Montana Children's Play Calls For Beheading of Sarah Palin

A local children's theatre in Missoula, Montana took too much poetic license, when they presented their own rendition of the book "The Mikado". Someone on the staff decided to take a shot at the former Alaska Governor and potential 2012 GOP presidential hopeful Sarah Palin and added a line into the play that called for her death by beheading.

Here's the letter written to a local Missoula, Montana paper:

Missoula Children’s Theater: Inserting line was unprofessional

Open letter to MCT director Curt Olds:

First I would like to compliment you and the entire staff of "The Mikado" on the beautiful sets, costuming and professional performance we experienced on Sunday, Jan. 23.

However, I must call you on something that was inserted into the play which I am almost positive was not in the original book.

The comments made in such a cavalier and oh-so-humorous way were uncalled for. Now, I realize you play to a mostly liberal audience in Missoula and so, I am sure, felt comfortable in your calling for the beheading of Sarah Palin. I am painfully aware that most in the audience tittered with laughter and clapped because "no one would miss her" but there were some in your audience who took great offense to this "uncivil tone" about another human being.

We are in the midst of a crisis that took place in Tucson where many started pointing fingers at that horrible right wing with all their hatred and targeting and standing for the second amendment and on and on and on. So, here we are in a lovely play with beautiful voices serenading us and we have to hear that it is okay to call for the killing of Sarah Palin because we don't like her and no one would miss her. Unbelievable.

As a professional you should be ashamed of yourself, the audience should be ashamed of themselves and I am ashamed of myself for not standing up and leaving at that very moment. I would like to see an apology from you not because I want to hinder free-speech but for the hypocrisy this so clearly shows.
Rory Page, Clinton

This is just beyond despicable. What were the adult staff and those in the audience that laughed thinking?

The entire staff of the Missoula Children's Theatre should be fired. There is no way that this should have been included in any kind of play much less a play geared towards children.

Flashback: Governor Palin went to Missoula last September. She was there to help raise money for Teen Challenge Montana, a local teen shelter and houses women who are trying to kick habits like drugs and alcohol. Not everyone was happy to see her there:

But not everyone was happy to see the former Alaska governor visit the Garden City as more than a dozen protesters lined North Reserve Street as well as the road leading to the hotel where Palin spoke. They held signs that said things such as, "real women don't quit" and "stupidity isn't cute." One protester said he supports the cause, but doesn't think Sarah Palin should be speaking at it.

Is a beheading how they repay her for helping to raise money for the Teen House Montana?

H/T to GretaWire and James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal.

Mission Not Accomplished: 57% of Americans Don't Blame Political Rhetoric For Gifford's Shooting

Seconds after the Giffords' shooting, the left immediately proceeded to blame the right, Sarah Palin and the TEA Party most of all, for shooting by claiming that their rhetoric creates a violent aura in government. Despite all of the political mudslinging from the left, the majority of Americans aren't buying what the media is selling, according to a new CBS poll:

Nearly six in 10 Americans say the country's heated political rhetoric is not to blame for the Tucson shooting rampage that left six dead and critically wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, according to a CBS News poll.

In the wake of the shooting, much focus has been put on the harsh tone of politics in Washington and around the country, particularly after a contentious midterm election. Rhetoric and imagery from both Republicans and Democrats have included gun-related metaphors, but the majority of the country isn't connecting the shooting to politics.....

Overall, 57 percent of respondents said the harsh political tone had nothing to do with the shooting, compared to 32 percent who felt it did. Republicans were more likely to feel the two were unrelated - 69 percent said rhetoric was not to blame; 19 percent said it played a part. Democrats were more split on the issue - 49 percent saw no connection; 42 percent said there was.

Independents more closely reflected the overall breakdown - 56 percent said rhetoric had nothing to do with the attack; 33 percent felt it did.

I'm ecstatic to see that people are seeing this huffing and puffing by the left for exactly what it is: BS. All evidence shows that he couldn't have cared less about Palin or the TEA Party. He was apolitical. His rants just seemed to be just rants of a madman, who had held a grudge since Giffords became US Representative in 2007. That was way before the rise of Palin or the TEA Party.

Democrats were hoping to not to "waste this crisis" and villanize and bully the right into silence and obscurity, so they could further their anti-2nd amendment agenda and more, but they failed big time.

