Posts Tagged ‘ idiocy ’

Obama believes he can’t be wrong

By Herman Cain

President Obama says very strange things, especially for a guy who presumably wants very badly to be re-elected. As if it wasn’t enough that he last week went off on small business owners for having pride in their accomplishments, this week he actually told a rally audience in reference to the economy – with a straight face – “We tried our plan, and it worked.”

It almost seems gratuitous to start citing all the numbers that obliterate this claim – the 8.2 percent unemployment, the anemic 1.5 percent GDP growth this past quarter, the soaring federal deficit that will top $1 trillion yet again this year. It’s like when the head coach of a 1-15 NFL team tries to make the case that his team is really good. Why sit there and debate him? You just nod your head and think to yourself, “Whatever you say, Coach.” Continue reading


Obama Flunked High School Civics

Bret Baier spars with the an Muhammed Ali-like President Obama

I’ve asked it before and I’m asking it again, why is it that anytime someone says, “let me be perfectly clear,” they proceed to be anything but. In the above interview, Obama reminded me of Muhammad Ali as he verbally danced like a butterfly around questions and attempted to sting like a bee by excoriating Baier for interrupting his long-winded attempts not to answer the questions.

The most amazing moment came, though, when the President flatly admitted that he doesn’t care how Congress passes the health bill as long as they do.  President Obama told Bret Baier of Fox News, “I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or Senate.  What I can tell you is that the vote that’s taken in the House will be a vote for health care reform.  And if people vote yes, whatever form that takes, that is going to be a vote for health care reform.  And I don’t think we should pretend otherwise.” In the parlance of the web, WTF?!  So what is he saying?  I believe he’s saying, it doesn’t matter how they pass it, as long as I get to use that new pen I bought for the signing. He sounds to me like someone who didn’t pay attention in civics class.

Slaughter House Rules

When I first heard talk of the so-called “Slaughter Solution” I scoffed.  Really?  Even Nancy Pelosi knows you cannot subvert the Constitution.  Certainly, the President would refuse to sign an illegally passed law.  I could not image any Administration openly supporting the passage of a law that had not been properly voted upon.  The House and Senate bills are not the same bill.  The Senate rewrote and substantially changed the House bill.  According to tradition and my understanding of the Constitution the house must vote upon the Senate version of the bill.

As I listened to the debate I was heavily impacted by the Republican references to Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.  It was so obvious this tactic was unconstitutional.  However, I notice the quoted text was always abbreviated (as indicated by ellipses.)  The researcher I am, I decided to reread the Constitution.  Wouldn’t it be ignorant to based my opinion on an excerpt?  But hey, most Americans base their opinions on far less – ask any liberal and they tell you what they “feel” is right.

The Constitution Assumes Democracy

Unfortunately, this is where I piss off my conservative friends, but please keep reading, then research it and convince me I’m wrong or that there is a better Article upon which to base a Constitutional challenge.

Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

This article appears to be talking primarily about overriding a Presidential veto.  I reread the entire Constitution excluding amendments to find any clear language regarding bills where the Senate substantially changes a House bill.  Clearly, over time Congress has established a long history of messing with bills and reconciling the versions into a new bill which is then passed by both houses.  But such procedures are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution.  It seems the details of how to originate a bill and pass a bill is largely left up to Congress.  When it says, “Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States,” it does not even mention their having voted on that bill.

Scary omission as we have always assumed they vote.  Today, we have Congress run by ideologues, who comb through the Constitution looking for loopholes and what they can get away with.  I believe the founding fathers took it for granted that common sense would rule Congressional procedure. They assumed any bill presented to the President was the same bill voted for by both houses of Congress, but the fact is, they forgot to spell it out for the idiots of the future. Oops.

The good news may be that the long-standing tradition of both houses voting on the same bill may sway the Supreme Court to nullify the health care law.  The bad news is that Article I, Section 5 reads, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings…” and this will likely be the basis for Pelosi’s defense.

