You may remember, folks, that last year, the University of Maryland and the extremely leftist “Center for Public Integrity” commissioned a rigged poll which claimed that 66% of Americans supported cutting defense spending to the tune of $100 bn per year. Anti-defense groups such as the misnamed, Soros-funded “Project on Government Oversight”, and anti-defense writers such as Micah Zenko falsely claimed on that basis that most Americans support deep defense spending cuts, including sequestration.

There were, however, other polls saying something completely different, including one by the National Journal and one commissioned by the Foreign Policy Initiative.

Then, earlier this year, Pew conducted a poll showing that 73% of Americans oppose any cuts to defense spending (and similar percentages oppose cutting anything else).

And most recently, Gallup has released a poll showing that 36% of Americans believe the US spends the right amount of money on defense and another 26% think the US, if anything, isn’t spending enough – so in total, 62% of Americans oppose cutting defense. According to Gallup, only 35% of Americans think the US spends too much.

Moreover, the “don’t cut defense spending” view is held even more widely among the Independent and Republican electorates. 73% of Indies and 78% of Republicans share this pro-defense view, believing the US spends the right amount or an insufficient one.

Only among the Democrats does a majority think the US spends too much – and even among them, it’s barely a majority (51%). See here for details.

Gallup’s poll’s results mean that there is NO popular demand for defense cuts today, unlike the Vietnam War years and the late 1980s. All of that despite over 40 years of uncessant anti-defense leftist propaganda (particularly intense in the last 5 years). Gallup tells us that:

• “In the late 1960s and early 1970s as the United States was fighting the Vietnam War, Americans’ dominant view was that the U.S. was spending too much on defense.
• In 1981, just after Ronald Reagan took office after making concerns about U.S. military strength in light of the Iranian hostage situation and the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan a major theme of his presidential campaign, Americans shifted to the view that too little was spent on defense.
• As the Reagan administration built up military spending in the 1980s, Americans again came to believe the U.S. was spending too much in this area.
• Near the end of the Clinton administration, as the government made an effort to reduce military spending and George W. Bush’s presidential campaign questioned U.S. military strength, an increasing number of Americans said the United States was spending too little on defense.
• In the first several years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which included U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, Americans most commonly said defense spending was “about right.”
• Over the last five years, Americans have alternated in their views between believing the U.S. spends too much and believing it spends the right amount on defense, including this year, when roughly equal percentages of Americans hold each view.”

But what Gallup doesn’t tell us is that, in addition to the 36% of Americans who think the level of defense spending is “about right”, another 26% think the US isn’t spending enough, meaning that 62% of Americans – almost two-thirds of the society – oppose defense cuts.

This debunks yet another myth being spread by the left. Not only is defense spending NOT bloated, not only would deep cuts to it severely weaken the military (as sequestration is already beginning to do), not only would such cuts utterly fail to meaningfully reduce the budget deficit or attract new voters to the GOP, but also they are very unpopular: the vast majority of Americans OPPOSE them. There is NO popular demand for such policy, unlike the Vietnam War years – the time of the “guns vs butter” debates – and the late 1980s.

Not only that, but in contrast to the Vietnam War years and the 1970s, the US military is now held by the majority of the public, including 54% of young Americans, in very high regard.

George W. Bush: I’m retired from politics – happily so, I might add, but not from public service. We’ll use our influence to help more children start life with a quality education, to help more Americans find jobs and economic opportunity. To help more countries overcome poverty, and disease. To help more people in every part of the world live in freedom. We’ll work to empower women around the world to transform their countries. Stand behind the courageous men and women, who have stepped forward to wear the uniform of the United States, to defend our flag, and our freedoms here at home. Ultimately the success of a nation depends on the character of its citizens. Mr. President, I had the privilege to see that character up close. I saw it in the first responders who charged up the stairs, into the flames, to save people’s lives from burning towers. I saw it in a Virginia Tech professor who barricaded his classroom door with his body, until his students escaped to safety. I saw it in the people of New Orleans, who made homemade boats to rescue their neighbors from the floods. I saw it in our service members, who laid down their lives to keep our nation safe, and to make other nations free. Franklin D. Roosevelt once described the dedication of a library as an act of faith. I dedicate this library with an unshakeable faith in the future of our country. It was the honor of a lifetime to lead a country as brave and as noble as the United States. Whatever challenges come before us, I will always believe our nation’s best days lie ahead.

