Sarah Palin Gets Angry When Called Out To Speak Beyond Talking Points

Mediaite.com:

Despite not being among the network personalities Fox News suspended due to exploring presidential runs, Sarah Palin hasn’t been heard from much on TV lately. Tonight, she changed that with an O’Reilly Factor appearance. Did she celebrate her return with an explosive stance on a hotly debated topic? If by “hotly debated topic” you mean “entitlement programs” and by “explosive stance” you mean “they must be reformed,” then yes!


O’Reilly agreed that changes must be made, but when he tried to push Palin for specifics on what she’d do, he was met with limited success. She praised Rep. Paul Ryan’s Roadmap for America’s Future as having good ideas on the subject – specifically, it sounded, that Social Security benefits should remain the same for those 55 and older, while creating “personal accounts” for younger enrollees (lest we trust the government more than individuals to plan their futures).


When O’Reilly questioned her on whether poor people would be hurt by Medicare and Medicaid reform, though, he got…jabs at Michael Moore, Hollywood, and Washington. After multiple attempts to turn the conversation back to “the poor people,” he was able to finagle something out of Palin about the need for a “safety net” (coupled with her chiding the federal government for not letting Alaska tap further into its natural resources).

I've noticed this several times with Palin, esp. when she's on The O'Reilly Factor: when asked to go beyond her standard points she gets pissed. We saw it first with Katie Couric (granted The Perky One is an overrated and overpaid smug, liberal elitist, but still how hard can it be to respond to someone questioning you on what you read?) and you see it a lot with O'Reilly, who challenges her every time she comes on there which in turn often flusters Palin.

So what does she do when made to feel uncomfortable? Resort to a mood of crabbiness, condensation and oftentimes a defensive attack mode when repeatedly asked questions she should be more prepared for if you're going to be on the national stage (much less, a possible candidate for President). All this isn't to say Palin's stupid (far from it), but when it comes to smarts she's no Ann Coulter either. Really now if a little bit of constructive criticism is something that Palin can't handle, don't make it to be about your gender (as she's done before) when it really just might have to do with your own elitist attitude (or what Chris Christie said) displayed when challenged to go beyond your talking points.

Megyn Kelly And Anthony Weiner Engage In Shouting Match Over Clarence Thomas

I swear Anthony Weiner reminds me that kid who got picked last in pickup games growing up so he gets revenge by taking the ball away and running home with it so then no one can play:

Today Megyn Kelly welcomed Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner back to her show, and fans of their last heated exchange who were hoping for some more fireworks between the two were not at all disappointed. Weiner adamantly believed that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from hearing a case on the constitutionality of healthcare reform due to the financial interests of his wife that give off the appearance of bias. When Kelly began to dispute whether that was legally necessary Weiner began to get agitated.


Weiner frequently appears on Fox News and his detractors might claim he just as frequently ends up yelling to make his point or looking frustrated when not given enough time. Here he questions whether Kelly knows the definition of an “interview” while also discussing the differences between facts and opinion and disputing Fox’s “coverage” of any issue. Kelly humorously asks when is it her turn to speak? By the end of the conversation who even knows what issue they are discussing anymore and who cares, because every Kelly/Weiner confrontation is a memorably exciting event. These two need to take their act on the road!

John Boehner: Obama's Conduct on Marriage Law ‘Outrageous’

Newsmax.com:

House Speaker John Boehner declares that President Barack Obama’s decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court is “outrageous” and vows that Republicans will intervene in the next few days.


Attorney General Eric Holder said last week that the Obama administration will not fight legal challenges to the constitutionality of the DOMA, which has banned federal recognition of same-sex marriage for 15 years.


Appearing on Greta Van Susteren’s Fox News Channel show on Wednesday night, Boehner was asked whether the GOP planned to hire a special counsel to “do the job that the executive branch won’t do.”


The Ohio Republican responded: “DOMA is the law of the land. It was passed overwhelmingly in both the House and the Senate. And I think it is outrageous for the president to say, well, we’re not going to enforce it. It’s the law of the land.


“It is the job of the Justice Department to defend the work of our government. I just think it is outrageous. We are looking at our options, what’s available to us to intervene.


“The long and the short of it is we are going to intervene. The question is how do we do it.”


Van Susteren asked whether Boehner has had any conversations with the president or attorney general about the DOMA. Boehner said simply: “No.”


Van Susteren: “So everyone’s going to find out later this week?”


Boehner: “I’m hopeful we will have an answer in the next couple of days.”

If conservatives don't realize by now how much Barry caters to his leftist base, they never will.

