Tennessee Rep's Son Suspected Palin Hacker

Wow, another embarrassment for a Tennessee Democrat. David Kernell, son of Mike Kernell, a Democratic state representative from Memphis (in the State House, not the US House), is under investigation for the hacking of Palin's personal Yahoo email account. According to WBIR, on Sunday morning FBI agents served a federal search warrant at the Knoxville UT student residence of David Kernell. Apparently, witnesses say Kernell and his friends, who were having a "party," fled the apartment when the FBI agents arrived.

Terry Frank has posted images from Kernell's facebook pages. She also reports that Kernell is a "self-described 'Obamacrat'." Commenters on her blog also suggest that Kernell is closely related to David Plouffe, a campaign manager for Obama, but it looks like any evidence for that claim has been already erased from the Internet, if it ever really existed. Is it just a rumor or a cover-up? We might never know.

There is also some speculation suggesting that Kernell is also known as "Rubico" on the Internet.

Invasion of Palin's Email Is UnConstitutional

It's just completely sickening to see what horrible things some people do and get away with doing. The hacker(s) who violated Sarah Palin's privacy by invading her email and making them public should be hunted down and prosecuted at the fullest extent of the law.

Speaking of the law, no, I'm not a lawyer or any kind of academic expert about it, but the way I see it one should not have to be in order to understand the basic foundation of all our laws, The US Constitution.

I've been in an argument about why this hacking event does or does not fall under the authority of the Fourth Amendment. Apparently, back in 1984 the Supreme Court, in its excessive vigor to fight the "War On Drugs," decided that the Fourth Amendment only applies to government agencies and not to private citizens. That was the majority opinion, but there were some dissenting opinions too with which I mostly agree. I think that case was an excellent example of when the dissenters were really the more correct ones. Oddly enough, I seem to be in agreement with the Justices who were considered more "liberal." Well, sometimes I think these labels are pretty meaningless when it comes to common sense and careful rationality and concern for privacy and personal rights and freedoms as prescribed by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court does have the final say about what our laws mean, but it is possible for it to come to the wrong conclusions based on their political leanings and the political environment of the time. And it is always possible for new cases to be brought that re-examine old rulings.

In today's political environment, in which individuals have so much more ability through technology to invade and violate the privacy of others, often even more so than 'government agents," it would be a good idea to look again at the Fourth Amendment and how it must apply to individuals and private groups in addition to government agents. There absolutely must be some serious reconsideration about requiring individuals and private groups to respect the right of privacy of others by including them under the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

While it seems like common sense that violating people's "persons, houses, papers, and effects" are already covered by all the laws against trespassing and theft, apparently it looks necessary to in today's culture and situation to make the invasion of personal privacy an even more serious crime, much like so many of the decisions regarding Freedom of Speech and the other First Amendment rights.

Okay, maybe this is an overly simplistic or naive point of view, but sometimes that's what it takes to see through all the obfuscation and overcomplicated mess that other people want to use to defend their wrong ideas. I don't think anyone with a brain could really argue against strengthening our rights to privacy, whether the violators are private citizens or government agents. Without proper privacy and respect for others' privacy there can be no real Freedom of any kind.

White Trash and Proud of It

Canadian columnist, Heather Mallick, has called Sarah Palin's supporters "white trash" and has said Alaska is full of "drunks and crazy people," as well as saying very insulting things about Palin's teenage daughter's boyfriend.

Well, Ms. Mallick, I'm a white trash redneck and proud of it. And I think you and all of your Canadian elitists should be taken out behind the woodshed, or outhouse, ;-) and be whipped with some hickory branches, or maybe even some thorny blackberry branches. What you people just don't have is any respect for anyone who is different from you, and to me, that is much, much worse than being a country bumpkin or redneck.

I'm really shocked at the hatred directed at all of us normal people. But I guess I'm not that shocked about the hypocrisy spouted by so-called feminists and other rabid liberal opinionists.

Now here's this Mary Mitchell who says,

"Sarah Palin makes me sick. I hate that she was able to steal Barack Obama's mojo just by showing up wearing rimless glasses and a skirt."

Well, you know what, Obama makes me sick with all his lies and cheap shots and fake "change" based on what, class conflict and pitting the "haves" against the "have-nots" instead of focusing on the the real source of the trouble which is the very corruption in which he's been so entrenched and well-funded. Call me a racist if it makes you feel better, but it's not the color of his skin that makes me sick. It's his actions and character, or lack thereof. And there is no way you can compare me to that black columnist who hates Palin just because she's a white woman who "stole" Obama's "mojo."

