Sarah Palin Quote of the Day!

"The pro-woman sisterhood is telling these young women they are strong enough and smart enough. They are capable to be able to handle an unintended pregnancy and still be able to, in less than ideal circumstances, no doubt, to handle that. Still be able to give that child life, in addition to pursuing a career and pursuing an education, pursuing avocations. Though society wants to tell these young women otherwise. Even these feminist groups want to try to tell women, send this message that, "Nope, you're not capable of doing both. You can't give your child life and still pursue career and education. You're not strong enough. You're not capable. So it's very hypocritical of those... pro-women's rights groups out there."

- Sarah Palin slamming the hypocrisy of women's rights groups

This Week's Sign of the Apocalypse: Father Marries His Long Lost Daughter And They Have A Child Together

Been hearing too many stories like this of late, but in a world with less and less standards, it shouldn't surprise anyone.

Ann Coulter on Media Sympathy for NYC Bomb Suspect

Actress Charlotte Lewis Says Roman Polanski Molested Her When She Was 16

HuffPo.com:

Los Angeles prosecutors have met with a British actress who claims she was sexually abused by director Roman Polanski in Paris when she was 16.

Forty-two-year-old Charlotte Lewis, speaking at a news conference Friday in Los Angeles, says Polanski abused her while she was working on the film "Pirates" in 1982.

Los Angeles County district attorney's spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons acknowledges Lewis met with a prosecutor handling Polanski's 33-year-old sex case involving another girl. Gibbons would not comment further.

Lewis' attorney Gloria Allred says she hopes her client's allegations will affect sentencing for Polanski, who is under house arrest in Switzerland and is fighting extradition. He pleaded guilty in 1977 to having sex with a 13-year-old girl but fled to France.

Remember it's the Left and liberal Hollyweird that defends Roman Polanski's right to rape women.

Eric Holder Has Never Read New Arizona Immigration Law He Opposes

Politico.com:

In television interviews over the weekend, Attorney General Eric Holder warned that Arizona's new anti-illegal immigration law could lead to racial profiling and might prompt Latinos to stop cooperating with police. However, it emerged at a House hearing Thursday that Holder hasn't actually read the statute.

"I have not had a chance to. I've glanced at it. I have not read it," Holder acknowledged in response to questions from Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas).

"It's ten pages. It's a lot shorter than the health care bill, which was 2,000 pages long. I'll give you my copy of it, if you would like to -- to have a copy," Poe quipped during the House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing.

The Arizona law passed last month calls for checks on individuals' immigration status after any "lawful contact" with police if there is reasonable suspicion they're not legally in the country. President Barack Obama, Holder and other administration officials have expressed concern that the law could lead to Americans of Hispanic descent being stopped by police. Latino groups are organizing boycotts of the state.

If this doesn't corroborate leftwing hyperbole on SB1070, nothing does.

Chris Christie Takes Down Liberal Reporter

Gov Christie calls S-L columnist thin-skinned for inquiring about his 'confrontational tone'

The Save Jersey Blog:

This has been a loooong time coming, Save Jerseyans.


The antics of liberal columnist Tom Moran (and the anti-Christie curmudgeon Paul Mulshine Moonshine) are topics of regular discussion here at Save Jersey. Until now, however, no one else has had the intestinal fortitude to put them in their place except for your beloved and revered Blogger-in-Chief.


Then came along Governor Christopher J. Christie! Check out the INCREDIBLE (and entertaining) exchange he had with Moran at yesterday's "33 bills" press conference. When was the last time we saw a Republican elected official display this much backbone with the media, Save Jerseyans? Not since Reagan...

God, if only we had this kind of leadership in New York.

Liberal School Superintendent Uses Girls Basketball Team As Pawns To Protest Arizona Immigration Law, Sarah Palin Speaks Out

Mediaite.com:

Sarah Palin really knows how to get the most bang for her buck out of her catchphrases. Palin’s Twitter account— apparently she’s retreated from Facebook after the backlash against her Carly Fiorina endorsement Update: and her Facebook — already hinted at her fury about this, but today Palin took to Fox News to discuss the Illinois girl’s basketball team whose school is protesting against the new Arizona illegal immigration law, and she wants the girls to “go rogue” in response.

