Thou Shalt Not Oppose The One!!!

Palins Church Severely Damaged by Arson

Palin was not at the church at the time of the fire. She stopped by Saturday, and her spokesman Bill McAllister said in a statement that the governor told an assistant pastor she was sorry if the fire was connected to the “undeserved negative attention” the church has received since she became the vice presidential candidate Aug. 29.”Whatever the motives of the arsonist, the governor has faith in the scriptural passage that what was intended for evil will in some way be used for good,” McAllister said.

The 1,000-member evangelical church was the subject of intense scrutiny after Palin was named Sen. John McCain’s running mate. Early in Palin’s campaign, the church was criticized for promoting in a Sunday bulletin a Love Won Out conference in Anchorage sponsored by Focus on the Family. The conference promised to “help men and women dissatisfied with living homosexually understand that same-sex attractions can be overcome.”

The fire was set at the entrance of the church and moved inward as a small group of women worked on crafts, Steele said. The group was alerted to the blaze by a fire alarm.

“Nice church you got there Guv’er. Shame if anything happened to it.”

Evidence Of The Effectiveness Of A Propaganda Assault.

Palin a GOP star, but little liked by center – David Paul Kuhn –

Palin’s flash emergence on the national stage has left her as well positioned as any Republican to make a serious run for the GOP nomination in 2012, yet waning support from the political center may threaten her presidential ambitions, according to a Politico analysis of public polling.

A Gallup poll of Republican voters released last Friday found Palin atop a field of ten Republicans, including 2008 primary candidates Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, in a hypothetical 2012 matchup.

Fully two thirds of Republicans, including Republican-leaning independents, want Palin to run for president in 2012, twice as many as back Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who has already made one post-election visit to Iowa, and about 20 points ahead of former Speaker Newt Gingrich.

But even as Palin exploded over a few weeks from relative obscurity to a bigger star within the party than its own presidential nominee, Democrats and independents quickly soured on her, she became one of the most divisive figures in politics.

The reasons given by most of the people for disliking Sarah Palin have nothing to do with anything she ever did or talked about doing. She attends a church that some consider “fundamentalist,” which is code for fanatical. She opposes abortion, but so do at least half of the population. She has the courage of her convictions as shown by her youngest child, who had Downs Syndrome. People won’t come out and say it but her actions embarrass a lot of people who don’t want to think that a conservative will walk the walk rather than paying lip service.

A soon as she was chosen the press descended onto Alaska to dig up dirt on her. The more personal the better. Liberal rumormongers spread rumors that her last child was not her own but that of her daughter. When the news came out that her eldest daughter was pregnant out of wedlock the slurs pivoted without missing at beat to accusations of being a poor mother.

Most of the rumors were blatantly untrue and the ones that were true were not particularly heinous. More the result of living life. But they were presented in the most scurrilous fashion possible.

The intent was not to inform but to destroy and unfortunately there are enough people that will uncritically accept what they are told to make it possible.


On the KGW Channel 8 in Portland’s website there is a comment who recently started showing up in the comments section to various news stories. He is very good.

He writes in the style of the extreme left commenter but if you read his comments closely they resemble Frank J’s “In My World” series which is one of the great satirical series of the Internet.

For example, here is the comment he left on a story regarding the protests againsst Prop 8 in Portland.

Once again this site is overloaded with the Reich-Wing hate from the Judaic/Christian playbook sponsored by the RepubliKKKan monsters who were thankfully cashiered by the enlightened electorate on November 4th.

But then the joyous celebration stopped.

With the exception of Massachusetts and Connecticut, the rest of the country continues to elect the right people, but then does a 180 degree turn and rolls back the clock to the dark days of Jim Crow, Poll taxes, separate toilets and water fountains, and jingoistic patriotic Irving Berlin songs.

What will it take for these homophobic parasites to realize that marriage, as well as morality, is an individual choice fully recognized in our once beloved Constitution?

Only when we can stand proudly before the bar of United Nations approval,and realize that the institution of marriage,like every other racist and deluded idea held so highly by the Neo-Cons who regulate Christianity,is meant to be defined and shared among any person or group that wishes to partake,

If a transgendered person wants to marry him/herself- then who are these brutal Bush/Reagan plutocrats who dare attempt to force their bestial pious will on such a lovely person?

If three, four or eleven people regardless of sexual orientation, want to collectively marry each other, then the Newt Gingrich/Sean Hannity warped view of monogamy must stand aside and make room for the peaceful and beautiful future designed to be shared under the large and colorful rainbow tent of tolerance and diversity.

As I previously stated in other similar posts on this subject, the Courts of California once addressed this travesty by invalidating the RepubliKKKan forced ballot of 2000 where these myopic, merciless and bigoted citizens shamelessly voted 3-1 to cruelly define marriage as between one man and one woman.

I personally would think that such archaic and totalitarian ideas would have disappeared from our culture at the same time that JFK freed the slaves.

Now, covering itself again with disgrace, California, like their progressive brothers and sisters in Florida, pulled the lever once again to ban gay marriage and totally overturn what the Courts had once deemed unconstitutional.

Are we somehow to think that because the majority of voters choose something as immoral as banning gay marriage,that our courts are now rendered prostate and impotent?

