She Is A Lot Smarter Then The Democrats Thought

Tough as nails. That’s Putin, the bear.

Palin in Kuwait and now she's on Fox. This is a smart move by Fox as she is very popular from all sides of the isle. That will make everyone watch he. It will give her a chance to hone up her knowlege of issues and to be seen by millions of views. What a smart move for both Fox and Sarah Palin. I'm sure she will give us conservatives a voice in the media. And that voice will be heard by both sides. One thing I will say is if I was a liberal I'd be very afraid right now. Because weather you like it or not she is a powerful conservative with millions of American voters behind her. If you aren't for Sarah Palin then it is because you are a sexist. Plain and simple. Ask any women if Sarah Palin and Hilary Clinton were treated in a sexist way by the left wing sexist pigs. I wish her all the best and I hope the time with Fox makes her a better politician. I would love nothing more then to have the first women president.
Check out this example:

 

 

Become An Activist And Spread This Post Around To Everyone You Know

Will 9/11 Terrorists Get Off Free? Watch Video

01/11/2010

If this trial goes forward, this is what's in store for the United States. Help us stop the terrorists and their legal defense team from making a mockery of America. Don't allow them to walk free.

More Racism From The Democrats and They Called Us The Racist

       Democrats To African Americans: Your Degree Of *Blackness* Determines Our Fortune

Posted by haystack

Strom Thurmond was an unapologetic segregationist. He unsuccessfully ran for President once, but for some reason South Carolina saw his talents as a Politician to be sufficiently satisfactory to put him in office as their Governor for 4 years, and in the US Senate for 48 years (both as a Democrat AND a Republican)…this, DESPITE his views on race. He never withdrew those positions, nor did he apologize for them, although he is said to have ‘moderated his tone over time.’
Strom Thurmond, segregationist or not, was also a staunch believer in the 10th amendment to the US Constitution (my personal favorite): “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” and it was his stand on State’s rights that gained him much favor in South Carolina and around the political world.

“[We] want that federal government to keep their filthy hands off the rights of the states.”

Racist or not, he was who he had always been-open, honest, and forthright… and most importantly… these traits never cost him his job.
So when Trent Lott suggested that “we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today” back in 2002 had Thurmond been elected President 54 years earlier, the Democrats were quick to tie the segregationist element of Thurmond around Lott’s neck (rather than the State’s rights element) and summarily had Lott tarred, feathered, effigied, and FIRED from his leadership position in the US Senate. Note to class-NEVER did Lott affirm his support of segregation, and NEVER were we asked to consider Thurmond’s embrace of the 10th amendment. We were just told Thurmond’s segregationist ideology HAD to be what Lott was talking about and that he must, therefore, be run outta Dodge.
How, then, does Harry Reid get to keep his job when he sees the quality of African Americans according to their skin tone and linguistic prowess? The answer shouldn’t be looked for in Michael Steele’s paid-to-be-mad rants, nor in Republican wails against double standards. The answer needs to found in the opinion of the people he represents where it should be…not with the media, the elites and the professional pundits. It’s not hard to see that Reid, just as with Bill Clinton, sees African Americans as political tools and foregone voting bloc conclusions. Let THEM express themselves in the voting booths. Let the rest of us just sit back and watch.
Democrats clearly see African Americans as coffee-fetching errand boys and linguistically challenged “children” that need to be ‘taken care of’…and only so black as the color of their skin as opposed to the content of their character. Reid needs to keep his job long enough to be fired by those very same people…the ones we care most about-the AMERICAN Voter (African and otherwise).
Apologies notwithstanding, however many of them the Democrats make…Americans have a much longer memory than does our media cycle and the Politicians’ lives that desperately cling to it.

And The Libs Say The Conservatives Should Be Feared

California gay marriage opponent fears for his life

Paul Elias - Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - An outspoken gay marriage opponent serving as an official litigant defending the state's ban on same-sex weddings on Friday asked a judge to remove him from the lawsuit because he feared the trial would generate publicity that could endanger him and his family.



Hak-Shing William Tam was one of five people who formally intervened to defend the state from a federal lawsuit filed against California. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown have declined to mount a defense on behalf of the state.

Tam and the other four interveners were also the official proponents of Proposition 8, which passed in November 2008 and was upheld four months later by the California Supreme Court.

"I dedicated the majority of my working hours between January 2008 and November 2008 toward qualifying Proposition 8 for the ballot and campaigning for its enactment," the San Francisco resident told the judge in May in urging to be named an official party to the lawsuit.