Fox Interviews WI Democratic Rep. Brett Hulsey Who ‘Rescued’ GOP Senator Mobbed By Protesters

Mediaite.com:

In a refreshing demonstration of civility amid reports of mounting frustration, Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Brett Hulsey swooped in to stop a mob of protesters from closing in on Republican State Senator Glenn Grothman, telling those gathered that, while he and Grothman may disagree on political matters, he considers the man a friend.


Both Grothman and Hulsey spoke to Fox News about the incident, saying that, with such pervasive heated rhetoric, young people tend to get carried and behave “rudely.”

You certainly won't read or hear about this from the MSM.

British Grandparents Denied Being Foster Parents Because They Don't Endorse Homosexuality

Let Barry get another shot at selecting a member of SCOTUS and this kind of stuff wil be happening over here any minute now:

Eunice and Owen Johns are a God-fearing Christian couple, married almost 40 years, who offered a secure and loving family home to foster children aged between five and 10. But they are to be denied the opportunity to do so any longer because they are unwilling to promote a homosexual lifestyle to a child. Neither Mr nor Mrs Johns has anything against gay people but they are not in favour of sex before marriage, whatever an individual's orientation. Their views were denounced by Ben Summerskill, of the homosexual pressure group Stonewall, as "old-fashioned". Yet not that long ago they would have been considered mainstream and they are, in any case, the strongly held religious views of the couple.


The reason that they were even asked about their views on homosexuality was because Parliament passed the Sexual Orientation Regulations, making it an offence to discriminate on the grounds that someone is heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. These are the same laws under which Peter and Hazelmary Bull, Christian owners of a guest house, were fined last month for refusing to let a gay couple share a room. But in the case of Mr and Mrs Johns, where is the victim? They were not turning anyone away. Quite the contrary – they were offering a home to children who will otherwise end up in care, and there are precious few people who will. Furthermore, since the children would be aged under 10, matters of sexuality are hardly relevant – or is it being suggested that they should be? Astonishingly, the High Court suggested that it was not so much their Christian faith as the moral certainties of the Johns that were potentially harmful to children.


There is another troubling aspect of this case. Equality laws are supposed to uphold the rights to religious belief. Yet the High Court ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation "should take precedence" over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds. Why has it been left to judges to decide whose rights trump those of others? This should have been decided by Parliament but, yet again, another sloppily drafted measure will have far-reaching consequences for freedom of conscience in this country. Already the Roman Catholic Church has had to close its adoption agencies because they cannot conform to the law. Perhaps there is a historical irony here, because we are witnessing a modern, secular Inquisition – a determined effort to force everyone to accept a new set of orthodoxies or face damnation as social heretics if they refuse. Parliament and the courts should protect people like Mr and Mrs Johns, but have thrown them to the wolves. It is a disgrace.

Bottom line the more gays around the world convince people that they're "born that way" and therefore have no control over who they sleep with (despite evidence to the contrary), the more lamebrain decisions like these will keep popping up.

No, Fox News Did Not Lie With “Wisconsin Palm Tree” Violent Protest Video

Mediaite.com:

The Internet is abuzz this morning with a story that Fox News has “lied” in showing a video of an angry union protester from California while claiming its from Wisconsin. The “Palm Tree lie” (described as such because the tropical trees in the background of the protest video are used as proof of the deception) was the top two stories on Reddit’s Politics board this morning. Even the Drudge Report picked up the story with the commenters bending over backwards to explain the discrepancy. They needn’t have tried so hard. While, in the 43-second clip that’s being linked to on YouTube, it does look like Fox News lied, but watching the entire segment for context makes it clear that they did not.


The segment in question occurred during The O’Reilly Factor as Bill O’Reilly was discussing the anger in the union protests. At the top of the piece, he rolled footage of a number of the “union thug” videos that have become so popular on Right Wing news sites in the past few weeks. O’Reilly clearly identified the videos as collectively coming from “all over the country.” As many shows do, this B-roll footage was replayed again during the rest of the segment, including during an interview with Mike Tobin, Fox News’ reporter who’s been on the ground in Wisconsin. Here’s where the problem occurred. Tobin was discussing Wisconsin (since that where he’s been) while the general footage played in the background. Taken out of context, these few seconds would seem deceptive. But, if you’d already seen the full segment, you’d recognize what the footage was (besides, this same clip has aired on other Fox News programs like Glenn Beck and been identified as coming from California).


Now, as much as O’Reilly wants to talk about how there are a bunch of “pro-union” guys on the network, this segment was clearly anti-union. Why else have a set series of footage showing just the clips of angry protesters pushing people and then get Tobin to talk about how the protesters attacked him? However, filtering a news story through an opinion during a show that is readily identified as an “opinion show” isn’t unethical. You can disagree with the Factor’s slant and how they presented it but, no, the show did not lie.