It is the duty of the courts to legislate from the bench when the majority has clearly taken a pigheaded path that the members of the minority community don’t agree.

I can only continue to offer my daily chants to His Holiness the Dalai Lama in his retreat in far away Dharamsala, that he will provide the wisdom to President Obama to issue an Executive Order on January 20, 2009 which immediately terminates these notorious and discriminatory ballot measure such as we saw with California’s Measure 8.

What is really hilarious is how many other commenters take him at face value. It’s hard to satirze a bunch of nuts.

Here’s a link to his comments. I think Frank J ought to get him to write a column.

Letter To The Public Relations Machine Of The Democrat Party

Orson Scott Card: Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that’s what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don’t like the probable consequences. That’s what honesty means . That’s how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards’s own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That’s where you are right now.

It’s not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation’s prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama’s door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You’re just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it’s time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

Sarah Palin To Dumb To Carry Rifle Correctly?

IMPOSSIBLE SHOT | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog

LA Times blogger Elizabeth Snead asks:

Hey, is that even the right way to hold a rifle? Can’t you shoot your foot off like that?

Thus proving once and for all that leftists are smarter than redneck wimmin.

Or would be IF
that were actually a rifle AND IF
that were not recognized by real gun owers as the safest way to carry that particular type of firearm.
BUT rest assured that leftists know the best way to do anything, and are willing to use the government to force you to do things that way too.
BECAUSE they are experts at every endeavor known to man

Just as I am the world’s leading expert on the use of ALL CAPS for no apparent reason.

More Like Me, Less Like Them

See the world, get elected – Los Angeles Times

I suggest the Constitution be amended to require that candidates for the presidency (and vice presidential selections as well) have visited a minimum of 20 countries. The amendment would require that each visit would have been made more than four years before the candidate’s possible inauguration and that it would have lasted at least 48 hours. This serves as proof that a candidate is genuinely interested in, and possibly even knowledgeable about, the world around him or her.

Once again we are being treated to the opinion of yet another intellectual that people running for office should be more like them and less like the rest of us.

Peter Guttman thinks that candidates should be more widely traveled. Something like the 19th Century “tour” that every well brought up youth of a certain class was provided with. It is not surprising to find out that Mr. Guttman writes travel books and has a degree in Geography.

So much for the conceit that in American anyone can grow up to be President.

Maybe once upon a time. Under Mr. Guttman’s formula Abraham Lincoln would have been disqualified. But now? The fact is that one one should be running for President that doesn’t have the time and funds to take a trip around the world. How else is there to meet the ‘right” people?

The number of countries visited is not a number that was just plucked out of the air. A serious candidate must have visited at least 20 countries for no less than 48 hrs for a simple reason. There are a great many people, such as myself, who have spent far longer than 48 hrs in foreign countries. The problem is that most of those countries had names like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Korea or Japan. That is, they visited there while performing military service. But no one who Mr. Guttman would consider enough like him to qualify for office would serve in the military. It’s just so…common and it is peopled mostly by the kind of people that you wouldn’t want to associate with on a normal basis.

But doesn’t it seem curious that a travel writer wants someone running for office to be more like him? In fact, it seems to be a common trope. Hollywood celebrities want the President to be like them, academics want him to be like them, pundits want him to conform to their ideas. It seems that wanting the President to be more like them and less like us is very common, and simply by its normalcy unattainable.

When I was young it was accepted that anyone had the chance of becoming President. In the 50 some years since that time things seem to have changed from the President being the leader of the people to the President being the ruler of the people. That is a big distinction. Leaders are developed from within. Rulers are imposed from without. A leader can be anyone with the right talent. A ruler has to have the right family, the right schools and the right friends. A leader is first among equals, a ruler is a class apart.

This IS A Parody, Isn’t It?

It’s so hard to tell.

The sentences of Sarah Palin, diagrammed. – By Kitty Burns Florey – Slate Magazine

There are plenty of people out there—not only English teachers but also amateur language buffs like me—who believe that diagramming a sentence provides insight into the mind of its perpetrator. The more the diagram is forced to wander around the page, loop back on itself, and generally stretch its capabilities, the more it reveals that the mind that created the sentence is either a richly educated one—with a Proustian grasp of language that pushes the limits of expression—or such an impoverished one that it can produce only hot air, baloney, and twaddle.

I found myself considering this paradox once again when confronted with the sentences of Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee. No one but a Republican denial specialist could argue with the fact that Sarah Palin’s recent TV appearances have scaled the heights of inanity. The sentences she uttered in interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and Katie Couric seem to twitter all over the place like mourning doves frightened at the feeder. Which left me wondering: What can we learn from diagramming them?

With the Huffpo post on whether or not Sarah Palin’s lip lines are tattooed and other stupid stories, it has gotten almost impossible to determine whether a particular story is sophisticated satire or not.

The writer in this case does not appear to be a satirist. Draw your own conclusions.

Kitty Burns Florey is the author of Sister Bernadette’s Barking Dog, a history of diagramming sentences. Her new book, Script and Scribble: The Rise and Fall of Handwriting, will be published in January.

Maybe she will be hired by the Obama White House to insure that all criticisms of The One are diagrammed properly before he is shown them.