If Republicans were in the majority and the Slaughter Solution were even discussed, the press would be circling like sharks, insinuation dictatorship, ect.  It might have even been nicknamed the “Final Solution.” Instead today we see editorials and sycophants in the MSM defending it and claiming it’s commonly done.  To that I must exclaim, BULLSHIT.

This is an affront to American political tradition, democracy, and freedom.  If we let them get away with this, there will be no bound to how far they will go the next time!

The Idiot quote of the Year

Comes from Nancy Pelosi.

“We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it”

Idiots at Queens College

It isn’t enough to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome but the academic morons on the Left keep trying to brainwash all the malleable mushy-heads they can reach.  Queens College not only invited a radical Muslim, but an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.  Then they defend the decision not by refuting his accused criminal actions, but by calling those who complained racists and xenophobes.

Perhaps the most outrageous item in this story, at least to me, is the title of the cleric’s speech, “How Islam Perfected Thanksgiving.” Upon reading it, I could not help but to think of the Star Trek character, Chekov.  A running gag in the original 1960s TV series was Chekov’s insistence that everything of value was either originally Russian or perfected by Russians.  It appears a similar level of audacious narcissism exists or is emerging in Islam.  If not in Islam, certainly in its groveling academic admirers.

An excellent essay on this appeared yesterday on Redstate. I am reprinting it with a link to the original.

Radical Islam Finds Voice In New York College

by James Richardson

Siraj Wahhaj, a radical Muslim cleric who authorities in 1995 identified an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was last week invited to Queens College to speak on the subject “How Islam Perfected Thanksgiving.”

Wahhaj testified in 1996 for convicted terror plotter Omar Abdel Rahman, who was charged with attempting to bomb New York’s Lincoln Tunnel and the United Nations. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was recently assailed–justifiably so, considering the imam’s history and inflammatory rhetoric–in the press for inviting Wahhaj to an event with local Muslim religious leaders to discuss the Ft. Hood tragedy.

Despite Wahhaj’s altogether sordid and troubling past, the imam was invited with open arms to campus of Queens College by the Muslim Student Association (MSA), whose members just days before attended a College Republican film screening event of an anti-radical Muslim film and reportedly laughed and muttered “good” as beheading footage of American businessmen and the collapse of the World Trade Centers aired.

At a debate following the film, one MSA member said, “If I had enough money I would be part of the jihad army, I would kill all the Jews,” according to one College Republican present. Another spoke of getting a “bomb.”

Following the events of the debate and the invitation to Wahhaj, the Queens College chapter of College Republicans demanded the school’s administrators defund the MSA on the grounds the group espoused radical, anti-American ideology. School officials defended the organization, telling reporters it was a matter of constitutionally-protected free speech.

The MSA “definitely should not be funded by the taxpayers,” Queens College Republicans Vice President Ryan James Girdusky told the New York Post.

But despite the school’s protestations, the Queens College Muslim Student Association has a history of associating with extremist elements of the Muslim community. One of the group’s most committed members, Adis Medunjanin, was last month arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation with Najibullah Zazi in New York City as a prime suspect in a terror investigation called “one of the most serious terrorist threats to our country since Sept. 11, 2001” by Attorney General Eric Holder.

Medunjanin, a respected member of the Queens College MSA, was a common fixture in the group’s prayer room, “where he came to worship two or three times a week,” according to the New York Times.

But the most alarming aspect of this is the College Democrats’ conspicuous silence on the matter. Wahhaj’s record of destructive and divisive rhetoric is such that, in an ideal world, both parties would be compelled–out of simple respect for the victims of September, 11th, if by nothing else–to condemn the imam’s radical brand of Islam and the group who so willingly extended an invitation.

Of course, we don’t live in an ideal world.

College Democrats’ are complicit in Wahhaj’s troubling anti-American rhetoric by failing to condemn his presence and ideology, a particularly tone-deaf position as disconcerted New Yorkers cope with the Obama Administration’s reckless decision to award enemy military combatants civilian trails in their back yard.

While school administrators’ insistence that the MSA is a run-of-the-mill student organization may be the politically expedient thing to do, it’s certainly not the right thing to do.