Palin called in to America Live to talk about the subject with host Megyn Kelly, where she explained her outrage against the school by calling their objection to the law “fightin’ words” and gave some advice to the basketball team:

“I want these girls to feel empowered and go rogue if they must, figure out a way to protest a decision like this and figure out a way to get there on their own if it can be done not being sanctioned by the school, this tournament. Look at these lady hoopsters told ‘no ball in Arizona,’ because Arizona isn’t ‘aligned with the beliefs and values’ of, I guess, their school district’”

She also criticized the school for letting students travel to China despite their notorious record on human rights, and called them hypocrites for protesting Arizona for what they perceive to be the same thing.

This is just wrong. I hope the parents sue the school superintendent. Below, from Hot Air, two members of the basketball team speak out on the Left using them as political pawns:

Baseball Commish Bud Selig Has No Plans To Move All-Star Game From Phoenix

Bizjournals.com:

Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig brushed off calls Thursday to move the 2011 All-Star Game out of Phoenix because of Arizona’s new immigration law.

Selig was asked during a press conference about the calls by the National Council of La Raza, labor unions and other critics of the bill whether MLB would yank the All-Star game from Chase Field.

Selig responded to media question by talking about MLB’s minority hiring practice while skirting the controversy around the state’s new immigration law. That statute gives police greater power to question and detain illegal immigrants.

Several major Arizona business groups have written Selig asking him to keep the 2011 game in Phoenix. The Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Greater Phoenix Economic Council, Arizona Hispanic Chamber and Greater Phoenix Chamber all signed onto that letter.

“We understand the MLB is facing pressure to reconsider Phoenix as the site of next year’s All-Star Game; however, a relocation decision will equate to lost jobs for innocent citizens, including our Hispanic community,” the letter states. “Arizona has a proven track record in executing safe, enjoyable and successful major events.”

The May 12 letter says the boycotts will hurt workers and small businesses in the state that had nothing to do or opposed passage of the immigration law.

Good, It's what reactionary, idiot, boycott enthusiasts on the Left forget or just don't care about: they hurt small businesses. We're going through a recession right now that has no end in sight, yet liberals who know jack about the criminal bombardment of illegal immigrants in Arizona want to play personal politics with a major sporting event that employs people who need jobs while catering to small businesses. SB1070, a law that hasn't even began yet, while supported by 60% of Americans and 70% of Arizonans, is being exploited by the race-baiters on the Left because they need minority votes to stay in office come November. Well, Bud Selig's no schmuck and thank goodness he knows better then to cater to the lies and leftwing hyperbole on a law that's perfectly legal.

White Cop Shoots Himself, Blames Black Man

Now see, there's some REAL racism for ya.

Source

Obama Cuts Anti-Terror Funding To New York City Just 2 Weeks After Attempted Times Square Car Bomb Attack

NBCNewYork.com:

The feds are slashing terror funding for New York's anti-terror programs and mass transit system, according to Sen. Charles Schumer.

The surprising move comes just 11 days after a botched attempt to explode a car  bomb in Times Square -- yet another reminder that New York City remains the prime target for terrorist strikes in the United States.  

Lawmakers said DHS briefed Congressional staffers on Wednesday, saying that New York City will receive 27 percent less this year for mass transit security and 25 percent less for port security.

The announcement came on the eve of President Obama's visit to the NYPD to thank the department for its amazing work in unraveling the botched Times Square car bomb plot. A White House spokeswoman would not confirm the President's planned visit to 1 Poliec Plaza, but the city has already made preparations for the downtown visit.

Schumer blasted yesterday’s announcement that the Department of Homeland Security would be slashing the Big Apple's allocation of Mass Transit and Port Security funding.