As far as motives to attack the U.S., there is at least one theory about why Chechen separatists might consider that a viable option. Since a terrorist attack in 2004 at a school in Beslan, North Ossetia where over 380 were killed, Russia and the U.S. have a common enemy – Islamic terrorists. Some Chechens were involved in that attack.

But Chechnya primarily remains in opposition with Russia – a battle that has been waged for at least 200 years. Russian President Vladimir Putin is not known for having a “soft touch” with anyone that disagrees with him, and the Chechens are no exception. Anna Politkovskaya – a journalist in Moscow – built a reputation for being critical of Putin for human rights violations in Chechnya. She was murdered on October 7, 2006. Trials (and re-trials) against her accused killers should be starting soon. That likely doesn’t change the opinion of some Russians and Chechens alike that have thought Russian leaders aren’t displeased with the fact that Politkovskaya was killed.

As for terrorism rooted in the Chechnya region, apparently the violence has increased in the past year. The entire North Caucasus region is affected by these activities, the most recent in Ingushetia. Whether or not this unrest has spilled over to U.S. soil remains to be seen. However, it does place a statement made by Mitt Romney during the presidential campaign in perspective.

Voice of America (CC)

In the case of the Benghazi scandal, it is a little of each. Now, anyone that believes that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was the result of protest against an anti-Islam film is either delusional, or has been living under a rock for the past couple weeks. In the interest of being thorough, if anyone lost track, they can consult the timeline here. As for the Congressional Hearings, if nothing else, it can be called a “who’s who of the administration that will be thrown under the bus, if they haven’t been already.” Obviously, the lowest on the totem pole are likely to take the worst. But, as we saw in the Vice Presidential debate, someone obviously forgot to get Joe Biden on board with the administration’s official story on the matter. His statement that he didn’t know the Consulate needed more security came off as though the administration as a whole was unaware. The current message is (maybe?) that Biden and Obama didn’t know, implying some sort of disconnect between the Oval Office and the State Department.

Well, maybe that’s more than just implied, since it’s obvious that there is now a rift between Clinton(s) and Obama. That begs the question why Obama would now trust Bill to hit the campaign trail on his behalf – but, who wants to warn him that could blow up in his face? No one? Figured that.

Otherwise, in the endless effort to blame anyone but themselves, the Obama administration is at least attempting to stick with the “evil Republicans cut the State Department budget, so we couldn’t afford more forces there” argument. They shouldn’t expect that to work very well for two reasons. First, it doesn’t fly when one considers the “greening of Europe” initiative pointed out by Congressman Mike Kelly. As was pointed out in the hearings, obviously the State Department has their priorities a little out of order, since they’re spending huge sums of money on electric cars in Europe, while neglecting to provide needed security personnel in the Middle East and North Africa. But apparently the State Department can afford to send an attorney to babysit Congressman Jason Chaffetz on his trip to Libya to investigate the situation. Perhaps that was why Congress cut the budget in the first place? Second, there’s the problem with communication on National Security matters in the White House. We’ve been told for ages now that Obama rarely bothers with National Security briefings. Now, apparently he’s also not interested in hearing requests for increased security at Embassies. That is a rather odd decision under the circumstances, but who are we to question his choices.

And none of this could possibly be connected to the general state of denial within this administration when it comes to terrorism. We are no longer at war with terrorism. Osama bin Laden is dead. That fixed everything. There couldn’t be an increased threat from al Qaeda. The message is clear – the State Department is right to avoid calling those that attacked the Benghazi Consulate terrorists. And there wasn’t any real danger in Libya, so it was right to scale back security there. Stephanie Cutter is right – it is all Mitt Romney’s fault, and he’s politicizing the situation. Don’t believe her? Just ask Alec Baldwin.

Move along folks, nothing to see here!

DonkeyHotey (CC)

Just a year later, Barack Obama comes on the national scene, at that year’s DNC convention. Of course this charismatic man was being groomed to run for the presidency. Everyone knew it, just as we can easily predict the rising stars in the GOP today. But how did Obama get there, and more importantly, how did he get into the White House? We all looked at Bush’s pedigree, and the left immediately leaped on any perceived deficiencies they could, leaving a huge market for Moore’s books on the topic. But, that was just a couple years into Bush’s first term. Only now are the Republicans starting to really delve into the past of the elusive Obama. Hopefully, it’s not “too little, too late.”