Mao’s Pals? Or Did I miss the point?

Mao Tse-tung (Zedong)

Mao Tse-tung (Zedong)

When I was growing up he was called Mao Tse-tung (毛澤東).  He was not a warm and fuzzy philosopher.  He was not known as a champion of democracy, nor for his respect for human life.  One of my better friends is a few years old than I and he was born and raised in Shanghai under the thumb of the man now referred to as Mao Zedong.  My friend is not known for fondly quoting heart-warming or cute Mao quotes.  No, in fact he recalls Mao as Satan incarnate, a man who had his entire nation gripped in fear.  He remembers people afraid of conversing for fear that it might be incriminating.  The slightest suspicious move could prove life-threatening.

Mao was the First Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party.  But prior to that he was the skillful military leader that overthrew China’s Chiang Kai-shek in 1949.  The odds were overwhelming but the mostly rural communists gained control of the world’s most populous nation.

Communism gains its power by promising the lowly people greater power, less poverty, and freedom from oppressing overlords.  The pull can be irresistible when the ruling party shows little willingness, compassion, or power to bring justice to the masses.  However after every communist revolution, the victory for the peasant-class is short-lived.  Lenin, Castro, Pol Pot, Robert Mugabe, and Mao quickly switched from freedom-fighter to persecutor.  In each case rivers of blood followed the revolution.

What made Mao even more hideously evil from his ideological mentor, Lenin, was that the killing did not end.  It ebbed and flowed until 1965 when Mao launched his Cultural Revolution.  Most Americans have no idea the terror and widespread killing that occurred between 1965 and 1969.  It all resulted from Mao’s paranoia and his fear that the country had slipped back into the values of capitalism.  Thus he encouraged the youth to condemn anyone.  They targeted “landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements, rightists, traitors, foreign agents, capitalist roaders and—the Stinking Ninth—intellectuals.  In the fight against ‘class enemies’ and ‘bourgeois reactionaries,’ teachers, people with a college degree or relatives overseas, workers, and members of minority groups such as Tibetans, were all targeted.”

Being too intelligent was a guaranteed way to find oneself tortured and dead.  By the way, this is not unique to Mao, intelligent people can reason, they can see deception, inconsistencies, hypocrisies, and challenge them.  By their very nature, intelligent people make the worst enemies and thus must be crushed for Communism to succeed.  We saw it in the USSR under both Lenin and Stalin, saw it in Cambodia’s killing fields under Pol Pot, we saw it in Zimbabwe under Mugabe, and Castro lined people up before firing squads by the thousands.

The toture technique called: Jet-Plane

The torture technique called: Jet-Plane

Mao was openly proud of the torture and death surrounding him.  He hated his father passionately and during the Cultural Revolution he commented, “My father was bad. If he were alive today, he should be ‘jet-planed.” (Jet-plane is a torture method where the victim is forced to hold the uncomfortable position (shown right) for hours usually more than 10.)

My point is that Mao was not the kind of guy you look up to.  Quoting Mao is really very much like quoting Stalin or that other guy liberal like to compare Bush to.  What was his name?  Oh yeah Hitler.  Although you could quote one of these yahoos without affiliating yourself with them.  It’s how you do it.  So where am I going?

Glenn Beck v Anita Dunn

Last night I listened to Glenn Beck go on and on about White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn.  But before I go into that indulge me for another aside.  Since his inauguration, President Obama has been obsessed with Beck and Beck with him.  Each calls the other a liar on a daily basis.  The administration has even blocked official access to FoxNews largely because of Beck.  I decided to begin watching Beck because of Obama’s cry-baby whining about Beck.  My initial reaction to Beck was to hang on his every word, but watching him now for nine months I’m beginning to see Beck as a bit of a whiner himself.