 “For the administration to announce these cuts two weeks after the attempted Times Square bombing shows they just don’t get it and are not doing right by New York City on anti-terrorism funding," Schumer said in a statement. 

Republican Rep. Peter T. King calls the decision "dangerous and unconscionable.

Making us less safe the Obama way.

New Poll Full Of Bad News For Democrats

Yahoo.com:

Democrats already knew they were facing a tough Election Day this November, but new poll numbers out tonight show the party has lost significant ground with a crucial voting bloc. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds that self-described independent voters, credited with helping Democrats take control of Congress in 2006, have switched their allegiance to Republicans.

According to the poll, 38 percent of so-called independents say they will vote for Republicans this November, with only 30 percent for Democrats. Four years ago, ahead of the '06 midterms, the same poll found that 40 percent of independents favored Democrats, with only 24 percent for Republicans.

Asked which of the two major parties should control Congress, respondents were deadlocked. But when asking only voters most interested in the outcome this November, 56 percent supported the GOP and only 36 percent supported the Dems. That's the largest split in more than a year.

In four years of Obama/Pelosi/Reid our country has gotten far worse what with our deficit having quadrupled, two major wars still ongoing, domestic terrorism increasing, the morally bankrupt garnering more "rights" and unemployment seeing record numbers. So while Republicans shouldn't start getting giddy just yet, I think it's a safe bet that we'll be seeing a record set of Americans turning out come November and making themselves heard.

Obama The Polarizer

Great column by Jay Cost concerning the President of the Blue States:

In January, 2007 Barack Obama declared his candidacy for the presidency with these words:

It's not the magnitude of our problems that concerns me the most. It's the smallness of our politics. America's faced big problems before. But today, our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common sense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first. We have to change our politics, and come together around our common interests and concerns as Americans.

Today, Gallup reports:

(Obama's) first-year ratings were the most polarized for a president in Gallup history, with an average 65-point gap between Republicans and Democrats. Obama's approval ratings have become slightly more polarized thus far in his second year in office, with an average 69-point gap between Democrats (83%) and Republicans (14%) since late January.

This is a big deal. The first quote is the principal reason Barack Obama ran for President. At a minimum, it was his first public argument for why he thought the country should elect him, as opposed to the dozen or so other candidates who would enter the race. It remained a critically important idea throughout his candidacy. Remember, the Obama campaign was an "audacious" act of line-jumping within the Democratic Party. His justification was that the country couldn't afford to keep playing the same old political games. The hook of his candidacy was: America, do you really want to do Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton?

Yet here we are, breaking records for polarization. How did that happen? Why has Obama failed to do what he promised?

I think there are two big reasons.

First, Obama's implicit claim throughout his candidacy was that public divisiveness was somehow a failure of leadership. This was mostly nonsense. This country has been divided over cultural issues since at least 1973 and Roe v. Wade. It has been divided on fiscal issues since Reagan cut taxes in 1981; this ended the hidden tax of bracket creep, but meant that legislators had to make hard choices between more spending and lower taxes. It has been divided on foreign policy issues since the Bush Administration's response to 9/11.

These are all real things. They are not rhetorical wrinkles that a Jon Favreau speech can iron out. Obama's choices have mostly been liberal (with the notable exceptions of dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan). His speechwriters have endeavored to present his choices as win-wins, but their words have failed to persuade because the President's choices are rarely in fact win-wins. They usually favor one worldview or set of interests over others. Favor one side enough times and the losers will start to see what's going on, "eloquent" speeches aside.

Second, insofar as leadership could bridge the many divides in this country, this President has never been in a good position to exercise it. He owes too much to others. You don't win a nomination battle like the Clinton-Obama smackdown without making a bunch of promises. Remember that neither Clinton nor Obama secured enough delegates through the primaries and caucuses; Obama needed the superdelegates, chief among them being Speaker Nancy Pelosi (easily the most powerful Democrat in the country prior to the President's inauguration). There is a long line of constituent groups in the Democratic Party who certainly needed assurances about what an Obama presidency would look like. So long as reelection remains to be secured, these groups at least have to be monitored if not placated. And so, in a time of great divisiveness, the people with the closest connection to the 44th President are consistently on one side of the aisle. The left side.