On Friday, Tam told the court that he was harassed and his property vandalized during the campaign, and feared similar retribution if he continued to represent gay marriage foes' interest in the lawsuit and trial, which is scheduled to start Monday in San Francisco.

"In the past I have received threats on my life, had my property vandalized and am recognized on the streets due to my association with Proposition 8," Tam said in a court filing. "Now that the subject lawsuit is going to trial, I fear I will get more publicity, be more recognizable and that the risk of harm to me and my family will increase."

In the months leading up the trial, lawyers for two unmarried same-sex couples on whose behalf the case was brought complained that Proposition 8's sponsors were withholding evidence to which the plaintiffs were entitled by citing a letter they had uncovered written by Tam to members of his church during the campaign.

In the letter, Tam outlined what he described as the disastrous consequences for allowing gays to marry in California.

"One by one, other states would fall into Satan's hands," he wrote. "Every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex. More children would become homosexuals."

The contents could come up in the trial because one of the issues is whether the measure's backers were motivated by anti-gay bias.

Tam on Friday didn't mention the judge's decision this week to allow cameras to video record the trial as a factor in his request. Lawyers for Proposition 8 interests asked an appeals court on Friday to halt the planned recording, saying they fear witnesses may restrain or alter their testimony if cameras are present in the courtroom.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the request late in the day.

Federal trial courts generally prohibit cameras in the courtroom.

But with an eye on the Proposition 8 trial, chief judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit announced last month a pilot program to allow cameras to record civil trials decided by a judge without a jury.

Kozinski said "being able to see and hear what transpires in the courtroom will lead to a better public understanding of our judicial processes and enhanced confidence in the rule of law."

The appeals court has jurisdiction over federal courts in nine Western states and no federal trial in the region has ever allowed cameras. U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker on Wednesday decided to open the gay marriage trial to cameras, but barred live broadcasts. Video of the trial will be posted on YouTube.com several hours later.

Lawyers representing the gay couples who filed the lawsuit support cameras in the courtroom. So does a group of media organizations, including The Associated Press, that filed court papers Friday urging the 9th Circuit to uphold Walker's decision to allow cameras.

'Obama Doctrine' Detrimental To U.S./Open Thread...

A national defense analyst and former Reagan Defense Department official says he agrees with the assessment of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich that Americans are less safe than they were a year ago when Barack Obama took office.
During a recent interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, Gingrich commented that North Koreans had another year to build missiles while Iranians had another year to develop nuclear weapons and continue paying for terrorists. The former lawmaker said the federal bureaucracy is so lacking in focus, it let the Christmas Day bomber get on an airplane despite the fact that he was on a terrorist watch list.
 "Even when this guy's father called the American Embassy and warned us specifically about his son, we couldn't find a way to stop him," Gingrich noted. 
 Frank Gaffney, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security during the Reagan administration who now runs the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC, says the United States is less safe than it was a year ago because of what he calls "the Obama Doctrine."
 "That [doctrine] can best be described in nine words: embolden our enemies, undermine our allies, and diminish our country," he explains.
 Gaffney believes Obama's foreign policy is clearly placing the United States in greater danger than when he took office.
 Lets take a look at Americas safety this weekend. I would like to hear from the left wing if they think we are safer now. They did tell us we were not safe under President Bush,even though the fact was we didn't get hit by another terrorist attack after 9/11. The other fact is that the Democrats said that they would make the world love us again and the terrorist would not want to attack us again,thus keeping us safer under Obama then under Bush. I think the the Democrats think they have a magical presents that will make all country love America again. A lot of idiots think they can do a better job of running a sports team then the last coach. But most of the time they fail worse then the last guy. I think Obama is too green and ignorent to know the difference between reality and academia. That brings to miund the old saying of ,"those that can do,while those that can't teach". This saying is as true as you can get when it comes to the liberal academia. Liberals think that because they think it works in their head it must be real. And yet most theories are proven wrong.      For the first year of this academic theories of liberalism I can honestly say nothing has turned out the way the Democrats said it would. If it has please tell us what has worked the way Obama and the Democrats said? As of late I would say that the deafening silence from the left says it all. This blog and others used to have more liberals then conservatives posting on them. But not any more. They will make up excuses but we know the reality is they can't keep making up excuses. They are getting tired out. While we on the right are getting energized. Have a great and safe weekend.

Take Action Against Fox Network Today

Fox network inserts bestiality into family programming

Urgent: File a formal complaint today with the FCC!

