty-two out of forty years. [John Quincy Adams was outspokenly anti-slavery]

In 1836, Martin Van Buren-the first non-slaveholding citizen of a free State to whose election the Democratic party ever consented-signalized his inauguration into the presidency by a gratuitous announcement that under no circumstances would he ever approve a bill for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.

From 1838 to 1844 the subject of abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia and in the national dockyards and arsenals, was brought before Congress by repeated popular appeals. The Democratic party thereupon promptly denied the right of petition, and effectually suppressed the freedom of speech in Congress, so far as the institution of slavery was concerned.

From 1840 to 1843 good and wise men counselled that Texas should remain outside the Union until she should consent to relinquish her self-instituted slavery; but the Democratic party precipitated her admission into the Union, not only without that condition, but even with a covenant that the State might be divided and reorganized so as to constitute four slave States instead of one.

In 1846, when the United States became involved in a war with Mexico, and it was apparent that the struggle would end in the dismemberment of that republic, which was a non-slaveholding power, the Democratic party rejected a declaration that slavery should not be established within the territory to be acquired.

When, in 1850, governments were to be instituted in the territories of California and New Mexico, the fruits of that war, the Democratic party refused to admit New Mexico as a free State, and only consented to admit California as a free State on the condition, as it has since explained the transaction, of leaving all of New Mexico and Utah open to slavery, to which was also added the concession of perpetual slavery in the District of Columbia, and the passage of an unconstitutional, cruel, and humiliating law, for the recapture of fugitive slaves, with a further stipulation that the subject of slavery should never again be agitated in either chamber of Congress.

When, in 1854, the slaveholders were contentedly reposing on these great advantages, then so recently won, the Democratic party unnecessarily, officiously, and with super-serviceable liberality, awakened them from their slumber, to offer and force on their acceptance the abrogation of the law which declared that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should ever exist within that part of the ancient territory of Louisiana which lay outside of the State of Missouri, and north of the parallel of 36' 30' of north latitudes law which, with the exception of one other, was the only statute of freedom then remaining in the federal code.

In 1856, when the people of Kansas had organized a new State within the region thus abandoned to slavery, and applied to be admitted as a free State into the Union, the Democratic party contemptuously rejected their petition, and drove them with menaces and intimidations from the halls of Congress, and armed the President with military power to enforce their submission to a slave code, established over them by fraud and usurpation.

At every subsequent stage of a long contest which has since raged in Kansas, the Democratic party- has lent its sympathies, its aid, and all the powers of the government which it controlled, to enforce slavery upon that unwilling and injured people. And now, even at this day, while it mocks us with the assurance that Kansas is free, the Democratic party keeps the State excluded from her just and proper place in the Union, under the hope that she may be dragooned into the acceptance of slavery.

The Democratic party, finally, has procured from a supreme judiciary, fixed in its interest, a decree that slavery exists by force of the constitution in every territory of the United States, paramount to all legislative authority, either within the territory or residing in Congress.

Such is the Democratic party. It has no policy, state or federal, for finance, or trade, or manufacture, or commerce, or education, or internal improvements, or for the protection or even the security of civil or religious liberty. It is positive and uncompromising in the interest of slavery-negative, compromising, and vacillating, in regard to everything else. It boasts its love of equality, and wastes its strength, and even its life, in fortifying the only aristocracy known in the land. It professes fraternity, and, so often as slavery requires, allies itself with proscription. It magnifies itself for conquests in foreign lands, but it sends the national eagle forth always with chains, and not the olive branch, in his fangs....

At last, the Republican party has appeared. It avows, now, as the Republican party of 1800 did, in one word, its faith and its works, "Equal and exact justice to all men..."

I know, and you know, that a revolution has begun. I know, and all the world knows, that revolutions never go backward...

While the government of the United States, under the conduct of the Democratic party, has been all that time surrendering one plain and castle after another to slavery, the people of the United States have been no less steadily and perseveringly gathering together the forces with which to recover back again all the fields and all the castles which have been lost, and to confound and overthrow, by one decisive blow, the betrayers of the constitution and freedom forever.