And Wendy Doniger, Professor of the History of Religions, University of Chicago’s Divinity School, goes so far as to say this:

Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.

Wow, now what exactly is the liberal feminist definition a woman? This is insane! I can't believe someone who is supposed to be well-educated could be so stupid. Well, actually, I'm not that surprised because of how many of these types I've encountered in my perusal of some "academic" blogs. Anyway, thirty years ago in the black community Obama wouldn't have been consider a "real" black because of his white mother. Oh, but I'm not allowed to say anything like that because that would make me a racist or something. Oh, God forbid I should even hint at some mildly race-related comment about the liberal Sacred Cow Pig, Obama.

And then there are other snobbish, elitist "academics" who proudly proclaim their hatred for Sarah Palin and try to defend their hatred by diminishing all of Palin's accomplishments by saying that she's just a "token feminist." And also claims that her hatred is justified because she thinks Palin is "rich." Great, that's such a perfect "academic-like" reason for hating anyone. ;-)

And really, all of this proud hatred is just completely stunning and unprecedented. I'm pretty sure that there wasn't even a fraction of this kind of elated hatred spouted so blatantly and cavalierly about black people back in the days when the civil rights movement was just beginning. I mean, wow, I just can't believe it.

You know what I really think, and this is not because of any hatred for anyone, is that all those who are so proud of their intolerance and ill will towards "white trash" or "rednecks" or Sarah Palin who actually does represent a great many normal, average women should be gathered up and whipped to shreds with those thorny blackberry branches until they learn the real meaning and consequences of their hatred.

Call me an evil conservative bitch if you like, but it's about time that those of us who have been so denigrated for so long stood up and said, "Enough, already!"

After all, no one ever said that democracy was supposed to be easy. ;-)

The Vicious Momma has spoken. Amen, go in peace. ;-)

PS In case anyone reads this and is somehow disappointed, please understand that the point of this post is to hold up a mirror and reflect back to all those intolerant haters exactly how ugly their hatred looks. To my liberal friends whom I love and don't want to offend, I know that not all liberals, feminists, etc are so full of hatred as the examples in this post.

Rep. Steve Cohen Worships Obama

The Democratic Congressman representing Tennessee's 9th District which includes Memphis and Shelby County is an embarrassment to our state.

And I have to wonder why it's okay for him to stand up and preach Obama's divinity on the House floor, but so many of the Palin haters think she's the one who wants to blur the separation of church and state (click link for just one example, but you will see several others browsing that forum).

Obama's Broken Promise

What a difference a few months and a lot of desperation can make in a person's character and behavior. The lastest evidence that Obama's slick facade of "change" is crumbling is his comment that putting lipstick on a pig doesn't change it from being a pig. Well, it is an obvious reference to Palin's joke about lipstick on a Pit Bull, and if he thinks that he's fooling anyone then he's sorely mistaken. He just keeps on offending those whose votes he really needs to win. And if you think that it wasn't an intentional insult, then why did he hesitate after, "you can put lipstick on a pig," in order to let the audience "get it" and applaud and laugh? If he's as smart as people think, he'd have known better.

Let's look at a New York Times article from January of this year:

At the start of the campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers had believed that Mr. Obama’s promise of a different kind of politics — free of the sharp elbows and attacks of the past generation — would handcuff him from running an effective campaign. As she leaves New Hampshire, the reverse appears to be true: it is the Clinton campaign that is handcuffed by the aura that surrounds Mr. Obama. Every time either Clinton or one of their surrogates attack Mr. Obama, they stand as reminders of the kind of politics that Mr. Obama has vowed to transcend.

That Obama vowed to transcend. Yeah. I guess we can see that he's really no different from any of the old white guys that he wants to replace. I don't see how his broken promise is any kind of reassurance that he really can be different. I mean really. If you think I am wrong, then please show me some real evidence to the contrary of my conclusion that Obama is just another talking head whose motives and intentions aren't any more pure or benevolent than his opponents'. Change we can believe in, my ass. Obama is getting really close to being put on my list of Pitchforks. ;-)

Update: Okay, now he's completely denying that he meant anything by the lipstick comment, of course. Just more evidence that he just more of the same, or even worse. I really hate to reveal my dark side, but it really tempts me to say something like, 'you can put a suit on a ______, but he's still a ______.' If he was really and truly interested in sticking to the real issues and "transcending" these inflammatory things then his best response would have NOT blamed the McCain campaign for being upset. His best, positive and gentlemanly response would have been to say something like:

Wow, I'm really sorry that some people took my statements wrong and got upset. That was not my intention at all, and I would very much like to get beyond this unfortunate misunderstanding and focus on the real issues...