January 7, 2009


Dear blogging friends,

The Fox broadcast network featured bestiality on the program American Dad that aired over your public airwaves on Sunday night, January 3rd. But that's not the worst of it. The network chose one of the most popular animated children's programs (according to the Parents Television Council) to spew their toxic perversion and sickening content. Keep in mind that this program's popularity ranges primarily from children 2-11 years old.
I apologize about the explicit content of this alert but you must know about what happened and file a formal complaint now with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)! We must demand that the agency which is responsible for the enforcement of our broadcast decency law do its job.
WARNING: Explicit Content! Click Here to read the dialogue and view the clip from the January 3rd episode of American Dad which aired during prime time.
If you believe that the bestiality content aired in this program is indecent and violates the federal broadcast decency law then we urgently need you to take action now. Unless you act this kind of material could become the acceptable norm for television.
Click Here to file a formal complaint with the Federal Communications Commission and urge them to punish the Fox broadcast network that has blatantly broken the law.

File a formal complaint with the Federal Communications Commission

It is very important that you forward this alert to your friends and family members.

Are Christians Really As "Dangerous" as Muslims?

 I hear this all the time from liberals,"Christians are just as dangerous and murderous as Muslims". Now I'd like to have these liberals put their money where their mouths are. Now for the most part liberal artists have already done half the experiment. Remember when we the people paid to have a picture taken of Jesus on the cross in a glass of urine? Do you remember Mother Mary naked? There are tons of these anti-Christian art pieces. In fact our government give lots of our tax money to those that produce that type of anti-Christian art. Now I'd like those same liberals to do the same with the Profit Mohhamed. Do you remember the Dutch cartoonist that did that very same thing? He is still in hiding because of that. Now there are a lot of people in hiding or dead because they did a cartoon of the Profit Mohhamed. Whole Islamic nations called for the head of these cartoonist,writers and artists. This isn't one crazy person using a warped sense of religion. This is most of Islam. So the next time you want to say that Christians and Muslims are the same and equaly dangerous put your money,I mean your life, where your mouth is. I'd like to see you liberals prove me wrong. I can't wait to see more tax payer funding for art that pisses on Islam as much as they do Christian icons. I'm sure there will be no added danger at the museums that host the art. Just think what would happen if our very own liberal anti Christian bloggers made a post of just that kind of art. Oh,but no one reads their blogs so what kind of challange would that be?

 

Interpol Given Exectutive Order By Obama???????????

Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on Fox News Channel

 Executive Order — Amending Executive Order 12425, signed December 16 and released a day later, grants the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) rights on American soil that place it beyond the reach of our own law enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Schippert and Middleton note that Obama’s order removes protections placed upon INTERPOL by President Reagan in 1983. Obama’s order gives the group the authority to avoid Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests — which means this foreign law enforcement organization can operate free of an important safeguard against governmental abuse. “Property and assets,” including the organization’s records, cannot be searched or seized. Their physical locations and records are now immune from U.S. legal or investigative authorities.
If the president of the United States has an aboveboard reason for making a foreign law enforcement agency exempt from American laws on American soil, it wasn’t shared by the White House.
Andy McCarthy, former assistant United States attorney for the Southern District of New York and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, notes at National Review that the limitations that Obama removed are “what prevents law-enforcement and its controlling government authority from becoming tyrannical.”
A paragraph later, McCarthy describes Obama’s actions in the starkest of terms:

This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.

Some bloggers covering this story are noting that the law enforcement agency to which Obama has extended such extraordinary powers to has had a dismal past.
INTERPOL’s senior leadership was flush with Nazis from the late 1930s all the way into the 1970s. That fact allowed, going Godwin isn’t necessarily relevant to today’s organization. Khoo Boon Hui of Singapore is the current president of the organization, and the current secretary general is American Ronald Noble. Noble is perhaps best known in America for overseeing the Treasury Department’s review of the disastrous 1993 raid and siege of a Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, that left nearly 80 people dead. Noble had cautioned against the initial raid plan as being too dangerous, but the lack of any significant ramifications for federal officials that approved of the raid and allegations of a cover-up have inspired conspiracy theorists to derisively dub Noble “the Enforcer.”

But INTERPOL’s past isn’t what concerns us at this moment. Its current actions and the actions of our president are those that we question.

With the flourish of a pen and no warning at all, Barack Obama surrendered American sovereignty to an international force with a checkered past. To what end? And how will that serve America and it's citizens?