From one form of slavery to another. Today we battle, among other things, "debt slavery."Read the whole speech here. Not saying the Republicans of today are guiltless on things like budget deficits, but things certainly haven't gotten better with a Democrat in the White House, that's for sure.

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Victoria Jackson: "I Trust Sarah Palin"

Write-up in WND for Jackson:

"I trust Sarah Palin," said Jackson, who will be taking part in WND's upcoming "Taking America Back" national conference in Miami. "People make fun of her because they're afraid of her, because she's honest. Wow! What a new concept! An honest politician. I love her..."

Jackson also has high praise for Glenn Beck of both TV and radio fame.

"I made a bumper sticker and put it on my car and I drive around in Hollywood with this huge Glenn Beck sign," she explained. "I don't get the finger. I get a few thumbs-up once in a while actually when I'm on the outskirts of L.A."

"People like me, we took our freedom for granted, because I was raised with it," Jackson, 50, said. "They even prayed in my public high school ... and I took it for granted that I could say what I want and believe in God and all that."

Jackson, who noted she had never been involved in politics before Obama was elected, told Klein, "I don't really care about little things, but this is a big thing!"

"This is changing us from capitalists and freedom to communists, and I'm still in shock that more people aren't waking up..."

"I'm very proud that I was one of the first who was brave enough to tell the truth," she said. "It's kind of like 'The Emperor's New Clothes.' It's like it takes an airhead to say, 'Look, the emperor's naked!' You know what I'm saying?"

Jackson said because the federal government is now controlling so much, "We're definitely kind of socialist, but I'm hoping that in the election in November, we can flip the House and repeal Obamacare because that is a piece of frightening garbage. It's horrible!"

Gun Laws in Wisconsin

Check this out:


Yesterday, in a resounding victory for all freedom-loving Americans, the United States Supreme Court confirmed that the Second Amendment’s protection of our right to keep and bear arms applies everywhere in America, and serves as a rampart against state infringement of this fundamental individual liberty. In its ruling, the Court declared that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right, and that self-defense is at the core of the freedoms protected by the amendment.

This Supreme Court ruling is binding on all states and local governments, and immediately renders some of Wisconsin’s current laws unconstitutional. Therefore, in keeping with my oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, I hereby declare that this office will no longer accept law enforcement referrals for violations of the following statutes:

Section 167.31, prohibiting uncased or loaded firearms in vehicles;

Section 941.23, prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, including firearms;

Section 941.235, prohibiting the possession of firearms in public buildings;

Section 941.237, prohibiting the possession of firearms in establishments where alcohol may be sold or served; and,

Section 941.24, prohibiting the possession of knives that open with a button, or by gravity, or thrust, or movement.

All of these statutes constitute unjustifiable infringements on the fundamental right of every law-abiding American to arm themselves for self-defense and the defense of their loved ones, co-workers, homes and communities. This change also invalidates Jackson County Ordinance Sections 9.01 (firearms in public buildings) and 9.29 (CCW).

Prior to this historic ruling, our state Supreme Court placed the state’s interests first, and would only create an exception to these laws when the individual’s need for protection outweighed the state’s interest. In the area of concealed carry, only 2 cases have approved concealed carry, one at home, and the other one at the defendant’s personally owned place of business. Well, as the United States Supreme Court held yesterday, that view was exactly backward.

As with the other fundamental rights, such as the freedom of speech, of religion, of association, or of security in our homes, persons, and effects, government limitations on fundamental rights are lawful only in the rare case that the state can show a compelling governmental need that can be accomplished only by enacting a narrowly-tailored restriction, in terms of time, place and manner. Clearly, a blanket prohibition against carrying your loaded firearm in your personal vehicle does not pass that test.

Put it another way: Does preventing the barkeep from protecting herself when she carries the bank bag home from the tavern make sense? Not here, not anymore. That’s not an American value; it puts concern for the criminal’s welfare ahead of the barkeeper’s right to self-defense.