Sarah Palin To Release 2nd Book In November

CNN.com:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will release her second book in November, publisher Harper Collins announced Wednesday.

"America By Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag " will include selections from classic and contemporary readings that have moved her-from the nation's founding documents to great speeches, sermons, letters, literature and poetry, biography, and even some of her favorite songs and movies," the publisher said in a statement announcing the new book. "The book will also include portraits of some of the extraordinary men and women she admires and who embody her deep love of country, her strong rootedness in faith, and her profound love and appreciation of family. She will also draw from personal experience to amplify these timely (and timeless) themes-themes that are sure to inspire her numerous supporters and all readers across the country."

The second book was inspired by the people Palin met during her 35-city tour in support of her first book, "Going Rogue," Harper Collins also said. The upcoming book "celebrates the enduring strengths and virtues that have made this country great," the publisher added.

"America By Heart" will hit bookshelves on November 23, according to Harper Collins.

Does this confirm that she's not running for Prez? Tea Party activists are angry at Palin and she doesn't even have a favorable rating in her own state nowadays, guess Palin's just facing reality.

Obama Threatens To Veto His Own Health Care Bill

FOXNews.com:

The Obama administration threatened to veto parts of its own health care bill after budget scorekeepers found that the package would add at least $115 billion more to government health care spending. 

President Obama's budget office charged Congress with finding $115 billion in spending cuts or tax increases to offset the price tag hike. The figure approached the amount of money

the Congressional Budget Office previously estimated the law would save, and pushed the total 10-year cost of the package past $1 trillion. It comes after a separate Medicare office report found the bill would raise spending by about 1 percent over the next decade. 

But the Office of Management and Budget stood by the administration's original claims that the law would reduce the deficit and tasked Congress with making sure that happens -- or else. 

"The Affordable Care Act will reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion in the first decade, and that will not change unless Congress acts to change it," budget office spokesman Ken Baer said. "If these authorizations are funded, they must be offset somewhere else in the discretionary budget. The president has called for a non-security discretionary spending freeze, and he will enforce that with his veto pen."

Irony.

ObamaCare To Cost $115 Billion More Than What We Were Originally Told

Yahoo.com:

President Barack Obama's new health care law could potentially add at least $115 billion more to government health care spending over the next 10 years, congressional budget referees said Tuesday.

If Congress approves all the additional spending called for in the legislation, it would push the ten-year cost of the overhaul above $1 trillion — an unofficial limit the Obama administration set early on.

The Congressional Budget Office said the added spending includes $10 billion to $20 billion in administrative costs to federal agencies carrying out the law, as well as $34 billion for community health centers and $39 billion for Indian health care.

The costs were not reflected in earlier estimates by the budget office, although Republican lawmakers strenuously argued that they should have been. Part of the reason is technical: the additional spending is not mandatory, leaving Congress with discretion to provide the funds in follow-on legislation — or not.

"Congress does not always act on authorizations that are put into legislation by drafters," explained Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for the White House budget agency. "Authorizations for discretionary spending are not expenditures."

Proof once again that Tea Party activists have no legit reason to be complaining about outrageous spending by the Obama administration.

White House Releases New Elena Kagan Video

CNN.com:

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan describes herself an "open minded person, a fair person" and pledges to "faithfully apply the law and do the best I can to decide it in the right way," in a new video posted Tuesday on the White House website.

The White House uses the video to offer another side about President Obama's choice to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens to the Court. Kagan talks about her childhood in New York, education at Harvard Law School, time as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, dean of Harvard Law School, and her current role as solicitor general.

The video is narrated by the 50-year-old Kagan, and features still photographs of her during various different times in her life, and video from Monday's announcement of her nomination at the White House.