Even Gallup Proves Liberals Are Just A Fringe Group. What Say You Our Fringe Subculture?

Conservatives Finish 2009 as No. 1 Ideological Group

Uptick owing largely to more independents calling themselves conservative

by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- The increased conservatism that Gallup first identified among Americans last June persisted throughout the year, so that the final year-end political ideology figures confirm Gallup's initial reporting: conservatives (40%) outnumbered both moderates (36%) and liberals (21%) across the nation in 2009.
More broadly, the percentage of Americans calling themselves either conservative or liberal has increased over the last decade, while the percentage of moderates has declined.

Since 1992, there have been only two other years -- 2003 and 2004 -- in which the average percentage of conservatives nationwide outnumbered moderates, and in both cases, it was by two percentage points (in contrast to the current four points).

"The proportion of independents calling themselves "moderate" held relatively steady in the mid-40s over the last decade, while the proportion of Republican and Democratic moderates dwindled."

The rather abrupt three-point increase between 2008 and 2009 in the percentage of Americans calling themselves conservative is largely owing to an increase -- from 30% to 35% -- in the percentage of political independents adopting the label. Over the same period, there was only a slight increase in professed conservatism among Republicans (from 70% to 71%) and no change among Democrats (at 21%).

The 2009 findings come from an aggregate of 21 separate Gallup and USA Today/Gallup surveys, including nearly 22,000 interviews. The 1992 to 2008 trends also represent thousands of interviews compiled for each year. Thus, the margins of sampling error around the individual estimates are less than one percentage point.
Trends of the Past Decade
Just looking at the decade that ended in 2009, Gallup's annual political ideology trends document a slight dip in the percentage of Americans calling themselves moderate (from 40% in 2000 to 36% in 2009), while, at the same time, the ranks of both liberals and conservatives expanded slightly.
Gallup measures political ideology by asking Americans to indicate whether their political views are very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal, or very liberal. The detailed responses show a slight increase between 2000 and 2009 in the percentage of Americans calling themselves "very conservative" (from 6% to 9%) and less change in the percentage calling themselves "very liberal" (from 4% to 5%). Most conservatives continue to call themselves "conservative" rather than "very conservative," and the same pattern is seen for liberals.

Republicans Become More Solidly "Conservative"
In addition to the very recent increase in conservatism among independents, a growing percentage of Republicans identified themselves as such starting in 2003. Across the same period, the percentage of Democrats calling themselves conservative dipped slightly, somewhat offsetting the increase among Republicans.

Partisans Shy Away From "Moderate" Label
The proportion of independents calling themselves "moderate" held relatively steady in the mid-40s over the last decade, while the proportion of Republican and Democratic moderates dwindled. Between 2000 and 2009, the percentage of moderates fell five percentage points among Democrats (from 44% to 39%) and seven points among Republicans (from 31% to 24%).

Democrats Grow Increasingly "Liberal"
Similar to the increased conservatism among Republicans, there was a gradual increase in the last decade in "liberal" identification among Democrats, from 29% in 2002 to 38% in 2007, and it has since remained at about that level.

The effect of this shift among Democrats is most apparent when one reviews the trend in their ideological profile over the past decade. Whereas moderates constituted the largest bloc of Democrats in 2000, today they are about tied with liberals as twin leaders, and the proportion of conservatives has declined.

By contrast, the expanded number of conservatives making up the Republican Party has merely strengthened the conservatives' already strong hold on that party.

And despite the recent uptick in conservatism among independents, the largest segment continues to be moderate (although by a smaller margin than previously).

Bottom Line
Political independents showed increased attachment to the "conservative" label in 2009, boosting the overall ranks of that group so that it now clearly outnumbers moderates in Gallup's annual averages for the first time since 2004. Longer term, the proportions of Americans calling themselves conservative as well as liberal expanded slightly this past decade, largely because of increased partisan attachment to each label. At the same time, the percentage of "moderates" has dwindled, underscoring the heightened polarization of American politics as the nation heads into a new decade.

Sign up for Gallup e-mail alerts or RSS feeds

Get Gallup news on Facebook and Twitter

Survey Methods
Results are based on aggregated data from Gallup polls conducted in 2009, each based on telephone interviews with 1,000 or more national adults, aged 18 and older. For results based on the total sample of 21,905 national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point.
Other results are based on aggregated Gallup surveys of approximately 1,000 national adults 18 and older each. Sample sizes for the annual compilations range from approximately 10,000 to approximately 40,000. For these results, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.