RELATED: Video: Wisconsin Dem Intervenes To Protect GOP Senator Threatened By Mob

Supreme Court Rules For Anti-gay Church Over Military Funeral Protests

As disrespectful as these people are, emotions stand no chance against the law, that's supposed to be the case anyway:

A Kansas church that attracted nationwide attention for its angry, anti-gay protests at the funerals of U.S. military members has won its appeal at the Supreme Court, an issue testing the competing constitutional rights of free speech and privacy.


The justices, by an 8-1 vote, said Wednesday that members of Westboro Baptist Church had a right to promote what they call a broad-based message on public matters such as wars. The father of a fallen Marine had sued the small church, saying those protests amounted to targeted harassment and an intentional infliction of emotional distress.


"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.


At issue was a delicate test between the privacy rights of grieving families and the free speech rights of demonstrators, however disturbing and provocative their message. Several states have attempted to impose specific limits on when and where the church members can protest.


The church, led by pastor Fred Phelps, believes God is punishing the United States for "the sin of homosexuality" through events including soldiers' deaths. Members have traveled the country shouting at grieving families at funerals and displaying such signs as "Thank God for dead soldiers," "God blew up the troops" and "AIDS cures fags."

Donald Rumsfeld Fires Back At Bob Woodward Over Book Review

USNews.com:

In what’s turning into an epic battle between two of Washington’s major players and authors, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s office today issued a pointed slap-down of Washington Post editor and author Bob Woodward’s point-by-point criticism of Rumsfeld’s book, Known and Unknown, which he dubbed “one big clean-up job, a brazen effort to shift blame to others.”


In a new posting today on Facebook, Keith Urbahn, Rumsfeld’s chief of staff, dismissed Woodward’s charges and raised old questions about how Woodward, when working on a prior book, was able to talk to former CIA Director Bill Casey when he was reported to be nearly comatose at the time. The issue has dogged Woodward, dubbed by his foes like Rush Limbaugh as “Mortuary Bob.”


In the posting, Urbahn slapped the journalist’s style of reporting and suggested that Woodward’s Foreign Policy review was payback for Rumsfeld refusing to cooperate with past Woodward book projects. “The well known story about Bob Woodward is that he practices what is derided as ‘access journalism,’ whereby he favors those who provide him with information and gossip and leak against their colleagues. Those who refuse to play along, such as Donald Rumsfeld, then pay the price,” wrote the Rumsfeld aide. [See photos of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.]


Woodward’s review was harsh, picking passages of Rumsfeld’s book to challenge and criticize. An editor’s note to the review says, “Few people know the ins and outs of the Bush administration as well as the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, who is flat-out disgusted with the evasions and elisions in Donald Rumsfeld’s new book.” After that, Woodward begins with a passage of Rumsfeld’s book then adds, “Rumsfeld’s memoir is one big clean-up job, a brazen effort to shift blame to others--including President Bush--distort history, ignore the record or simply avoid discussing matters that cannot be airbrushed away. It is a travesty, and I think the rewrite job won’t wash.” [See editorial cartoons about the Afghanistan War.]


One thing’s for sure: The Woodward review and Rumsfeld retort reveals a very deep distrust and dislike between the two long-time Washington players.


Here’s Urbahn’s full Facebook posting:


Washington, D.C.—Bob Woodward is invested in what has been a one-sided narrative of events—one that is now being challenged by a firsthand perspective in Known and Unknown and thousands of supporting documents made available on www.rumsfeld.com.


Mr. Woodward has demonstrated a regrettable tendency to put his storyline ahead of the facts. There is most notoriously the supposed deathbed conversation he had with former CIA Director Bill Casey that implicated President Reagan in the Iran-Contra affair and just so conveniently provided the perfect scene for a book Woodward was writing on the CIA—even though Mr. Casey was reported to be nearly comatose at the time and witnesses, including Mr. Casey’s widow, denied Woodward’s account. Woodward has been repeatedly accused of ‘tilting the facts,’ ‘misleading remarks,’ ‘disingenuous statements,’ and placing ‘book sales above journalism.’