In a nutshell here's the knock on Elena Kagan: never served on any bench, slim legal writings and yeah, she could be a lesbo (tho I doubt the latter only because in an era where some famous yahoo or wannabee famous yahoo is "coming out" like every week, if Kagan was gay I think it would've been confirmed by someone by now). But then, for conservatives there are some pluses: Kagan has gone on record saying that she doesn't believe that there is a constitutional right to gay marriage, she encouraged Bill Clinton to support a compromise ban on late-term abortions and she has stated on record that terrorist detainees don't have an automatic right to due process. Sure, she's an Obama crony and sure Barry didn't seem to think that there were any Black judges good enough to be considered for a SCOTUS nominee, but altogether Barry certainly could've done a lot worse and hey, the fact that Kagan's catching more flak from the Left then the Right can't be bad news either..

Lou Dobbs On Arizona Immigration Law SB1070

Ex-Porn Star Finds God, Talks About Real Side Of Porn Being Rampant With STD's & Pimps

Every time I read an article referring to a woman working in the sex industry as a "porn star" I cringe. After all, it's that kind of subtle acceptance (instead of calling sex workers what are: "whores") of pornography in the mainstream media that helps young women think that pursuing a "career" in porn is akin to becoming a doctor, teacher or lawyer. But moral repercussions aside, porn is not a safe and glamorous career-choice, it's a dirty, oppressive and money-obsessed business that objectifies women, breaks the psyche and often leads its "stars" to depression, drug use and/or suicide. Then too, the consumption of porn is bad for society in general, take it from this women who worked in the porn industry for a couple of years or check out this video on dead porn stars. Porn destroys people, families as well as society as a whole and the so-called "progressives" who celebrate porn or dismiss all its negativity simply don't care.

Roland Martin: Liberals Are Mute On Racial Double Standards In Elena Kagan Pick

CNN.com:

If a white Republican president of the United States appointed a white male as his next Supreme Court justice, and upon the inspection of his record, it was discovered that of the 29 full-time tenured or tenured track faculty he hired as dean of Harvard Law, nearly all of them were white men, this would dominate the headlines.

It would be reasonable to conclude that the special interest groups that vigorously fight for diversity -- civil rights organizations, feminist groups and other liberal institutions -- would be up in arms, declaring that this person's records showed him unwilling to diversify academia, and unqualified to consider diverse views as one of nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court. There would be widespread condemnations of Republicans having no concern for the nonwhite males in America.

But what if the choice were made by a black Democratic president, and it was a woman? A white woman? A white Democratic woman?

Some of you may not like the fact that I am focusing on the race of the individual, but when diversity is raised, the person's skin color, gender and background are considered germane to the discussion. And if there is silence from black and female organizations, their race and gender matter as well.

We may very well witness this now that President Obama has selected Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Guy-Uriel Charles, founding director of the Duke Law Center on Law, Race and Politics, has heavily scrutinized Kagan's hiring record as head of Harvard Law School. In a scathing blog post, he has said that of the 29 positions Kagan had a chance to fill, 28 were white and one was Asian-American. And of the group, only six were women -- five white and one Asian-American.

These numbers on the surface are appalling, and would be ripped to shreds by those who value diversity, but my gut tells me that even though Kagan has been tapped by Obama, the normally vocal and persistent voices in this area will be tight-lipped and quiet, unwilling to oppose or heavily criticize the nomination of a woman to the court, and especially one made by an African-American Democratic president.

If that does happen, Republicans will rightly cry foul, saying it represented a double standard -- that the silence was a signal of partisan hacks more concerned about not offending the Obama administration, rather than the ideals they hold near and dear.

Of course, if a conservative pundit noted this point, he'd easily be dismissed as a "RACIST!". But for Roland Martin, an Obama stan if there were any, to take notice of white, liberal hypocrisy on race . . . well, it says a lot.

Is Elena Kagan The Next Harriet Miers?

TheDailyBeast.com:

Top Supreme Court contender Elena Kagan, is an able administrator with a shamefully thin record of legal scholarship. Paul Campos compares her to the hapless Bush nominee who got laughed out of town. 