But no, his response was to accuse them of a "made-up controversy." Yeah, blame the victim. That's an old ploy, just like the old bags who justified their attacks on Sarah Palin's motherhood by the fact that she is a mother. (No, it doesn't make any real sense, but that doesn't stop them.) Oh, yeah, just blow it off as some women being oversensitive or something, like we women have been hearing all our lives when men try to excuse their insulting us. And how many women have had to endure sexual harrassment that is explained by the men as "innocent comments"? Oh, yeah, I keep forgetting that these sensitive rules don't apply to conservative women.

He goes on to say:

What their campaign has done this morning is the same game that has made people sick and tired of politics in this country," Obama said. "They seize on an innocent remark, try to take it out of context, throw up an outrageous ad, because they know that it’s catnip for the media.

You don't fool me, Obama, because you knew exactly what you were doing when you first made the pig comment. I know you, and all of your advisors, can't really be so dumb as to not have anticipated the natural, negative response to your statement. Come on. Wow. Talk about catnip for the media? You baited the McCain campaign with something much worse than catnip. All in order to turn it against them and try to make yourself look like the victim. Blah, blah, blah. Just more of that same old political garbage. And the real truth is that Sarah Palin has been the one suffering through two weeks of "made up controversy".

Really now, how hard would it have been for you to be man enough to just say, "Hey, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding," instead of discounting and disrespecting the real feelings of so many people by telling them their feelings were a "made up controversy"? If you really want to "transcend" the old crap and to represent a positive change, then ACT LIKE IT!

Obama Going Nowhere

I just heard Obama's press conference today and I just have to say a couple of things. First of all, when he was talking about the importance of the "battleground states" in the campaign he said, "Because they're the ones that really count." Wow, he just alienated a whole bunch of people, like most of the country.

On the Bridge to Nowhere issue he said:

When it came to the Bridge to Nowhere she was for it until everybody started raising a fuss about it and she started running for governor and then suddenly she was against it!

Hello? And isn't that what politicians are supposed to do? They are supposed to learn more about things so that they can decide if they are good or not. The way he characterized it as "everybody raising a fuss about it" misrepresents the process of her learning more and changing her mind. It's just a negative way of presenting it. I think Obama thinks people are stupid if he's trying to deceive them in this way. Deciding to stop the Bridge to Nowhere was a direct result of her uncovering the depths of corruption that it involved. To hold it against her that she actually figured out that it was a bad thing is the real stupidity here. Obama, you will have to do better than that if you want to sway the really smart people.

Sarah Palin is a Real Vicious Momma (plus some tax talk)

And that is a good thing, and she is also kind of like my soulmate. About 20% of the last 100 visits (as of this writing begun morning of 9-4) to this blog have been people Googling some variation of "Palin is a hoe." Well, I don't know if she is a hoe or not, but it's not necessary to be a hoe in order to be a vicious momma. ;-)

So, what is a vicious momma exactly anyway? She is a woman who is practical, sensible, strong, smart, wise, tough, and brave. Last night while watching all the big buildup to her speech and people speculating as to how she would rise to the occasion, or not, I told David, "This woman has delivered five babies. She's not afraid of pain and discomfort, and she doesn't see delivering this speech as any harder than having a baby." You see, all that talk about "how can a mother of five handle being Vice President?" is completely missing the point because it really takes a vicious momma to be able to handle very demanding situations. All that talk about motherhood interfering with her job is so backwards that it doesn't faze her. She knows it's just complete silliness. And so do all the mothers of several children out there who are doctors, lawyers, judges, civil servants, managers, business owners, and many other demanding professions. By questioning her ability to handle motherhood and a demanding job at the same time people are insulting all mothers' abilities to handle their lives. No, not all mommas are vicious enough to handle so many demands, but many of us are. And besides, being VP is really a pretty cushy job compared to most.

Last night my 12 year old said, "Momma, she's just like you. And didn't you say a long time ago that you would rather be Vice President than President?" Good boy! He really does listen to me. ;-) While the VP does have to be on the ready to take over in the event that something happens to the President, in general, it isn't quite the same job as President and it certainly comes with many perks that make life easier for a busy mom. Of course, this isn't Palin's reason for running and she'd likely decline some of the perks she found unnecessary, like her Governor's chef in Alaska. Well, I don't think I'd have given that up myself. ;-)

Palin is exactly what I've been wishing for in politics for many years. She's a regular middle class person who has lived a real life outside of politics, and now she's trying to work on behalf of other people like her. As my son pointed out, Palin is exactly what I would be if I were interested in getting into politics. I wouldn't really give two shits about what the elite media (or the academic elites or any other elites) think about me either. She is what our system was meant to produce - citizens who wish to represent and work for their country in some public capacity in addition to their personal and private lives. Our system was not meant to produce a political elite whose only purpose is a career in politics meant to bring them individual power. No wonder the "establishment" is so terrified of this woman, this vicious momma. ;-) She has more courage and dedication than all of Congress put together.

I especially enjoyed her joke about hockey moms being like Pit Bulls in lipstick because I have myself been compared to a Rottweiler, even sans lipstick. ;-)

Okay, I was too busy with my own real life to finish this post yesterday, so now I'll add some thoughts about McCain's speech last night. He's not a great speaker, but so what? Being a great speaker doesn't imply being a great leader. Some of his statements were just rhetoric meant to excite the convention delegates, but much of what he said was very practical and some was very inspiring. What impressed me the most was his concentration on the idea of individuals transcending their worst conditions and losing their selfish concerns for a higher good. He was saying that even when our lives look the bleakest we can still overcome and survive and thrive if we have (some might say "irrational") faith that things will improve and if we fore go our own selfishness we can more effectively work together to survive and improve. It's the same idea as "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." It's a stark contrast to Obama's message of demanding the government do more and more for you instead of making things easier to do for yourself.

Obama and Taxes

While on the subject of Obama, let me briefly explain why his tax proposals would be even more ruinous to our economy. He says that taxes will only increase for people who make over $200,000. Well, let's be realistic. I'm certain that Obama has no idea how very difficult it is for the small businesses of most of our communities to actually make that much profit, so it seems like a punitive measure for extremely hard work instead of an incentive for people to work as hard as possible to build their own financial security. And really, in this day and age, $200,000 isn't that much anyway when you consider that small business owners are risking everything they have in order to be a business owner. Is it fair that this brave risk-taking should be be punished by taking away so much of that hard-earned money? And the honest-to-God truth is that when small businesses' taxes are increased one of the first expenses to be cut in order to pay the taxes is employees. We have one full-time employee and we've already had to tell him that if, along with all the fuel price related increases in expenses, our taxes go up any more, we won't be able to afford to have an employee. This isn't our own isolated situation. Of course, we are going to make sure we can pay for our own mortgage and living expenses before we can spare money to pay someone else. This is just a fact of life, and if someone thinks it's selfish then they are deluded and possibly stupid.

And it is much better when individuals "redistribute the wealth" by hiring people to work for them than it is for the government to seize people's hard-earned money which is then wasted in administrative expenses, etc, before it ever even reaches those who are supposed to benefit. I wish that all the people who think that poor people actually pay any income taxes would do some research to learn that indeed, they generally receive back from the government much more than they ever contribute. So to even say that one is going to "cut taxes on the poor" is a complete unreality.

So what exactly does it mean when we talk about the "American Dream"? Does it mean, as McCain says, that we should be able to work as hard as we want and should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of our hard work while also being able to "share our wealth" through private enterprise and employment? Or does it mean, as Obama says, having a government that will give you what you want even if it comes from the hard work of other people instead of your own efforts? Please, I don't believe that giving the government all that money and power can ever really result in good things, and it truly is against the very foundations of our nation's being to transfer the people's powers to some insatiable beast we call government.

Okay, so let's talk about people who make over $200,000 a year but who aren't small business owners. I didn't mean to sound as if only small business owners deserve to make that much money and keep most of it. I just want to point out that in today's economy $200,000 is at about that minimal point of being able to really and truly gain some financial security beyond just being able to afford to live a basic life. People who earn that much money are the ones who are driving the economy by spending and buying things that other people are paid to make. Obama keeps talking about helping people afford college for their kids while also being able to afford to save for their retirement. Well, let me tell Obama one thing. It's the people who are making $200,000 who are actually going to be able to pay for their kids' college and their retirements without the government's help. How exactly is it going to help them or anyone else to punish their achievements and take away their "wealth" and ability to pay for their own families' needs? It is patently unfair to these people to take away their money and cause them to be unable to pay their own way through life just to spread it out "more equally" and to give such power and control to the government. That is pure socialist communism that has been illustrated to fail in every place that has tried it. If communism was so good and effective then we'd be seeing many, many more communist communities, and even communes, that survive more than a few years, or decades when unreasonable force is used to maintain it.