Oh don’t get me wrong, when you check his facts, Beck is right or on the right track most of the time.  When I check Obama’s facts, I find him wrong or misleading most of the time.  Of the two Beck is the more reliable, but Beck drains me with his high caliber emotion and repetition.  As a media professional, I call on Fox to shorten Beck’s show to 30 minutes.  Lately I can’t stand more than 15 minutes.  As for Obama, he needs to grow a pair, buck up, realize he’s the President with the power to lead.  If Beck is smearing him then he should honestly refute him with the facts, his perception of the facts, or ignore him.  There has never been a more petty, paranoid President, with the possible exception of Nixon.  But my Nixon comparison is still in the research phase.

Anita Dunn quotes her favorite philosopher.  Or was it just irony?

Enough digression!  So I watched as many replays of Anita Dunn as I could stomach before deleting the show from my DVR.  In fact, while writing this I watched it once more.  Anita Dunn did indeed make a terrible judgment error when quoting Mao.  But was the quote supporting a communist agenda?  Was she quoting political philosophy from Mao’s Little Red Book? No, she was making a point about staying focused on your own agenda and not becoming side-tracked by the critics.  In my estimation her biggest error is also Beck’s point, she said Mao was her favorite philosopher.  Can you image the response from The Daily Kos or CBS had a Bush official made a similar comment? Or worse quoted Hitler?

Excuses, excuses

Just today Matt Gertz on Media Matters made the case that Karl Rove was encouraged to read a biography on Mao by W the President.  In the same piece he points out that a Barry Goldwater adviser once used the Mao quote, “Give me just two or three men in a village and I will take the village.”  To both points I respond, SO WHAT. In fact had Anita Dunn simply quoted Mao without honoring him as her “favorite political philosopher” Glenn would have looked like a fool.  I know, you libs want to call him a fool anyway, but check his facts.  He’s no fool.

That said, I feel Beck made far too much of Dunn’s comments.  However, he latched onto these remarks because there is a clear pattern of Communist admirers in this administration.  It is amazing and alarming.  Acceptance and admiration for communists has traditionally been a political shot to the head in America, but now we are overwhelmed by it.  Just 11 months ago we were being called alarmist and kooks for even bringing up Obama’s quote, “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students; the foreign students; the Chicanos; the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”  Then during a town hall-style debate Obama asked, “Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself.”

Beck has taken that challenge to heart.  Meanwhile most of America seems to have forgotten that request and the mainstream media is pretending the President never said it while loudly chanting, “LALALALALALA” whenever an administration official comes out praising a Communist despot.

CNN reports Dunns response to Becks attack. Click to read.

CNN reports Dunn's response to Beck's attack. Click to read.

Today, Anita Dunn responded to Beck’s attack claiming her remark was “irony.”  She based this assertion on the claim that “neither were political philosophers.”  Ah, sorry Ms. Dunn, Mao was a political philosopher.  Ever hear of The Little Red Book? I think you have.

Rewatch the Beck clip.  She’s not the best public speaker.  Her speaking pattern is highly distracting and the constant lip smacking makes me uncomfortable.  But stripping away my distractions, I still sense no smirking tell or gesture that would suggest she is being ironic.  Her defense is weak at best.  I think Ms. Dunn should have rewatched her comments as many times as Beck showed them.  Her excuse might have had more credibility if she would have directed us to the point at which she said, “…the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point…

The perfect out was built into her speech.  She could have put the remark in context and brushed it aside as being overly dramatic in using a quote, apart from the context of Mao, to make a point.  A point. Instead she mounted an elementary school defense.  She raised her arm, stretched out a chubby finger, and pointing at Lee Atwater she said, “he said it too!”  Well, ok, she didn’t do exactly that.  Rather, she told CNN, “The Mao quote is one I picked up from the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater from something I read in the late 1980s, so I hope I don’t get my progressive friends mad at me.”

Minds closed so tight only a progressive would call them “open”

Again, SO WHAT. Did Atwater say Mao was his favorite political philosopher?  In the end there is nothing wrong with reading Mao or any other person’s works.  There is really nothing wrong with quoting one of them if you qualify it and use the quote to specifically make a point.  In The Godfather there is a line, “Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.” (No, it’s unlikely from Sun Tzu.) But here is what hit me from her defensive comments, she is apologizing to the left for having read Atwater.  Not for knowing a Mao quote but for reading the writings of a conservative.