Instead of Moore, there’s Richard Miniter, and his book, Leading from Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him. I humbly suggest that it was no coincidence that the phrase “leading from behind” was used more than once on the floor of the RNC convention, by no less than Condi Rice, for one. This book suggests that there isn’t just one Rove in the background pulling strings in the current administration, but no less than three. That is, if you are only going to count the women.

In turns, Obama was (and still is) influenced highly by certain women in his life. That list includes Michelle Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Valerie Jarrett. While both Michelle and Pelosi obviously have some sway in Obama’s world all the time, admittedly Pelosi’s real time of influence was during the debates and passage of the Healthcare Reform Act. No one is likely to forget her infamous “we’ve got to pass it to know what’s in it” plea, and Miniter actually contends that we should be referring to that legislation as “Pelosi-Care,” not Obamacare, to give credit where it is actually due. As for the current debacle with the platform, it’s highly unlikely that either Michelle or Pelosi would have suggested such a thing as removing reference to God and Jerusalem.

So, that leaves Hillary Clinton and Valerie Jarrett to consider. Sure, it’s possible that both of these women had a hand in this, for different reasons. While all the Dems have been making hay about Bill Clinton’s speech at the convention, I’ve been quietly considering Romney’s response to it. It really wasn’t a very good speech for Obama. If nothing else, Bill Clinton is good at smiling while delivering an obscure insult. It could be argued that is precisely what that speech was. Does anyone really think that Bill forgot about Reagan’s inheritance from Carter, and what he did with it? If you do, you must be a Democrat. So yes, there is a strong argument for Hillary suggesting, or at least supporting, the removal of the reference to God and Jerusalem in the Democratic Platform. Or you could buy into Alan Dershowitz’s contention that it’s the result of “rogue elements”. Not very convincing, however, it is interesting to consider Dershowitz’s opinion on Hamas.

And that leaves Valerie Jarrett. She is arguably the one that conservatives should be calling “Obama’s Brain.” And just who is she, really? To hear it from the Obama’s, she’s a very old friend. Considering they met sometime in the 1990′s, it does make one wonder what it takes to become an “old friend.” Otherwise, Jarrett resides in Rove’s old office, and some might even say that she has greater access to and influence on Obama than Rove ever did with Bush. And, by all accounts, Jarrett is a radical left-wing political player, and probably the biggest proponent of secularism in the current administration. Miniter’s book does cover the history of Jarrett and the Obama’s such as can be gleaned from the few that are willing to talk about her. Of course, it’s not likely anyone will get many statements on her going forward, and certainly not from anyone like Robert Gibbs, who she probably caused to end up outside the White House.

So, my bet is on Valerie Jarrett being the culprit, and there is no way it was a typo. And, like many other mistakes in this administration, there never was any intention for there to be a real vote on the issue on the floor of the convention. The fact that the delegates actually spoke their minds had to be highly annoying to Obama. After all, the only deity he wants to see people worshiping is him, right?

Former President Bill Clinton returned to bask in the national spotlight, giving the Democratic National Convention nomination speech for the current White House occupant.

Not surprising for a speech coming from someone impeached for perjury by Congress, the speech, while delivered with Slick Willie’s signature “I feel your pain” polish, was riddled with falsehoods.

While it would be instructive to do a point by point rebuttal to Clinton’s lie filled rambling, few people have the time to invest in listening to one of Slick Willie’s exercises in verbosity, much less reading a rebuttal of the entire rendering.  Hence only selected portions are to be found herein.

The lies began with: “We think ‘we’re all in this together’ is a better philosophy than ‘you’re on your own.’”

That statement is a straw man argument, pure and simple.

Conservative Americans point to America’s long history of family, community, church and private charities, not government, successfully tending to the needs described in the phrase “we’re all in this together”.  Only those with the “progressive” collectivist mindset believe relying on the private sector for solutions equates to “you’re on your own.”