Meredith Baxter, Actress Who "Realized" She Was Gay At 60, Continues Hatefest Against Men, Bashes Republicans

Some folks might Meredith Baxter from her role on the popular 80's sitcom "Family Ties". But ever since the show went off the air she hasn't done much acting and pretty much went out-of-sight (much less out-of-mind). But in a desperate bid to become relevant again, at age 60, Baxter announced that she now chooses to sleep with women (this from a 5-times married, recovering alcoholic). Of course, that got Baxter newsworthy again with the MSM and now, just to add a little cream on top with the press as well as her newfound liberal groupies, why not bash an ex-husband (and father of 3 of your kids) as a wife-beater in a new book and go on "The Today Show" and take a side-swipe at Republicans too. Now, she's officially a "star" again:

Actress Meredith Baxter, best known for her role as Elyse Keaton on the '80s NBC hit Family Ties, returned to the Today show set where, back in 2009, she announced she was gay and told Matt Lauer, on Tuesday morning, that her self-revelation could've been something, in her view, much more shocking - she may have realized she was "a Republican."


On to promote Untied, Baxter was asked by Lauer if she had "come to terms with everything" after having written the book, to which she responded: "I realized I was so un-self-examined I could have been a Republican, but you know, thank goodness I'm just gay. So that's much better, don't you think?"

Newt Gingrich Will Announce Presidential Bid By Week’s End

Forget all the partisan rhetoric and crosstalk, the only question any potential GOP candidate needs to ask themselves is 'do they seriously have what it takes to beat Barry in 2012?'. As we learned he came the backstretch to beat Billary, when it comes to playing politics no one does it better than The One. So Gingrich and anyone else who has the guts to take Barry on better realize what they're up against or they'll just go down the same road as Walter Mondale and Bob Dole:

Well this should not really come as a surprise to anyone who has been following the GOP political race closely, but ABC News is reporting that Newt Gingrich will officially announce his intention to form a presidential exploratory committee by week’s end. Gingrich currently operates his own PAC from which he publishes books and promotes his right-of-center agenda. He is also a paid analyst for Fox News, a role he will likely have to quit if in fact he runs for office.


Writing for ABCNews.com, Jonathan Karl reports:


Gingrich spokesman Rick Tyler would only say that the former speaker will make an announcement by the end of the week on forming a presidential exploratory committee. But friends of Gingrich say he has already made up his mind. Gingrich’s travel schedule is already looking like that of a presidential candidate. He will be in Iowa on Mar. 7 and ABC News has learned he will in New Hampshire Mar. 17.


Gingrich’s advisors say his campaign will have a “major presence” in Georgia, which Gingrich represented in Congress for 19 years, though they have not decided yet where his campaign headquarters will be. Gingrich has lived in northern Virginia for years.


He has been preparing and talking openly about a possible run for months.


“2010 was the appetizer. 2012 is the entrée,” Gingrich told an enthusiastic crowd at CPAC earlier this month. He will instantly be a force. He’s tireless, full of ideas and one of the most well-known Republicans in the country. Nearly two decades ago, Gingrich led the last Republican revolution, drafting the “Contract with America” that swept House Republicans into power in 1994.


Gingrich spoke at this years CPAC where he received thunderous applause from the like minded crowd for ridiculing a recent Time magazine cover that compared President Obama to Ronald Reagan, a video of which can be seen below, courtesy of ABC News.

Wisconsin Democrat Gordon Hintz To GOP Colleague: "You Are F***ing Dead"

Remember, according to the liberals and their pals in the lamestream media it's the Right that has created an air of uncivil discord leading to violence in this country. Yes, indeed. Guarantee that the smear merchants over at MSNBC will not be reporting on this incident:

Keep calm and carry on, right? Only if you’re on the right and are a member of the Tea Party movement. Otherwise, there’s a whole other set of rules to play by.


On Monday, Milwaukee AM 620 WTMJ radio host Charlie Sykes detailed an encounter between Democratic State Rep. Gordon Hintz, who had previously been busted in a prostitution sting, and Republican State Rep. Michelle Litjens, in which the rules of civility were completely ignored after a vote to “engross” a state budget repair bill.


“After the vote to engross, he turns to a female conservative Republican, who is also from the Oshkosh area, looks at her and says, ‘You are f—ing dead,’” Sykes said. “He didn’t say ‘f—ing,’ he said the whole thing. He says to a female colleague, ‘You are f—ing dead.’”


According to Sykes, Litjens confirmed the encounter and explained she felt that she had allowed him to “intimidate her.” However, Sykes called on the media to look into the encounter as tensions are high in the state due to a union-collective bargaining showdown in the state government.


“Here’s my challenge: Is anybody in the media going to follow up on this story about Gordon Hintz?” Sykes continued. “All you need to do is call the state representative. Call Michelle Litjens, ask her this question. Call Gordon Hintz, ask him. Call other members and if he denies it, I actually have a list of other legislators who heard it.”