What does this tell you about the “open-minds” on the left?  Quoting Mao mass-murderer of tens of millions while attributing him as one of your favorites, perfectly fine.  Reading the conservative writings of a successful political adversary, something shameful.  Sounds like “progressives” have their brains squeezed so tightly between their butt-cheeks they can’t accept any ideas that might come from anywhere else.  And that my friend is why she’ll never call Beck and confront him like an adult.

Define tax, please

George is all grown up now.  Ten years ago he was defending a President who tried to redefine the word “is,” today he challenges another dictionary challenged President.

President Obama was interviewed by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos earlier today.  The topic was health care, of course.  It is never clear when Obama speaks on this topic whether he is supporting the House Bill, HR3200 or Baucus’s Senate Bill, “Affordable Health Choices Act”.  No doubt that is by design.  It keeps the opposition confused.

This is just amazing, folks.  The question was simple, he promised no new taxes to fund health care but now seems poised to impose a massive new tax to fund health care.  Obama attempts to redefine “tax” by telling us increases in health care costs are effectively taxes.  No, Mr. President, private companies cannot impose taxes, only the government can do that.  The President then compares mandatory Auto Insurance to mandatory health care insurance.  The comparison really ends at the word “insurance.”  Auto Insurance protects victims from another party who is at fault.  You are required to buy auto insurance not to be protected but to protect others. In the case of health insurance the government would force us to buy insurance for our own protection.  This makes less sense to me.  But of course the government doesn’t really care about protecting those who can afford insurance, they want to give free insurance to those who will repay them at the polls.

Then the President says something incredible.  After telling us rising private health insurance costs are tax increases and then telling us government mandated auto insurance coverage is not a tax, he says, “But George you can’t just make up that language and decide that’s called a tax increase.”  Excuse me, but isn’t that what Barack just did?  But Stephanopoulos doesn’t just roll over and agree.  That in itself is impressive coming from ABC (Another Barack Channel.)   He puts the heat on the President, even going so far as to define the word, “tax” for the President.  “Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary.  Tax, a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes,” George was still talking when the President laughed and then scoffed at the dictionary.

With an arrogant wave of his hand, Obama replied, “George the fact that you’ve looked up Merriam’s dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now.  Otherwise you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.”  (It seems to me when discussing anything with someone so skilled at twisting words the dictionary might be a very valuable tool.)

President Obama wants us to believe researching an issue is stretching.  Now I understand why none of these people in Washington bothers to read the bills they vote on and impose on the rest of us.  If they bothered to read the bills, they’d be stretching.   We wouldn’t want that would we?  After all ignorance is bliss.

This impacts me personally, the Baucus Bill would increase my insurance premium from $200 a month to 13% of my income. That is one hell of an increase.  Call it a tax or anything else and it is still a massive increase in what I currently pay.  In my case it’s a 500% increase!  Oops I researched that fact.

Let Us NEVER Forget

There is no need to repeat the entire horrific event, yet these few images remind us that terrorism is real.

Today marks the first anniversary of the horrific events of September 11, 2001 since President G. W. Bush left office.  Say what you may, and I am no Bush fanboy, but America has been a safer place since that awful day.  I had planned to commemorate the anniversary by contrasting Obama’s speech today with his reaction in 2001.  However, a small bit of idiocy occurred today and, well, this blog is called An American Idiot.

In recent months we’ve seen more terror attacks from our own government than from hateful foreigners.  Recall the Air Force One-clone attack on New York?  Today, on the anniversary of the largest most dangerous terror attacks in world history, (yes – world,) you would think the government and the military would refrain from public exercises.

However, that was not the case.  In what the Washington Post called, “Keystone Kops on the Potomac,” the U.S. Coast Guard decided to hold exercises that involved simulated gunfire in the vicinity of the President.  This was truly a moment for one to wonder aloud, “what the heck were they thinking.”