 

As the rumblings become louder that President Obama is going to choose U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan as our next Supreme Court justice, somebody needs to ask a rather impolitic question: How, precisely, is Kagan's prospective nomination different from George W. Bush's ill-fated attempt to put Harriet Miers on the nation's highest court?

On its face, the question seems absurd. Five years ago, Miers was derided as a careerist mediocrity whose primary qualification to be on the Supreme Court was a slavish devotion to President Bush. Kagan, by contrast is a purportedly "brilliant" legal scholar who was granted tenure at the University of Chicago and Harvard, before becoming dean of the latter's law school.

Kagan's work reminded me of Orwell's observation that, if book reviewers were honest, 19 of 20 reviews would consist of the sentence, "this book inspires in me no thoughts whatever."

Yesterday, I read everything Elena Kagan has ever published. It didn't take long: in the nearly 20 years since Kagan became a law professor, she's published very little academic scholarship—three law review articles, along with a couple of shorter essays and two brief book reviews. Somehow, Kagan got tenure at Chicago in 1995 on the basis of a single article in The Supreme Court Review—a scholarly journal edited by Chicago's own faculty—and a short essay in the school's law review. She then worked in the Clinton administration for several years before joining Harvard as a visiting professor of law in 1999. While there she published two articles, but since receiving tenure from Harvard in 2001 (and becoming dean of the law school in 2003) she has published nothing. (While it's true law school deans often do little scholarly writing during their terms, Kagan is remarkable both for how little she did in the dozen years prior to becoming Harvard's dean, and for never having written anything intended for a more general audience, either before or after taking that position.)

Kagan's handful of publications touch on topics like regulating offensive speech, analyzing legislative motivations for speech regulations, and evaluating the process of administrative law-making. But on the vast majority of issues before the Court, Kagan has no stated opinion. Her scholarship provides no clues regarding how she would rule on such crucial contemporary issues as the scope of the president's power in wartime, the legality of torture, or the ability of Congress to rein in campaign spending by corporations.

I know that their are going to be Obama stans out there who'd support Barry if he picked Santa Claus for SCOTUS, but the fact that Kagan has never been a judge, to me, should alarm those on the Left and the Right.

Politiks As Usual: In The News 5/10/10

Obama Selects Elena Kagan As Supreme Court Nominee

White House Blames NYC Bomb On Pakistani Taliban

Palin Stands By Florina Endorsement Amid Backlash From Supporters

What Motivates Obama: Leftist Turnout

Unmarried Births At All-Time High

Haiti Children Abandoned By Desperate Parents

Comedy Central Considers Series Mocking Christ

37% Of All U.S. Deaths In Afghan War Belong To Obama

Eric Holder Wants New Look At Miranda Rights

Tea Partiers Spank Republican Senator

The Greek Debt Crisis For Economic Morans

How Michelle Obama Made Me A Bad Mother

Chris Matthews vs. George Pataki On "Hardball"

Is there anyone left out there who doesn't think Matthews is a jerk? A win for Pataki for holding his own against this boor.

Betty White's Opening Monologue On SNL

I gotta say that Facebook movement to get Betty White to host "Saturday Night Live" last night really paid off. Of course, Betty White's got longtime cred in the game: over 50 years of television experience on her resume, but to still bring the funny at 88! Who knew. Of course I'm a biased because I've always thought women were funnier than men, not including Richard Pryor of course.

Sarah Palin On Why We Need National Day Of Prayer

CNN.com:

The 59th annual National Day of Prayer was held Thursday against a backdrop of controversy and growing doubts about the future of the event, which a federal judge recently declared unconstitutional.

President Truman signed a bill establishing an official National Day of Prayer in 1952, but U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb in Wisconsin ruled April 15 that the law violates the ban on government-backed religion.

The Justice Department is appealing the case on behalf of the White House. An injunction against the National Day of Prayer will not take effect until all government appeals have been exhausted.