Clinton then stooped to a not so subliminal ad hominem attack on Conservative Americans: “It turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics, because discrimination, poverty and ignorance restrict growth, while investments in education, infrastructure and scientific and technological research increase it, creating more good jobs and new wealth for all of us.”

In one sentence, he elevates “progressives” to the “morally right” position while lowering Conservative Americans to the level of being ignorant, discriminatory, and in favor of poverty.  Not only is this smear factually unsubstantiated, it is carefully phrased to tug at the heartstrings of “progressive” followers.

What the sentence also misrepresents is that in reality, more Washington spending on education has only reaped diminished results.  Infrastructure spending has created precious few jobs.  Scientific and technological research has been far most productive and successful when done in the private sector economy.  Just ask Silicon Valley, where private capital and the private sector free market, not government, created new wealth.

He then attacked Congressional Republicans with: “When times are tough, constant conflict may be good politics but in the real world, cooperation works better. After all, nobody’s right all the time, and a broken clock is right twice a day. All of us are destined to live our lives between those two extremes. Unfortunately, the faction that now dominates the Republican Party doesn’t see it that way. They think government is the enemy, and compromise is weakness.”

The “faction that now dominates the Republican Party” does not view government as the enemy.  They view government that promotes government dependency by being too large, too expansive, too expensive, too controlling, too overreaching and too intrusive into the private lives of free American Citizens as the enemy.  They do not see compromise as weakness.  What they understand is that “progressives” are incapable of and uninterested in compromise.  The “faction that now dominates the Republican Party” understands that bargaining with those whose negotiating position begins and ends with “what’s mine is mine and what’s your is ours” is a fool’s errand.

Clinton then returns to a “progressive” staple, the straw man: “In Tampa, the Republican argument against the President’s re-election was pretty simple: we left him a total mess, he hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in.”

This attack employs the long term “progressive” strategy of repeating the lie that Republican policies created the economic crisis of 2008.

The Glass-Steagall Act had stringently separated commercial banking from investment banking.  Its repeal contributed to the 2008 credit crisis by allowing mortgage back securities to be traded in the investment commodities market.  The “progressive” left loves to blame the repeal of Glass-Steagall on Republicans.   Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the 1999 law that repealed Glass-Steagall, passed in the Senate by a vote of 90-8.  Thirty eight Democrats, including Joe Biden, voted for the final bill.  Bill Clinton signed the bill into law.

Clinton actively favored reductions in housing market standards by government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  He can also be blamed for encouraging bad loans to be made and promoting regulations that incentivized banks to make risky loans to unqualified home buyers through expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act.

The facts show that the 2008 economic crisis was a product of “progressive” social engineering in the American housing market.  The constant repetition by “progressive” politicians that it was caused by failed Republican policies is a flat out lie.

Being able to lie convincingly has always been Bill Clinton’s special gift.  He was in typical Clintonesque Academy Award winning form during his DNC speech.

The story continues: “The Recovery Act saved and created millions of jobs and cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people. In the last 29 months the economy has produced about 4.5 million private sector jobs. But last year, the Republicans blocked the President’s jobs plan costing the economy more than a million new jobs. So here’s another jobs score: President Obama plus 4.5 million, Congressional Republicans zero.”

The pork filled stimulus bill “saved jobs” in fiscally irresponsible states and communities that without a taxpayer funded bailout could no longer sustain the costs of government sector union pensions, benefits and other wasteful government spending.  It did not create private sector jobs.  Of the alleged “4.5 million private sector jobs” that have been created “in the last 29 months”, most are low paying jobs.  The Survey of Consumer Finances found that median wealth for American families has plunged by 39 percent.  Those same families have experienced an average median loss of $4,000 in income.

The Republicans who “blocked the President’s jobs plan”,  a plan that failed in the Senate by a vote of 50 to 49, included Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jon Tester of Montana, who also did not support the measure.  The facts show that it was the loss of those two Democratic votes that doomed the plan.

Those tax cuts “for 95 percent of the American people” were cuts in the payroll tax, which funds Social Security.  For purely partisan political gain, those cuts created the illusion that workers were getting a real tax cut while defunding the Social Security trust fund depended upon by retiring Baby Boomers.