H/T to Ed Morrissey

Rep. Ellison (D-MN): We Must Create "Real Crisis" to Force Change in Obama's Tax Compromise

On an interview with Minnesota Public Radio, Democratic Representative Keith Ellison from Minnesota called for fellow Democrats to cause a “real crisis”, in order to force Republicans to drop the tax rate extension for those in the $250.000 and above tax bracket:

Minnesota 5th District Congressman Keith Ellison said Thursday that Democratic lawmakers "need to create a real crisis" to force Republicans to renegotiate the tax cut compromise.

House Democrats voted Thursday to reject the tax cut deal between the White House and Congressional Republicans.

The compromise would extend Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans, including the wealthy. It also would renew benefits for the long-term unemployed, a measure President Obama had pushed for to prevent about 2 million Americans from losing benefits in the coming weeks. Republicans had opposed extending unemployment benefits.

Ellison, who was recently elected co-chair of the Progressive caucus in the House, voted against the compromise.

"I think that we need to create a real crisis here so that the Republicans will have to answer for denying Americans unemployment benefits on the eve of the Christmas holiday," Ellison said. "We let them off the hook, in my opinion."

Ellison is hoping to play a game of chicken with everyone’s taxes and the health of our economy. He is betting on that the Republicans would rather raise taxes on those who create jobs for this economy and cost us job growth than to let them expire for everyone and have everyone’s taxes go up in a few weeks.

However, a few Republicans, like Jim DeMint, have indicated that they are not totally opposed to letting the cuts expire in January. They would do this looking to get an even better deal, when they have a greater majority.

If they go that route, they have, also, indicated that any new tax bill would be retroactive to the beginning of the year to ensure that no one will pay higher taxes in the end. This would still cause more money to be taken out of people’s checks at the beginning of the year, until it gets passed. However, people would get their money back in the form of a refund, when they file their 2011 this is the best way to go, though, because a dip in people’s take home pay, no matter how if it is only for a few weeks, will have a negative effect on our economy and cause a lull that would be felt for longer than just a few weeks.

But Democrats have much more to lose than the Republicans do by balking at passing the Obama Tax Compromise. They will be negotiating at a much bigger disadvantage next year than the Republicans would, if the deal fell through in Congress. Plus, the White House and the Republicans are positioning the Democrats as the obstructionists, if it fails. They would become the new “Party of No”. The Democrats will talk big over the next week maybe two, but in the end, I believe that they will reluctantly pass it. They are just making sure that the American people know where they stand on the issue. They are grandstanding in the highest order.

I find it amusing that progressive, liberal Democrats have suddenly started to care about huge creating deficits, if there are only a few jobs that are created by this bill. This is what Ellison said about that point, “You need to understand me. I' m not saying that there won't be any jobs created from this bill, but how much per dollar will the jobs cost?” Where was this concern, when the Democrats were passing a about a trillion dollar bill that would in the end create zero jobs net:

A study by Daniel J. Wilson of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank suggests that the net job creation from the $814 billion stimulus bill passed in February 2009 was zero by August 2010. In the first year, the stimulus "saved or created" 2 million jobs (not 4 million as repeatedly claimed by the administration), but this number proved to be short-lived, paying for temporary jobs, at a very high cost of $400,000 per job "saved or created."

By August, 2010, the impact of the stimulus on net job creation had disappeared. This is an astounding result, which destroys the Paul Krugman argument that the economy would be so much better right now if only Congress had approved much more spending in February 2009. Double the initial spending, double the number of temporary jobs, with likely the same net result by this point in time, or a trivial number of "permanent jobs created . In fact, the unemployment rate is at a substantially higher percentage rate today at 9.8% than when the stimulus bill was passed.

That $400,000 per job figure based on the assumumption that 2 million jobs would have been created. It was no where near that, and what jobs were created are now gone. He is being a bit of a hypocrite if he didn’t care then but cares now.

Using class warefare rhetoric, he goes onto complain that letting people keep their own money is somehow not fair. They want to keep taxes low for everyone not just the rich. So, how is that not fair? Liberals believe that your money is really the government’s money, and they are only being gracious in letting you keep as much money as they do. Only in the minds of liberals, do they believe that letting people keep the money that they make is unfair.

What The Big Deal? MSNBC Indefinitely Suspends Olbermann For Donating to the Max to 3 Democrats/Update: TV "Insiders" Say Olbermann Won't Be Back

Keith Olbermann was suspended indefinitely by MSNBC for donating the maximum amount allowed by law to three different Democrats this past election cycle:

MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in a statement Friday: “I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."
Olbermann made campaign contributions to two Arizona members of Congress and failed Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway ahead of Tuesday’s election.