The fact is, criminals don’t pay attention to gun laws, only we good folks do. After 15 years of criminal law practice, I can state positively that when criminals resolve to harm someone, no law will stop them. These so-called “public safety” laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over.

I will watch for the legislature to make needed corrections in these areas. In the meantime, while I am happy to declare that we will follow the Supreme Court’s ruling, I want to emphasize that with fundamental rights come grave responsibilities, and I will continue to vigorously enforce the laws against unlawfully using firearms, such as the prohibition against felons being armed; going armed while intoxicated; using a firearm to commit a crime; and endangering safety by negligent handling of a weapon, to name just a few.

Only by the strictest adherence to firearm safety rules and common sense will we show that the elitists who seek to disarm all of us are wrong, and that every law abiding citizen can be trusted to protect themselves and their neighbors safely...

Let Freedom Ring.

Gerald R. Fox

Tammy Bruce on Levi - UPDATE

Haha! Tammy's not impressed:

Update: Levi's lies.

So, what exactly was Levi stretching the truth about? I said in my post below and when things like the Vanity Fair article first came out that I actually didn't doubt a lot of what Levi said. He just distorted it. I concur with wilsonpickett:

For instance, in the Vanity Fair article, Levi talked about him barbecuing, Bristol doing the chores and Sarah never cooking; well, that's what happened from the end of August to early November 2008 because Sarah, Todd and some of the children were gone the entire time (except for two days) on the campaign trail.

Another one: Todd sleeping downstairs on the recliner; I bet he did some nights in December and January and early February when he was going on training runs in the middle of the night and didn't want to wake up Trig or bother Sarah in the bedroom as he was leaving or coming back......only makes sense.

Also, I would like to know what family doesn't have members who fall asleep on the couch or in a chair watching TV.

Did Todd and Sarah fight? Probably. Kind of hard to be married and not fight once in awhile. It'd be downright boring. But if you want to talk about bad marriages, the Johnstons are the last people on earth that should be throwing stones, what with the Dad ditching the family for his mistress and all.

As far as what Bristol told Levi, they were teenagers. I don't know about you, but as a teen, I used to exaggerate stories just to impress my friends. They did the same to me about their families. "Yeah, my parents fight all the time over the stupidest things..." Did they really fight all the time? No. We were just out-storying each other. Any one of us could have run to the tabloids in a situation like this and dished some dirt, I'm sure. Most of it blown way out of proportion. It's called teen gossip, talking smack, etc....

However, we do know that Levi could have been completely blowing smoke as well, since there is clear evidence that he did in fact mischaracterize (lie about) some things. Only stands to reason that he could have done that with everything else as well.

What about Bristol vs. Levi's sister? What, you mean a couple of teenage girls don't get along? Shocker! That never happens. /s

(chuckle) I actually feel kinda sorry for Levi on that one. Caught between two feuding women. Never fun. But who's he gonna go with? I mean, seriously. Guys typically end up siding with their new families over their old ones, if they have any sense of autonomy at all. Not that Levi is the pinnacle of manhood. I thought it was hilarious how the Underworld was crying about Sherry and Mercede having to move out of their house while their prize boy had made $100,000 plus, was driving around in a new truck and had pimped out his snowmachine and who knows what else. What, he couldn't help with the mortgage?

They were fine with it then. Levi is so obviously just looking out for himself. When his fifteen minutes ran out, he crawled back to the Palins because he'll be better off there now. And Mercede and Gryphen are what, shocked and disappointed? LOL! And the whole custody battle might have made him realize that this is not a game. Man up, dude. You've got a kid. You can't ride this wave and expect everything to be sunshine and roses when you go over for visitation. You've got to choose.

As for Bristol and Tripp, listen, she is the child's mother. If she doesn't want him around certain people, that's her call. Countless others go through the same type of thing with in-laws, etc... all over the country without a Palin in sight. Contrary to unpopular belief, they are not the source of all evil in the world.

To put it simply, it's Sadie's tough luck. She is not the child's mother. Bristol gets to make those calls, not her, and that's just the way it is.