Clinton saved his most egregious lies for Medicare: “Both Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan attacked the President for allegedly robbing Medicare of 716 billion dollars. Here’s what really happened. There were no cuts to benefits. None. What the President did was save money by cutting unwarranted subsidies to providers and insurance companies that weren’t making people any healthier. He used the saving to close the donut hole in the Medicare drug program, and to add eight years to the life of the Medicare Trust Fund. It’s now solvent until 2024. So President Obama and the Democrats didn’t weaken Medicare, they strengthened it.”

The truth is, obama”care”, a gigantic tax increase on all Americans, that for partisan political reasons remains hidden from voters by the institutionalized “progressive” left, robs $716 billion from Medicare to help pay for obama”care”.  This was necessary because despite all the hidden taxes, “progressives” could not successfully manipulate the numbers to make it appear cost neutral without stealing from Medicare.  The “progressives” then double count that money by saying it is also going to close the donut hole in the Medicare drug program.  Paul Ryan’s plan takes that $716 and puts it in a trust fund that actually will extend the life of Medicare.

Clinton attacks the GOP candidates on a multitude of topics, but the most unbelievable assertion he made in his entire speech is that the current Chief Executive “is still committed to cooperation.”  Barrack Obama has never been committed to cooperation.

On his third day in office, when challenged by a Republican Senator about his plans, replied: “I won.”  He, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid then isolated Republicans from the legislative process by holding their meetings behind closed doors.

Why was it possible for Clinton to stand on the DNC stage and lie about the Republican Congress doing nothing?  Because Harry Reid continues the lock out process, preventing a plethora of jobs and economic recovery bills passed by the Republican House from even being debated, much less voted on in the “progressive” Democrat controlled Senate.

If Americans believe in an all-powerful, manipulative, micro-managing, centrally planned big government run by liars, whose negotiating stance is “what’s mine is mine and what’s your is ours” they will vote to re-elect “progressives”.  In that case, they will be co-signing America’s death sentence.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/bubba-clinton-is-still-the-slickest-liar-progressives-have/

Note: You may reprint this cartoon provided you link back to this source. To see more Legal Insurrection Branco cartoons, click here.

Charles Krauthammer on Special Report with Bret Baier

“I think it was a giant swing and a miss,” Krauthammer said to Bret Baier yesterday evening. “I don’t think it will move the needle whatsoever.”

“It was engaging, it was humorous, in some cases it was generous – I think there were more mentions of the Bush’s than I heard in three days in Tampa,” Krauthammer added. “It was also vintage Clinton in that it was sprawling, undisciplined, and truly self-indulgent.”

Later in the interview, Krauthammer added that Clinton’s DNC speech was “one of the strangest nomination speeches ever given.”

“It was kind of amalgam between the state of the union address, a policy wonk seminar and what sounded to me like a campaign speech for a third Clinton term – Obama was sort of incidental, he would be shoved in every once in a while,” Krauthammer said.

It is true that he made a lot of detailed rebuttals, that he is sort of the rebuttler-in-chief, but Paul Ryan can handle all of that in 10 minutes in his debate,” Krauthammer concluded.

Follow Chris On Twitter

10 a.m.-2 p.m.: Caucus Session 1. Women’s Caucus (Ballroom ABC).

2 p.m.-4 p.m.: Caucus Session 3. Rural Council (Room 203AB).

11:35 a.m.: First lady Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden will speak at the Women’s Caucus Meeting.

11:45 a.m.: International Leaders Forum: Madeleine Albright; Michele Flournoy; Jack Lew, White House chief of staff.

12 p.m.-2 p.m.: Caucus Session 2. LGBT Caucus (Room 203AB). Senior Council (Room 211AB/212AB).

12:10 p.m.: Dr. Jill Biden will speak at the LGBT Caucus meeting.

1 p.m.-3 p.m.: The Rev. Al Sharpton and the National Action Network will host the nation’s prominent black clergy and civil rights leaders at NAN’s ministers’ luncheon to declare a state of emergency over voter suppression. Participants: the Rev. Al Sharpton, president of NAN and MSNBC host; Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus; the Rev. Dr. W. Franklyn Richardson, chairman of the Conference of National Black Churches; the Rev. Freddie Haynes, senior pastor of Friendship-West Baptist Church; Roslyn Brock, chairwoman of the NAACP; John Kee, gospel singer.