Olbermann, who acknowledged the contributions in a statement to POLITICO, made the maximum legal donations of $2,400 apiece to Conway and to Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. He donated to the Arizona pair on Oct. 28 — the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann’s “Countdown” show.

I’m really having trouble drumming up the ability to care about this story much. MSNBC is just posturing and trying to keep alive the meme that they are unbiased. The fact that Keith is liberal and would donate to Democrats should not come as a shock to anyone that has watched Countdown for more than two minutes. His bias is more than obvious. He doesn’t even really try to hide it, either.

Personally, I don’t think that he should be suspended or fired for this anymore than Juan Williams should have been fired from NPR over his comment about being nervous around Muslims on airplanes, and it’ll, more than likely, pass, and he’ll come back to MSNBC soon, especially considering all of the negative backlash that they are getting from the left AND the right over this issue.

However, there is a hypocrisy angle to this story. This should be brought up to Keith by any guest that comes on his show anytime that he chastises Rupert Murdoch or anyone else on Fox for donating a penny to any GOP candidate

Update:

TV "Insiders" are saying that Olbermann won't be back:

Insiders we’ve talked to say Olbermann won’t be back. The question is whether he’ll leave or MSNBC keeps him off the air.

Top GOP Black Candidate(Allen West-FL) Slams Obama Over How Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case Was Handled

One of the black GOP candidates running for the House this November had some stark criticism for Obama regarding his handling of the Black Panter voter intimidation case:

One of the GOP's handful of black candidates for Congress condemned President Barack Obama of exploiting race for political gain.

Allen West, the Republican challenging Rep. Ron Klein (D) in Florida's 22nd congressional district, sharply criticized the Obama administration for having allegedly declined prosecuting the New Black Panther Party on voter tampering charges for political reasons.

For an Administration that promised a new era in race relations, Obama and the Democrats in Congress have demonstrated that race will continually be exploited for political gain, West, who is one of two African-American Republicans running for Congress who have survived their primaries, said in a statement.

West was picking up on a meme that's made its way through conservative blogs in recent days, based on whistleblower claims made by a former Justice Department employee. Charges against the Black Panthers for their actions on Election Day 2008 weren't pursued because of racial politics, the employee charged. The Justice Department says charges were dropped due to lack of evidence.

West drew on his own history with race to condemn the Black Panthers, as well as other black Democrats, who he said had remained silent when he'd been called racially-ringed names during the course of his campaign.

The dye has been cast in this election cycle - Democrats and their liberal progressive socialist allies will continue to play the race card when it is politically expedient, West said. I demand an investigation of the New Black Panther Party and the placement of it, along with any extremist group, onto the Terrorist Watch List if warranted. If that it not done prior to my taking the oath of office as a United States Congressman, it will happen soon thereafter.

Hillary Clinton: Forget About Feeding Third World’s Starving Babies, We Have to Fund Killing Unborn Ones Too

The Obama Administration seems to care more about furthering their liberal political agenda worldwide more than making sure women and children remain healthy in the some of the poorest parts of the world:

On the agenda at the G8 summit in Canada is promoting maternal and infant health in the poorest parts of the globe. The high rates of maternal and infant mortality in many countries are an impediment to democracy and social development, to say nothing of a human tragedy for these communities. Commitments of resources from the G8 countries to address these problems should be welcomed and commended. Why, then, is the Obama delegation threatening to derail these agreements?

It does seem to be an odd form of “smart diplomacy” to politicize and hold a program that would make sure to limit infant deaths hostage to make sure that funding for abortions are included in the package that would be sent to these impoverished countries, but here it is:

Given this, one would expect there to be universal support for Canada’s leadership in taking on these problems and working to meet these critical needs. But the Obama administration is obstructing this positive consensus. Hillary Clinton, when asked about Canada’s G8 plan to address infant and maternal health in the developing world, said the following: “You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.”

It is surprising that Hillary Clinton would insist on funding for abortion and risk derailing an initiative that is poised to generate unprecedented commitments in both the private and public sectors. It is especially surprising considering the body of recent scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of various straightforward, uncontroversial, and achievable means to reduce maternal and infant mortality.

When top U.S. officials change the subject away from important global policy and development work to push for favored hot-button political issues, it gives the appearance of using American taxpayer funding to promote social engineering, bypassing public debate about the best way to achieve development worldwide and address the very real unmet needs of the developing world. Does Hillary Clinton think it is more important to promote liberal Western ideologies than to address the critical needs of the women and children of Africa and Asia? Does she prefer to promote the tired, old eugenic orthodoxies of the largely discredited population-control movement? Is Hillary Clinton — and the Obama administration — willing to hold up funding for maternal and infant health because of a dogmatic commitment to a universal right to abortion on demand? What about the rights of countless women all over the world who want to bring children into the world safely, without risking their lives and the lives of their children?

As Allahpundit points out, it is beyond ironic and hypocritical for the same people that criticized Bush for holding out on the same kind of funding to the third world in order to make sure that it doesn’t fund abortions. Then, they turn around and hold out on sending money to help the poorest among us to make sure that money for abortions are included in the money being sent to ensure the health of babies:

Besides, Hillary’s statement is nothing short of idiotic. Maternal health does not depend on abortion. In fact, abortion is a rather moot point when it comes to the stage of worrying about the health of mothers of newborn infants, isn’t it?

Indeed!

Harry Reid Says GOP Wants US to Fail Forgetting That He Chastised Limbaugh For Saying He Wants Obama to Fail

Harry Reid recently had a bowl of sour grapes after Republicans just said “no” to spending an extra $109B that we don’t have to extend unemployment benefits:

The morning after the Senate failed to advance a bill that responded to the recession, Sen. Harry Reid laid into Republicans who blocked it en masse.

Clearly sore after falling three votes short Thursday night of the 60 needed to overcome a Republican filibuster, the Senate majority leader from Nevada charged in a Senate speech that GOP senators "are betting on the our country to fail."
Rather than help Americans, he said, Republicans are more interested in bringing down President Barack Obama.

"The Republicans in the Senate have made the decision to do everything they can to turn the country upside down, to do everything they can to stop economic recovery because they think it may help some of their people running for the Senate around the country.

"They figure as bad as they can make the economy, the better off they will be," Reid said. "That is a pretty difficult view for people who are United States senators."
"As we learned from the health care debate, (Republicans) want everything that Obama wants to be his Waterloo."

Listen, I feel for those that are feeling the pinch of unemployment, but there has to be a point when we have to cut the apron strings and get the out-of-control spending back in black. It is a calculated risk drawing the line in the sand with unemployment benefits. It could bite the Republicans back in November. We’ll see at the polling booth, whether or not it is political suicide as the Democrats are trying to portray it.

Back to Harry Reid’s comment, he is trying to demonize the GOP by saying that they don’t care about playing politics at the expense of the common man. That’s rich for someone that wants to pass cap-and-tax and causing energy prices to skyrocket in the process in order to push their green agenda.

I, also, find it really hypocritical for him to say that they want the GOP to fail, after he went in front of the Senate to chastise Rush Limbaugh for saying that he wants Obama to fail. In fact, it’s worse. Reid implied that the GOP wants the entire country to fail. Rush only said that he wants Obama’s ultra-liberal agenda to fail not the country as a whole. The Democrats just tried to paint Limbaugh’s comment as saying that he wants the country to fail because, if you look at what he said in its entirety, that’s not actually what he said.

Reid must be pretty desperate these days considering that he pretty far behind Sharon Angle in the Nevada Senate race even though his camp denies it.

Democratic RI Senator: We Need to Keep Spending Because of There Was a "Republican Debt Orgy" Under Bush or Something

There are a few points that Whitehouse made that deserves comment. The most obvious is claim that is hypocritical for Republicans to complain about deficit spending because of their “spending orgy” during the Bush years. Apparently, the fact that the Democrats controlled Congress for the past 4 years and Obama has increased the “spending orgy” by leaps and bounds over whatever Bush spent over the past year and a half is completely lost on the Democratic Senator from Rhode Island:

At $13 trillion, that figure has risen by $2.4 trillion in about 500 days since President Obama took office, or an average of $4.9 billion a day. That's almost three times the daily average of $1.7 billion under the previous administration, and led Republicans on Wednesday to place blame squarely at the feet of Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats.

Spending three times as much as the previous administration did isn’t called cleaning up the mess. It is grabbing a shovel and digging us into a deeper ditch.

Of course, he used the same straw boogeymen of Bush and that every liberal uses to demonize the right. Bush hadn’t been around for the past 18 months and is a cheap hit. Second, Wall Street had little to do with the reason why the recession happened. The housing bubble bursting because of the Democrats’ deregulation of Fannie and Freddie is. That’s all I have to say about that. Really, that argument is old. 

Another hole in his argument that is completely eluding the Senator is when he argues that a $25 increase of benefits isn’t that big of a deal, and it isn’t that much money. He’s missing the forest for the trees here. Granted, an extra $25 for one family isn’t that much money. However, when you multiply that by how many people that would receive that extra $25, it is an exorbitant amount. For example, let’s just take his state of Rhode Island. By his own admission he has about 71.000 people unemployed in his state. If all 71,000 people received an extra $25, that would lead to an increase in spending of $1.775 million. Sorry senator that is not chump change. Now, let’s look at that extra money from the perspective of the recipient. Twenty-five dollar increase really won’t really mean much to them. Unless there’s a hole in the bottom of their shoes, a new pair of shoes is not necessary. Plus, $25 won’t buy them but a few extra groceries. It definitely won’t be the difference between starving to death and a adequate diet.

PS.

Should he really be emphasizing the 12% unemployment rate in his state, a state that is completely controlled by Democrats for decades? That is close to 3% higher than the national average. Does that the fact that their rate might be higher than the national average because of the policies of his own party more than the policies of the party that he is leveling his tirade against? Hmm!

Jerry Brown: Meg Whitman is a Nazi Propagandist or Something

Why do liberals love to bring up Nazis and compare them to Republicans?:

California GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman on Thursday criticized remarks attributed to rival Jerry Brown that made a comparison between her campaign and a Nazi propagandist. 

The comments attributed to Brown were posted Wednesday in a blog by a reporter for KCBS radio in San Francisco. In his blog, which was on the station's website, reporter Doug Sovern says he was riding his bike in the Oakland hills when he bumped into the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, who was jogging. 

KCBS radio editor Debra Ingerson told The Associated Press on Thursday that the conversation was not recorded. 

Sovern said Brown was concerned about Whitman's ability to spend an almost unlimited amount of money in the governor's race. Whitman, the billionaire former eBay chief executive, spent at least $81 million in the primary, all but $10 million of it from her personal fortune. 

According to the blog, Brown said Whitman has the money to launch a pervasive smear campaign: "She'll have people believing whatever she wants about me." 

Brown then compared that type of messaging ability to Nazi propagandist of Joseph Goebbels. 

"Goebbels invented this kind of propaganda. He took control of the whole world," Brown is quoted as saying. Brown went on to say he believes Whitman wants to be the first female president.

Obviously, liberals are trying to not so subtly equate Republicans to Nazis in the minds of the American people. In this case, this is a beyond ridiculous comparison. Just because she is using a large amount of her own money, it doesn't make it just like the Nazis. Hillary Clinton used a lot of her own money to fund her 2008 presidential campaign. Does that make her like a Nazi propagandist? No.

Regarding his complaint that her media campaign will make people believe whatever she wants them to believe, isn't that the point of a good PR advertising campaign? After all, didn't the Obama political machine make the majority of Americans believe in the facade of hope and change that the election of Obama would bring to America? It is completely hypocritical of Brown to even hint at a comparison between the Whitman advertising campaign and a Nazi advertising campaign. This comment shows how desperate Brown has become to try to discredit Meg out of the gates. He apparently is a little scared to see that he has started off in a dead heat in the liberal state of California where he should be taking a commanding lead.

Obama Takes A Break From Blaming Bush, Republicans to Advise Graduates to Not Make Excuses

In a classic pot meet kettle moment, the One has the amazing audacity to tell high school students not to make any excuses. It is amazing because over the past year-and-a-half, Obama has made a career out of blaming Bush for all of his failures for not turning the economy around yet and other shortcomings:

So, today, you all have a rare and valuable chance to pursue your own passions, chase your own dreams without incurring a mountain of debt.  What an incredible gift.  So you’ve got no excuse for giving anything less than your best effort.  (Applause.)  No excuses.   

That’s my second piece of advice, very simple:  Don’t make excuses.  Take responsibility not just for your successes; take responsibility where you fall short as well. 

This is especially rich coming from someone who is endanger being remembered for spending his entire first term blaming Bush and Republicans, according to a writer from TheStreet.com. Maybe he should take his own advice and lead by example. Hmmm.

Proof-Positive That He Is An Idiot: Gibbs: What If They Would of Compared Bush to Hitler?

Was Robert Gibbs on Mars for the last 8 years? That is the only explanation that I can come up with that will explain how he can even say this:

Today, Robert Gibbs lamented some of the offensive signs at Bachmann's anti-health bill rally (of which there were some, but not enough to even fill out HuffPo's 12 Most Offensive slideshow):

"I will continue to say what I've said before. You hear in this debate, you hear analogies, you hear references to, you see pictures about and depictions of individuals that are truly stunning, and you hear it all the time. People -- imagine five years ago somebody comparing health care reform to 9/11. Imagine just a few years ago had somebody walked around with images of Hitler.

Hopefully we can get back to a discussion about the issues that are important in this country that we can do so without being personally disagreeable and set up comparisons to things that were so insidious in our history that anybody in any profession or walk of life would be well advised to compare nothing to those atrocities."

Right? Apparently, he hasn't seen these or these.

I, also, wonder where his outrage was when fellow Democrat Alan Grayson compared healthcare crisis to the Holocaust.

Mary Katherine Ham has many more examples on her post. He isn't entitled to his own set of facts from his own revisionist history.

Hypocrisy Alert: Florida Democrats Uninvited Sen Landrieu Because of Her Skepticism of Pelosicare

Democrats and liberals have been crowing about a GOP "civil war" and a "purge" of moderates out of the Republican party. Valerie Jarrett, White House spokeswoman, said that they are trying to inclusive even if all other evidence has said otherwise. Now, the Democratic Party of Palm Beach County, Florida is showing their inclusive spirit:

Democratic Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu is out as keynote speaker for the Palm Beach County Democratic Party’s annual fund-raising dinner next week because party leaders dislike her stance on health care reform, county Democratic Chairman Mark Alan Siegel said today.

Landrieu, a moderate who recently described herself as “extremely concerned about a government-run, taxpayer-funded, national public plan,” has not committed to voting to cut off a likely Republican filibuster and forcing a vote on the legislation.

Democrats need 60 votes to invoke “cloture” and force a vote.

“We just didn’t want to have a keynote speaker who’s not committed to cloture. It would have just been wrong,” said Siegel, who said party higher-ups and rank-and-file members had voiced displeasure with the choice of Landrieu as a keynote.

The left-wing blogosphere has been a buzz saying that the reason why the Democrats lost the gubernatorial New Jersey and Virginia is because they tried to moderate themselves and not fully endorse all of Obama's liberal policies.

There is hasn't been a lot of love from the left given to Joe Lieberman when he supported the war, spoke at the RNC for McCain, or spoke out against Pelosicare.

They claim that Republicans are becoming more extreme, yet the Democratic party seems to be doing exactly what they chastise the Republicans for doing.

Purge your Blue Dogs. Purge.

Another Democrat That Owes Back Taxes, Kerry '04 Campaign Owes $800 K

Just another tax and spend liberal Democrat that doesn't like to pay their own taxes:

The Internal Revenue Service has filed a tax lien seeking more than $800,000 from Sen. John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign, escalating a dispute over payroll taxes that the lawmaker's office blames on faulty government paperwork.

The episode has left a candidate who fell just a few percentage points short of winning the White House trying to convince the government's tax collector that his campaign already paid the taxes and doesn't owe any more.

The IRS filed the lien in the District of Columbia earlier this year, claiming that a previous attempt to collect the money was unsuccessful. "We have made a demand for payment of this liability, but it remains unpaid," the tax filing stated.

Where is Shuster with his Hypocrisy Watch now?

Flashback: Obama Was Among Those Involved in Justice Alito Supreme Court Filibuster Attempt

Jake Tapper mentioned an interesting fact on his blog today:

In January 2006, then-Sen. Obama joined 24 colleagues in a futile effort led by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of now-Justice Samuel Alito.

Therefore, what he said in his weekly address seems a bit hypocritical:

President Obama's expressed hope today in his weekly address "that we can avoid the political posturing and ideological brinksmanship that has bogged down this (Supreme Court nomination) process, and Congress, in the past" runs against another historical first for the 44th president: his unique role in history as the first US President to have ever voted to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee.

While it looks likely that Sotomayor won't get filibustered by Republicans, it shows his propensity to be a bit two-faced or sanctimonious. This dubious distinction might get Obama some ribbing from Republicans for being for Supreme Court filibusters before he was against it.

The Goracle Compares Global Warming Skeptics to Bernie Madoff, Has He Looked in a Mirror Lately?

The Goracle had some strong words of rebuke for those who would dare to challenge the prophecy of the Goracle of Global Warming:

Former VP Al Gore compared scientists who question global warming with indicted stock swindler Bernie Madoff Friday, arguing that they are all guilty of perpetuating a fraud.

During testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the VP turned environmental advocate got into a brief verbal tussle with global warming skeptic Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) who questioned Gore’s statistics about carbon emissions.

“It is important to look at sources of science you rely on,” Gore told Barton. “With all due respect, I believe you have relied on people you have trusted who have given you bad information. I don’t blame the investors who trusted Bernie Madoff but he gave them bad information.”

Many believe that Al Gore could be the "Bernie Madoff" of the Global Warming racket. They say that he's misleading people in order to sell books and get speaking engagements. Some wonder if he believes what he preaches. He talks about everyone minimizing their carbon footprint, but he travels the world in private jets, and uses an obsessive amount of electricity according to reports. On Earth Hour, his lights were on while the other environmentalists preached turning ALL electricity off for the entire hour.

There is a lot of money to be made converting this country into a green economy. As I said earlier today, the shorter the timetable the more costly the conversion will be.

They are banking on people's fear of armageddon. They preach doom and gloom, and tell stories of the earth turning into an oven in order to scare people. Out of fear, they will then accept the high costs in order to save themselves from literally baking in the sun.

I'm not saying that he is intentionally misleading the public for his own personal gain, but there is evidence that suggests just that. I definitely have my doubts and suspicions.

Pot Calls Kettle Black: Waxman Scolds Gingrich For Using Cap-&-Trade "Scare Tactics"

On Friday, Newt said that the climate bill is trying to push through will "punish the American people" by creating higher energy costs and threatening jobs.

"This bill is an energy tax," Gingrich said. "An energy tax punishes senior citizens, it punishes rural Americans, if you use electricity it punishes you. This bill will increase your cost of living and may kill your job."

Henry Waxman chastises Newt Gingrich for trying to "scare" people into rejecting the massive cap and trade tax.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee that is writing the bill, shot back that Gingrich was resorting to "the old scare tactics" designed to undermine any congressional effort to address the problem.

"When American people hear the statements (Gingrich) have made today, they get scared, which I think is exactly what is intended," a visibly angry Waxman told Gingrich, a potential presidential contender in 2012 and a leading voice of the GOP.

Henry Waxman needs to practice what he preaches. When Waxman talks about minimizing the release of greenhouse gases, he, along with the Goracle, constantly warning that if we don't pass this bill quickly, we "irreversible" harm will come to the world. Gore has implied before that the global "warming" will "bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on the Earth -- and this is within this century, if we don't change."

No, scare tactics there. Chicken Little was subtle compared to the Goracle.

While Waxman is a bit more subtle with his predictions, the underlying meaning is the same.

"The EPA announcement confirms what science has told us - global warming pollution poses a grave threat to the nation's public health and welfare.

"Grave threat"? He is trying to scare people into accepting the huge new energy taxes so that he can force companies to drastically change and emit less gases.

However, drastic, immediate change is always very costly. It can be two to three times more expensive than if they took a little more time to gradually change. In this economic climate, the massive extra costs it would take to comply would devastate most businesses.

Global warming isn't even a proven fact. Even though, they pretend that it is. Many scientists doubt or don't believe that climate change exists. Recent evidence shows that global cooling not warming is happening. Should we be mortgaging our future for a unproven theory?

Updated: Watching this video update, I noticed how obvious it is that Waxman is scared to let Gingrich talk. He won't let Newt get in a word in edgewise. Why?

NSA Under Obama: Exceeds Warrentless Tap Limit

WASHINGTON - The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews.

The Bush administration was constantly vilified by the Democrats and especially Obama for "tearing up the Constitution" for his use of wiretaps to look for terrorists and terrorist activity. Obama even made the campaign promise of "no warrantless wiretaps, if you elect me" back in the primaries.

The recent “'overcollection' of domestic communications of Americans" under the Obama administration oversteps the cap that Congress put on the executive branch when the previous administration asked for the permission to do said wiretaps.

What happened to the policy of no warrantless taps? Is it another case of the "do as I say and not as I do" party not doing what they expect everyone else to do. You know, kinda like pay their taxes.

According to the article, a NSA official said that it may have been unintentional. How can it be "unintentional"? Oops, I tapped your phoneline, or oops I hacked into your email and opened it. That doesn't seem very likely. In fact, the more I think about it; the more I think that it's a moronic statement.

All Attorney General Holder wants to do is make sure that "new safeguards were put in place". Again, not much change from the "change" administration.

After Napalitano's warning to beware of anyone pro-life, ex-military, pro-2nd amendment, or strict on illegal immigration, maybe the "change" meant who he would be eavesdropping on.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30238492/
-------------------------------------------------------------------

UNC Protestors Needs to Learn From JFK's Quote

This is a follow up on the quote of the day from earlier.

Dozens of protestors turned out to oppose a speech given by a former Colorado congressman, who was on campus to speak against illegal immigration.

Tancredo didn't make it through his talk. In fact, he left campus early after protesters interrupted his speech and broke a window.

Protesters who weren't allowed into the room where the speech was being given gathered outside the door and chanted, "There's no debate, no space for hate."

This is just one example of those opposing the liberal ideology being silenced from expressing their views.

Those who went to hear him speak were clearly upset. "Obviously there wasn't a point," one attendee said. "He wasn't going to be allowed to speak."

There usually isn't an actual point that the protesters have. Many times this is because they have no real justification or ability to back up their beliefs, so they just drown out the conservative voices by speaking louder and engaging in meaningless violence.

Tancredo said it best:

"There is no freedom of speech on hundreds of university campuses today for people who dare to dissent from the radical political agenda of the socialist left and the open borders agitators."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6761633 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Global Alarmist Extraordinaire Al Gore Doesn't Participate In Earth Hour-200th Post

Report: Gore’s Lights Left on for Media-Hyped 'Earth Hour'
By Jeff Poor
March 29, 2009 - 17:26 ET

We're nearly 24 hours out of Earth Hour and the media are already proclaiming it a success as Michael Bates pointed out for NewsBusters in a blog post earlier today.

However one prominent global warming alarmist reportedly didn't fully participate in the Earth Hour festivities. According to Drew Johnson, president of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, global warming activist and former Vice President Al Gore left his lights for the hyped Earth Hour.

"I pulled up to Al's house, located in the posh Belle Meade section of Nashville, at 8:48pm - right in the middle of Earth Hour," Johnson wrote and reprinted on the Washington Examiner's blog on March 29. "I found that the main spotlights that usually illuminate his 9,000 square foot mansion were dark, but several of the lights inside the house were on."

The mainstream media gave the actual event plenty of free publicity, as actor Edward Norton, the official U.S. ambassador for Earth Hour, made the media rounds touting the event. Norton went as far as proclaiming the event to be as symbolically important as the Selma march, on two separate occasions - on NBC's March 27 "Today" and CNN's March 25 "Larry King Live."

However, it begs the question that if any of these same media outlets, that have had a love affair with Gore in the past - March 21, 2007 "Today" and May 22, 2007 "Larry King Live" - will pick up on the former vice president's lack of Earth Hour participation.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/03/29/report-gore-s-lights-left-media-hyped-earth-hour
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Does Al Gore even believe what he preaches? It doesn't seem like he does because he thumbs the figurative eye all the time. Whether it be his private jet or his excessive electrical usage, he sounds more like part of the problem than the answer. Like many snooty liberals, he lives by the saying of "Do as I say not as I do".

News Flash: Democrats Wanted Bush to Fail Too

Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail

The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail.

By Bill Sammon
FOXNews.com Wednesday, March 11, 2009

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."

Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"

The press followed Carville's orders, never reporting his or Greenberg's desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party's top strategists, that Bush should fail.

That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic.

"The most influential Republican in the United States today, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, said he did not want President Obama to succeed," Carville railed on CNN recently. "He is the daddy of this Republican Congress."

Limbaugh, a staunch conservative, emphasized that he is rooting for the failure of Obama's liberal policies.

"The difference between Carville and his ilk and me is that I care about what happens to my country," Limbaugh told Fox on Wednesday. "I am not saying what I say for political advantage. I oppose actions, such as Obama's socialist agenda, that hurt my country.

"I deal in principles, not polls," Limbaugh added. "Carville and people like him live and breathe political exploitation. This is all a game to them. It's not a game to me. I am concerned about the well-being and survival of our nation. When has Carville ever advocated anything that would benefit the country at the expense of his party?"

Carville told Politico that focusing on Limbaugh is a deliberate strategy aimed at undermining Republicans.

"The television cameras just can't stay away from him," he said. "Our strategy depends on him keeping talking, and I think we're going to succeed."

Greenberg added: "He's driving the Republican reluctance to deal with Obama, which Americans want."

In 2006, 51 percent of Democrats wanted Bush to fail, according to a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/11/carville-wanted-bush-fail/
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Understandably, the press had other things on their mind on 9/11/01, but what Carville said shows is that liberals are just as likely as conservatives to wish that their oppenents' policies would fail, not the country.

The real problem here is why does the liberal media fails to remember this comment and many others that wished Bush to fail not just in his overall policies but also in Iraq where American men and women were putting their lives endanger for this country. For example, Sen. Harry Reid declared the Iraq War lost before it was over. They didn't care if W's failure in Iraq meant many more deaths in the sands of the cradle of civilization. They just want Bush to fail in everything he did or wanted to do.