Vice Admiral John Currier explains why there was nothing wrong with the decision to hold the training on 9/11

Of the all days to hold training exercises within sight of the public, September 11 is the worst possible day.  This is especially true when such training comes without a public announcement.  (I say this knowing that the Coast Guard holds training exercises on the Potomac about four times a week.)

Now in fairness to the Coast Guard, the furor was triggered by a reporter or other media staff.  Someone who apparently works for CNN overheard Coast Guard radio chatter related to the exercise.  Likely unfamiliar with military exercises and interpreting what they heard out of context, the listener concluded something “big” was going on – possibily another terror attack on the anniversary of the WTC attack.  CNN defends their decision to run with the story since there was visual corroboration in the form of rapidly moving Coast Guard vessels in the river.

CNN went on to state that not reporting the story would have been “irresponsible.”  I doubt irresponsible is the right word, however, we must remember that the news business is a very competitive business and not being first to report a breaking story is a cardinal sin.  So I don’t fault the news outlets for reporting the story.  The fault lies with the Coast Guard for not having the sense to remember what day is it.

I could fault the person who mistook the verbal words, “bang, bang, bang” for actual live gunfire.  However, Currier admitted someone could have said, “I’ve expended X number of rounds,” over the radio.  Certainly that would trigger the primal REPORT instinct of any reporter.

I know it would have triggered mine.  Think about it, you’re watching Coast Guard vessels dart about like something is going on – while the Presidential motorcade is crossing the river and you are hearing Coast Guard officers talking about a boat “breaching security” and describing rounds fired.  What else could you conclude?

White House Press Secretary Gibbs always finds a way to annoy me.  Today was no different.  In his snotty manner, he admonished the press, “before reporting things, checking would be good.” Like Gibbs would know even if there were a serious attack underway.  I seem to recall he knew nothing about the Air Force One-like plane flying over New York last spring.

My favorite quote from Vice Admiral Currier came when he said, “This is very instructive for us. We’re going to review our own protocols, our own procedures. . . . We may even ask some of you for advice on how we can preclude this type of thing from happening again.” I certainly hope so.  Oh, and you can start with this one, don’t plan exercises on September 11.

Why Is Anyone Listening to Levi Johnston?


Bristol Palin made the mistake of her mother’s life when she decided to sleep with dirtbag Levi Johnston.  After months of digging for dirt and trying to destroy Sarah Palin, liberals finally tapped into a source.  Now they must make him appear credible.

Levi Johnson’s only real claim to fame was impregnating Sarah Palin’s daughter Bristol.  That is his sole asset as he launches his life and tries to find a career.  The 19 year old former high school hockey-jock has stars in his eyes and is trying to “go Hollywood”.  Hollywood loves a bad boy and one who is already known by the public is even better.  So young Levi decides to get noticed.  What better way to get his face in front of the camera than to start talking smack about his one-time would-be mother-in-law.

Let’s face it, Johnston is a jilted boyfriend from a backwoods state, who dreams of breaking out and making a name for himself.  I imagine him sitting in his Alaskan apartment in the glow of the midnight sun sulking about his condition.  Certainly he is quite aware that every liberal in America wants Sarah Palin’s head on a pike, when suddenly he realizes that this very fact could be his ticket out of his one-horse town.  So he makes a contact or two and the next thing ya know his mug is showing up on CNN, MSNBC, the Today show, ect. spouting his “inside information” on Sarah Palin.

BUT, this guy is simply not credible.  However, this is not a concern for the press, they treat him like an expert on the Palin family.  Every 19 year old boy who’s been dumped wants to strike back at his girlfriend.  The big difference here is that Bristol’s Mom happens to be a high profile target.  So he goes for it.  Revenge must feel so sweet.  Now he’s living his 15-minutes of fame with unmasked excitement.

It disgusts me that this kid gets any attention.  But why am I shocked?  Eighteen trumped up ethics charges didn’t work.  Palin’s sudden jump from the governorship has liberals worried; where might she turn up next.  They have to make certain they score a devastating blow before she can do them any harm.  Levi is the perfect patsy, why not exploit him.

%d bloggers like this: