Moonbat attack #1: Palin’s son Trig isn’t really hers, it’s her daughter’s son.
Moonbat Argument: Palin didn’t look that pregnant until late into her pregnancy. Therefore she was never pregnant. Her daughter looks kinda chubby around the middle, therefore, she was pregnant secretly and it was her kid.
The Reality: Palin didn’t want people to know she was pregnant for as long as possible. Why? First of all, many of Palin’s critics seize on that fact that she’s a mother and attempt to argue that she can’t take care of her children and do her job at the same time. By revealing her secret pregnancy in her seventh month after having worked for those seven months, she proved them wrong. Second, pregnancy does unflattering things to a woman’s body. It is only natural for a woman to want to hide or downplay these changes. There is nothing “scandalous” about a woman wanting to look her best.
The pictures used to “demonstrate” Palin’s non-pregnant appearance only further support the fact that she was pregnant. For example:
As I said before, many women will attempt to hide or downplay their state of pregnancy. The most popular tactic is to wear large bulky coats. (And, being in Alaska, this would not seem out of place) Do you see anything like that in this picture? If you look at the bottom of the coat, it becomes extremely apparent that it is far out in front of her body. Add to this that she is leaning forward slightly, causing the coat’s own weight to pull it in this direction. She doesn’t look like a non-pregnant lady, she looks like a pregnant lady trying to hide it.
Here is another picture used to “demonstrate” Palin’s non-pregnant appearance:
For starters, her mid-section isn’t even all that visible in this picture. She’s also wearing almost all black - the choice color of those wanting to hide undesirable curves - and sitting down behind a table with a very dark shade. This makes her figure, which is already mostly hidden, very indiscernible. As usual, she looks more like a woman trying to hide a pregnancy than one without.
Now, these pictures are from the period in which she was trying to hide her pregnancy. What about after she decided she could hide it no more?
And another picture of pregnant Palin:
Naturally, the moonbats claim that her apparent bulge after a certain date can be explained by pillows under the jacket and padding of her mammary glands. I will concede that this is possible, although unlikely and fairly absurd. However, this provides no explanation for her very bloated cheeks and face, which are common amongst women rapidly approaching their due date.
So, essentially the moonbats are claiming that Palin suddenly decided she wanted to pretend to be pregnant 7 months into her daughter’s supposed pregnancy, despite her daughter having hidden the fact from the start, then stuffed herself with pillows all day long while magically puffing up more noticeable features (like her face) in a very short period of time. Not only that but the moonbats seem to think it impossible for a woman to hide her pregnancy, but nevertheless argue that that’s precisely what Palin’s daughter did, for a full 8 months.
Further factor in the fact that young women, like her 16 year old daughter, are several times less likely to have a baby with down’s syndrome (the baby has down’s syndrome) than women who are say, 44 years old like Palin. In addition, there is the fact that dozens of doctors and medical staff examined her unborn baby in the months leading up to her official announcement. It’s hard to argue with ultrasound. In order for this conspiracy to be true, huge numbers of professionals would’ve had to have been in on it. Just from that angle alone, it is extremely improbable.
In conclusion, this story is completely without merit. In fact, it’s so ridiculous, that even a decent portion of the KosKids reject it. For example, Rapcetera writes:
Please let the professionals deal with this. It seems like we are looking for a reason, any reason, to tear this woman down. This has the potential to backfire on us. Leave her and her 4 month old baby/grand-baby alone.
DKos needs to rise above this….
This leaves only one loose end. Why are the moonbats so scared of Palin? I can’t read minds, but if I had to guess, I’d say it has something to do with this:
Palin is a woman who can be a mother and do an important job both at the same time. And she’s really good at both. It seems for some on the left, that is a terrifying prospect.
(Continued in part 2. If you know of any other moonbat attacks on Palin, please email them to me at Fred_s36 (at) Yahoo (dot) com and I’ll evaluate them.)
With the rise of Palin, I’d say it’s now official, the GOP has become the party of equality.
There are two kinds of feminism: Pro-equality feminism and pro-female, anti-male feminism.
Pro-equality feminism used to be considered the Liberal position. But, over the past 3 decades, starting at about the time of Reagan, pro-equality feminism has gradually grown within the conservative movement, all the while shrinking amongst its leftwing counterparts. Anti-equality feminism, basically a very small group of women who blame men for everything and see women as nothing more than victims, have become distinctly rooted in the Democratic party, forming an unholy alliance with the misogynistic forces present there.
This change is actually quite natural. Liberalism is supposed to be the creation of new good ideas and, at one point created the idea of equality. Conservatism is supposed to be the gathering of good ideas and holding onto them, and I’d say equality is a good idea if there ever was one.
I’ve gotten to study this trend firsthand. Over the past decade, conservative pro-equality college groups and organizations of all kinds have been springing up, steadily gaining influence. The pick of Palin is the culmination of this trend and an announcement of its arrival to the public.
So, to my Liberal friends, you and I may have many disagreements, but this isn’t one of them. As a conservative, I used to proudly proclaim I held the liberal position on equality when it was considered to be such. Now that equality is essentially the conservative position, I know you’ll do the same.
I want my daughters to have all the same opportunities as my son. Viva equality.
God clearly has a sense of humor. Palin, though a governor with an impressive record, is fairly inexperienced for a VP slot. Though she is far, far and away more accomplished than Obama, the Obamatons seem to think attacking her on her experience is a good idea. If they should follow through on this approach, this is what will happen:
1. A debate over experience will give the electorate the impression that experience is important.
2. Naturally, they will look at the experience of Obama and McCain.
3. McCain wins.
By attacking Palin’s limited experience, they only highlight their own candidate’s incredible inadequacy further. Indeed, given that inexperience is the only real argument they have against Palin, the Obama campaign appears to snared in a trap. McCain has routed the Obama campaign brilliantly.
We teach our daughters that they can be anything they want to be. That, if they work hard, they will see the fruits of their labor. The treatment of Hillary by the media, the DNC and the Obama campaign, however, completely undercuts that message. We can tell them they can be anything, but when they see a competent woman being brushed aside like old linens for someone significantly less qualified to fill a position – and very publicly as in the case of Hillary – it becomes a lot harder a message to deliver.
But today, when McCain picked Palin, he reaffirmed that message: Daughters of America, you CAN be anything you want to be.
Palin is a tireless reformer, uprooting corruption wherever she finds it, even in her own party. She’s brilliant on energy policy as her track record in Alaska shows. She’s a very hard worker who forgoes luxuries to save the taxpayers money. When she became governor, she was offered a private jet. She refused and instead gave the money back to the people. And, perhaps the main reason she was picked by McCain, is she possesses a strong independent MAVERICK spirit, like McCain. There were other qualified people, including other women, but ultimately, I believe it was Palin’s indomitable spirit that won McCain’s vote.
McCain is clearly not a man afraid of successful, powerful women. Just look at Cindy.
McCain sent a message today when he picked Palin, someone with impressive executive, energy and reform accomplishments, someone who has worked incredibly hard for her constituents, and that message was well received.
I wasn’t that enthusiastic about McCain before, but I am today. Next time I talk to my daughters, and I tell them they can be anything, they’ll know I’m telling the truth.
Our economy is the largest, most complex and fundamentally fragmented in the world. Do you want someone, who, despite having a huge steady salary for years, has managed to mismanage funds so badly that his debt may actually outweigh his total net worth running our economy? Because if Obama becomes president, and then something bad happens to him, that’s what we might get. (Though Obama himself would be pretty bad too.)
His name is Joseph Biden and according to OpenSecrets.org, his average estimated net worth is about $-12,491. Biden has been in the Senate for 35 years. His salary is $183,500 a year. How in the world does he mismanage it so badly?
More importantly, do we really want someone that incompetent with simple numbers within such proximity of the wheel that turns our economy?
I know, it’s seems too hilarious to be true, but it is.
According to several Democrat political consultants presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama spent part of his Hawaiian vacation working on weaning himself from a heavy dependence on teleprompters. Even in what are staged as “town hall” events for Obama, remarks are scripted or formatted into bullet points that scroll on teleprompter screens. Obama has had several embarrassing events where the teleprompter either malfunctioned or the screens were not fully visible.
In case you were wondering, this is what it looks like when the teleprompter malfunctions:
Now, can you imagine Obama trying to learn how to speak without a teleprompter? What does he do, stand in front of a mirror and “uh” for ten minutes? I can see why his campaign neglected to mention this, it’s embarrassing.
This story makes me sad. I don’t want Obama to be president, but killing is not the answer. Not by a long shot.
In fact, I would argue that Obama being assassinated would be a very, very, terrible thing for America. Here’s why:
1. One in four American presidents are shot at, and nearly all recent ones (including Bush) have had attempts on their life. It’s not much safer to run for president for that matter. However, many of Obama’s believers think he is in some unique sort of danger at the hands of an invisible army of neo-nazi rednecks. If Obama were assassinated, it would only confirm their paranoias.
2. Violence should ONLY be used when there is no other option to prevent more violence. We have many other options for stopping Obama from ruining this country which do not include violence, even if he becomes president. There is never a good reason to kill a democratically elected leader in a free society.
3. Race relations. Obama has done a great deal of damage to race relations in America with his continuous playing of the race card. However, the assassination of the first perceived black American presidential nominee of a major party would be far worse.
4. Because any decent human being should realize that murder is not just immoral but also irrational. If Obama were assassinated, it would make our side, those against his poisonous politics, seem no better than he and his supporters.
If anyone reading this has had thoughts of the murderous nature, don’t do it. Hatred is irrational and so is murder. That we do not entertain such things is what separates us from them.
(Edit: The list is in no particular order of importance.)
I’m a political researcher. Instead of doing focus groups, I like to immerse myself in the people I’m studying. So, when it was time for me to do studies on Obama Supporters for the GOP, I went to Obama Supporter rallies, barbecues, get-togethers, you-name-its, etc. When I finished with my research at any one venue, I’d often find ways of entertaining myself at the expense of the Obama Supporters. Ideally, I aim to acheive the most looks of mixed horror/confusion on the faces of Obama Supporters as possible. This is a list of my top six favorites.
(Note: To try anything on this list, you will need to pretend to be a mindless drooling idiot (See: Obama Supporters) Thus, a certain degree of acting ability may be required.)
6. Use the word “hope” or “change” or some combination of the two at least 7 times in each sentence you utter. Example: “Hopefully, Hope and Change will change the hope of an Obama failure to Obama winning interhopeably changed.” Maintain the most serious expression possible and adopt a subtle intellectual droll.
5. Show up wearing old torn-up clothes. Tell them you represent the Obama support group, “Homeless for change”. Then, repeatedly demand change, preferably quarters, in a hoarse voice.
4. Print out a copy of this and ask them which part they belong to. Wholeheartedly and enthusiastically proclaim yourself to be a Yeswecan. Maintain that the author is being complimentary of Obama Supporters and argue if told otherwise. Make sure your eyes contain a glazed expression when you do to maximise the effect.
3. Outdo everyone with crazy conspiracy theories to explain Obama’s shortcomings. For example: When Obama failed miserably at the Saddleback, his supporters claimed that McCain had heard the whole exchange, which allowed him to answer so well. One-up them by claiming that Rove built a machine to stop time so that thousands of Republican researchers could analyze the questions and develop perfect answers while McCain memorized them while time was stopped. Then they hired aliens go back in time to replace Obama’s brain with a cabbage so he’d look like a fool while speaking without a teleprompter. Gradually increase your breathing as you tell each story while developing a twitch in the middle. Do your best to keep a straight face.
2. Enthusiastically argue for an Obama/Wright ticket.
1. Regardless of what is brought up in the meeting/discussion, denounce it as a “distraction” that “doesn’t help your children” and demand to discuss the “real issues”.
Obama won’t go away even if John McCain wins by a wide margin. He will run for president again and again. And even if he is roundly thumped every time, it still won’t mean the Democratic Party will return to the people. Obama represents a depraved far-left mindset that isn’t going away on it’s own. And there will be more like him. Obama is only the beginning.
However, Hillary Democrats can fix this. Let me explain how.
There are three types of Democrats – each making up about a third of the party. First, there’s the far left (See: Obama Supporters), there’s the centrist-left, (See: Hillary supporters), and last, there’s the casual Democrats.
The far-left cannot be reasoned with. They will support Obama no matter what.
The other two portions of the party, however, can be approached by reason and outnumber the far-left substantially. If the two groups were to rebuke the far-left, they could re-establish themselves as the majority wing of the party.
While it is important to elect McCain, thus blocking Obama from getting into office, this will not in and of itself return the Democratic party to its rightful owners. To demonstrate a rejection of Obama and the far-left poison he represents will require a low turnout from from Democrat voters. Then, the current corrupt Democratic leadership needs to be associated with Obama as much as possible to consolidate the rejection. Lastly, in individual local-election primaries, Democrats must elect new leadership for the party.
To make all of this happen, Hillary Democrats need to follow the following steps:
1. First, convince the 50% of Hillary supporters who plan to vote for Obama to not vote for Obama. Just tell them about the real Obama. They can write-in Hillary, stay home, vote McCain, whatever – just not for Obama. Many of them don’t want to anyways but feel pressured because they are Democrats or have been tricked into thinking McCain is the bogeyman.
(It should be noted that a lot of Hillary supporters are already doing this.)
2. Find those casual Democrats, the ones that are just now tuning in to election news, and let them know about the REAL Obama. They are your neighbors, coworkers, distant cousins, etc. that never talk politics but still care. Find them, and talk to them. Friends don’t let friends vote Obama.
(I’m not a Democrat, but I’ve done this myself with a few casual Democrats. Casual Democrats are generally poorly informed but very open minded and reasonable.)
3. On election day, do anything but vote for Obama. Yea, I know, that’s kind of a given.
4. After election day, start challenging the Democratic leadership. Throw the bums out one by one. Having just squandered some of the best political landscape ever with a terrible candidate is great ammunition to unite the mainstream of the party against them.
5. in 2012, let’s have an election between two GREAT candidates for a change.
In the Democratic party, let’s see some change we can all believe in!