As for what Bristol says on her Facebook page, um, her FB page is private. She doesn't air her dirty laundry in front of the entire world. I've seen Sadie slam Bristol on her page as well, so, whatever. If you've got problems, fine. Fight like cats and dogs, talk smack about each other, whatever. But only one side of the equation is doing it publicly, and that says something.

The Legal Defense Fund

I meant to mention this about a week ago, but I got busy.

I know a lot of you (myself included) are planning on donating the money returned from Palin's old legal fund to the new one as soon as you get it back.

That's great, but I also want to encourage you to give before you get your money back. According to the ADN, just having the fund for the past year has cost Palin upwards of $80,000 in expenses. She's able to use the $30,000+ donated after she left office to pay those expenses off, but that still leaves her with about $50,000 worth left to go.

It'd be nice if she had that money on hand now. Otherwise, she's going to have a period where she's in the red until everyone sends their donations back, and some may not. Hence the link to her fund on the right side of this page.

I will confess, I haven't given anything yet because I haven't gotten my paycheck yet, but I'll fix that at the end of the week. :-)

Monday, July 5, 2010

Do Attractive Republican Women Pose a Threat to Feminism?

Random thought for the day. Not sure that I agree with all of it, but I found it an interesting take:

The salient point about those debates, which gave John Kennedy the presidency, is that people who heard them on the radio thought Nixon had won while those who watched on television gave the nod to Kennedy.

Why? Because of the hotness gap. John Kennedy was largely hotter than Richard Nixon. Women ogled him; they fell in love with him. Men wanted to be like him; they wanted to emulate his example...

The same applied to Barack Obama. How many women were more than willing to overlook his lack of relevant experience because, after all, he was really, really hot?

Good looks, even hotness, is part of everyone's human packaging. Some people have more of it; some less. It does not much matter whether it is fair or unfair. As long as we get to see these candidates on television, day in and day out, their appearance matters...

Some politicians are clearly deficient in hotness. If they are clever enough they can use it to their advantage. Take Chris Christie. Gov. Christie is the ultimate in hotlessness-- but he has worked it to his advantage. He has forged a strong connection with voters because many of them were initially disinclined to ogle him. In many ways the same applied to Margaret Thatcher.

It is not news that prominent Republican women are considered to be hotter and prettier than prominent Democratic women. Among the punditry compare Ann Coulter with Janeane Garolfalo. And it is not news that Democrats and feminists consider this to be a problem.

Sarah Palin crystallized the trend and also elicited the hottest backlash. When she arrived on the scene, it seemed like Bush Derangement Syndrome instantly morphed into Palin Derangement Syndrome.

Now, thanks to Palin among others, attractive Republican women candidates are starting to gain political success, and it is clearly upsetting the feminist matriarchy.

Newsweek's resident feminist, Julia Baird writes: "Something pretty creepy has been happening to conservative women lately. There seems to be an insistent, increasingly excitable focus on the supposed hotness of Republican women in the public eye, like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Michelle Malkin, and Nikki Haley-- not to mention the likes of Ann Coulter. The sexual references are pervasive; they come from left, right, and center, and range from gushing to highly offensive." Link here.

Creepy to whom? Are these women complaining because people find them attractive? Don't they dress themselves in order to enhance their good looks and allure? Why does Julia Baird think it is her job to complain on their behalf?

And isn't Baird perpetuating the same kind of stereotyping when she fails to denounce the relentless and gender-based stereotyping of Sarah Palin as ignorant, as what used to be called a dumb broad.

Such stereotyping is not coming at us from all sides of the political spectrum. It has become the stock-in-trade in the leftist media. As a group of reporters covering Palin in California the other week made perfectly clear, it is thoroughly acceptable, even desirable, to impugn Palin's intelligence.

Besides, no one thought it was creepy when women swooned over John Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. And why does Baird ignore the two most important female Republican candidates this year, Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman? Could it be that they do not merit mention because they are not hot enough, or because their success was not based on their hotness or their feminism?