Governor Scott Walker Gives Missing Wisconsin Democrats an Ultimatum

Newsmax.com:

Republican Governor Scott Walker Monday gave absent Democratic lawmakers an ultimatum to return to Wisconsin within 24 hours for a vote on a proposal to reduce the power of public sector unions or the state would miss out on a debt restructuring.


Walker stepped up the pressure on Senate Democrats as he prepared to unveil on Tuesday a two-year state budget that he said cuts $1 billion from funding to local governments and schools.


The 14 Democrats have been absent from Wisconsin since Feb. 17 when they said they were left with no choice but to flee to avoid giving the Senate a quorum need for vote on the union bill. It was approved by the state assembly last week.


What began as one small state trying to rewrite the rules of labor relations has blown up into what could be the biggest confrontation with American labor unions since then President Ronald Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers in 1981.


For the second time since the controversy erupted, President Barack Obama weighed into the debate Monday criticizing the Wisconsin plan without mentioning it by name.


"I don't think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified or their rights are infringed upon," Obama told the nation's governors gathered in Washington.


Wisconsin's Walker immediately issued a response, saying: "I'm sure that President Obama simply misunderstands the issues in Wisconsin."

RELATED: Indiana Democrats Refuse To Return

Politiks As Usual: In The News 2/28/11

Gadhafi Dismisses UN Sanctions, Vows Revenge

Bernard Madoff: Government Is A Ponzi Scheme

Herman Cain Wins Tea Party Presidential Live Straw Poll

House Republicans Approach Shutdown Showdown Week

President Obama Throws Marriage Under The Bus

Celebrities Should Stick To Their Song And Dance

Alveda King: 'The Most Dangerous Place For An African-American Is In The Womb!'

Tax Porn? Not An Effective Deterrent

Media Ignore Muslim Brotherhood Role In Fomenting Anti-Jew Hatred & Pro-Hitler Sentiment

Bozell Column: Not Wrestling Girls

Harry Reid Calls For An End To Legal Prostitution In Nevada

Why We're Getting Robbed At The Oscars This Year

Rahm Emanuel Transition Team Member Resigns Over Ethics Violations

Chicago thuggery, run by Democrats for decades now, continues and to think she even helped Barry get elected:

A top member of Mayor-elect Rahm Emanuel's transition team abruptly resigned after the Tribune inquired about recent findings that she violated state ethics rules by using taxpayer resources for political purposes while serving as executive director of the Illinois Board of Higher Education.


Judy Erwin, a former state lawmaker who also co-chaired Emanuel's mayoral campaign, stepped down from her high-level state job last summer, was fined and promised to never seek a state job after conceding that she conducted political business on state time, according to a newly filed ethics report.


Erwin admitted using her office e-mail and phone while working on a campaign committee for then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, using staff resources to plan her trip to the 2008 Democratic National Convention and engaging in campaign fundraising activity while on the job, the state's Executive Ethics Commission ruled in a decision filed Feb. 16.


The state report went largely unnoticed, however, and Erwin told the Tribune she had not informed Emanuel of the findings before Friday, when the newspaper began its inquiries. She had been named to Emanuel's seven-member transition team just a day earlier.

Ann Coulter: It Would Be A “Step Down” For Sarah Palin To Run For President

Coulter's not being "coy" so much as she knows Palin's too polarizing to have any chance at beating Barry in 2012:

Ann Coulter is being coy about her support for Republicans running in 2012– almost as coy as the would-be candidates themselves. While she’s unequivocal in her support of definitely, totally, absolutely not a candidate New Jersey governor Chris Christie, she told Sean Hannity last night that there is one candidate she really can’t see being a viable presidential candidate: Sarah Palin, because she’s got too much to lose.


Coulter told Hannity that, while she believes Christie is “amazing” and is not as keen on some of the other candidates, “I don’t want to attack Republicans.” Plus, she added, whether they say they’re running or not, “it’s not relevant what they say until August or September.” But she made an exception from the list of likely candidates: “the one I will say in particular because it just seems so crazy for an obvious reason, she noted, “Every time I hear about Sarah Palin running for president.” She declined to say whether she would support Palin for president– “perhaps” was the best Hannity got out of her–but she also couldn’t see it happening. “She is so huge right now,” Coulter argued, “she has so much power. She sends down a Twitter on death panels and she shuts down the health care debate. It would be a step down for her to run.”


So why keep the door open? Coulter speculates, as it has been so widely, that “she’s saying that because Newt [Gingrich] told her the speaking fees go higher.” To this Hannity objects: “Newt is definitely running,” chiding Coulter for “narrowing the field unnecessarily.” To this, Coulter at least added that she could see Mitt Romney running again, and that “he may well be our best candidate,” a slight lilt in her voice indicating she wasn’t exactly ecstatic about that.