2 p.m.-4 p.m.: “Electoral Dysfunction” screening — After discovering that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to vote, political humorist CBS correspondent Mo Rocca sets out on a road trip to see how voting works — and doesn’t work — in America.

8 p.m.: Web-only convention special hosted by actor Kal Penn that will include interviews with campaign officials and guests, including Marc Anthony, Elizabeth Banks, Aisha Tyler, Olivia Wilde, Fran Drescher, Zach Braff and Alexis Bledel.

The 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina

x-ray delta one (CC)

Finally, the campaign manager asked what he should have, “What does that mean?”

“There is no such thing as Superman.”

The campaign manager didn’t get what I said, and flew off on a tirade about what had gone wrong with the campaign. He blamed himself, the voters, and me, in turns, looking for a scapegoat to blame for the failure. I sat there, and calmly watched him go through those contortions, drinking the champagne, and finishing the cigar. “Stop,” I said. “You’ve blamed everyone except the one that really is at fault.” He shut up, and looked at me quizzically. “I told you from the beginning that your man wasn’t a good candidate. He was a hard-sell, at best, for the office. The campaign failed because the candidate couldn’t be sold to the voters.”

I dropped the mostly empty champagne bottle in the trash, and walked away, because I simply couldn’t listen to anymore. It was yet another true-believer that refused to see a candidate for what he really was. The man was hopelessly flawed, and the only reason I’d even involved myself in the campaign in the first place was that I owed someone a favor. In all honesty, I’d begged to repay that favor any other way, because I didn’t want to be associated with that candidate. I’d managed to keep myself in the background, and when I showed up at the victory party, the only people that recognized me as a member of the campaign staff were the candidate and the campaign manager. As far as I know, it’s remained that way all these years – I still don’t name this one to anyone when listing campaigns I’ve worked.

And it’s appropriate that I use the example of a nameless fool running for office right now. While he’s the extreme, the fact is that every candidate is flawed. There is no Superman. People turning politicians into celebrities feeds a need to put people up on pedestals. But, the result is that eventually the people figure out that those people really don’t deserve that treatment in the first place, and necessarily can’t live up to the high expectations placed on them. Now, I pointed out the flawed nature of a couple politicians, and the fact that another writer was giving them too much credit in the strategy department. That ticked off at least one person, and that made me think about this unnatural desire to treat politicians like demi-gods.

I’m using that term now intentionally, because I actually want to make all those God-fearing, flag-waving patriotic conservatives out there to think twice about how they are acting now. Yes, we need solidarity, but not blindness. Politicians are human beings, and therefore, are imperfect. They make mistakes. Hiding that fact doesn’t help. Deifying current and past conservative politicians does us absolutely no good. Pretending that George W. Bush didn’t overspend during his tenure is a mistake, and the Obama camp is exploiting it daily. Pointing out that Bush screwed up by outing Valerie Plame removes the ability of the left to justify the current leaks that appear to be coming from the White House.

One rule applies in all of this. Every mistake a previous politician makes that is overlooked by adoring voters is increased by someone else later. Nixon was spying on the opposition, and it cost him the White House. Now? It’s commonplace. While it hasn’t happened yet, you can be certain that thanks to Bill Clinton and John Edwards for two, marital infidelity will not be a big problem for future politicians. As long as we don’t call our leaders on their mistakes, and hold them accountable in some way, they will continue to make bigger mistakes than their predecessors. It’s like dealing with toddlers – they keep testing the limits, and keep pushing, no matter what.

There is a fine line between solidarity and blind faith. I have been berated many times for pointing out mistakes made by conservative politicians, and accused of being part of the opposition, or at the very least, a disloyal conservative. The latest was someone saying I was wrong for pointing out that Sarah Palin said something stupid – outrageous, and made-for-TV, but still stupid. She was the one who made the statement, and I didn’t bother to pick on a liberal instead. Ignoring stupidity only encourages more of the same. If we don’t hold politicians accountable, then why are we bothering in the first place?

It is the height of hypocrisy. Conservatives scream that liberals are destroying this nation, and one of the primary reasons why we say this is happening is the fact that liberals do not hold their leaders accountable for their actions. They are failing to call Obama on his mistakes, blindly following him in spite of them. How are we any better if we are doing the same with our leaders? Again, “nicht so etwas wie Übermenschen.”