I have my own tax plan to propose. If we really want to help the poor without destroying the middle class and punishing the rich then we need to redefine who is poor and who is middle class and who is rich. As it is now, the poverty level is very low and only 12.5% of the population qualifies. The median income in the US is in the $50,000 range. Maybe we should increase the poverty level to %50,000 so that all those people would really and truly get tax relief which would undoubtedly help them. But let's also define the "middle class" much more broadly than it is now. According to Obama, the middle class ends at $200,000, but in the real world the middle class should include those who make between $50K and let's say $500K. The "lower middle class" ($50K to $100K) should probably be exempt from income taxes all together because they are living in a range of uncertainty about financial security. Taxes should not cause people to lose their security, regardless of how much they make, but especially for those who are so close to the poverty level.

Why $500K? Well, let's look at some examples. Here is how the head-of-household tax brackets are defined this year:

10% on the income between $0 and $11,450

15% on the income between $11,450 and $43,650; plus $1,145.00

25% on the income between $43,650 and $112,650; plus $5,975.00

28% on the income between $112,650 and $182,400; plus $23,225.00

33% on the income between $182,400 and $357,700; plus $42,755.00

35% on the income over $357,700; plus $100,604.00

As you can see someone who makes $100K has to send a whole quarter of that to Uncle Sam, which makes their actual living income $75,000 (minus also all other types of taxes which aren't insignificant). In today's economy I don't think many people could reasonably argue that $75K is a very high income. And wow, if that person just happens to get a nice raise of about 12.65% then he has to pay 3% more (28% total), reducing his actual income to $81,108 and then he has to pay still another $23,225.00 which makes it %57,883. So how exactly has it helped this guy to work hard and do well when getting that raise actually reduces the amount of money he gets to keep?!?

Now let's look at the top bracket. $400K minus 35% is $260,000 and then you have to subtract another $100,604 making it $159,396. (At $500K the final figure is $224,369 which is still arguably be too much in taxes.) Well, we have pretty much decimated that income so that this family is probably not going to be able to afford saving for college and retirement and maybe not even be able to live comfortably. It's insane! Okay, so some people will say that the taxes are only paid on "taxable income" which is usually lower than the actual income. But I fail to see how that argument really changes the basic unfairness of the tax brackets. Maybe we should just eliminate income taxes until that $500K "taxable income" level and then ask for only 10 or 15 percent of that. I'm not that worried about if that isn't going to amount to enough to cover all the government expenses as they are now because with this restructuring of the taxes there would be much less need for many of the government's expenditures anyway. The government will just to stop being that insatiable beast and go on a diet! By relieving the tax burden on the true middle class we would allow them to be able to get by without so much government "assistance" in paying for college, retirement, healthcare, and so on.

Yeah, this is very simplified, but this is how a vicious momma would look at it practically, efficiently, and realistically. And by the way, I am working on my own plan to "fix" the healthcare issues and I hope to have it ready to share soon. But I hope that I've at least opened some eyes to how things really are in the functioning world and shown how Obama's tax plan is even more flawed than the one we already have.

**Okay, it is very common for me to make big errors when I try to use numbers, so if there are any here please be kind and gently inform me. ;-)

***This is getting pretty long but let me say a few words about corporations and corporate taxes. This is my personal kind of bias, but I am not and have never been a big fan of the corporate business, especially when they grow into some monstrous entity like the government. The point of corporations is to allow people to buy shares in a business so that the risk is spread out and so that the profit is split among the shareholders. I have personally not found that an attractive way to invest money because I don't really like sharing control of my investment with a bunch of other people, but if other people find it attractive then I guess that's fine. However, most large corporations tend to divert most of their profits to paying its board and its directors and other bosses so that the 'average' investor's return on their investment is sharply reduced. I see no reason why such large corporations should be protected from paying income taxes first, and then distributing its remaining profits to the bosses and investors, instead of leaving the income taxes to be paid by the individuals. A corporation is not a person and does not have the same rights and protections that persons should have. It has become completely corrupt when the bosses are paid some outrageous salaries even though the companies they oversee are not actually making so much money. Perhaps my statements aren't exactly legally accurate or whatever, but I think it is morally correct and the "legal" things can always be changed. ;-)

Conservatives Have Big Balls

John McCain has got to have some really big balls, much larger than Obama's, because he has done what Obama was too afraid to do - choose a woman as his VP candidate and face all the consequences with the rabid liberal media.

It's amazing to hear the liberal media and their constituents going into conniption fits over McCain's choice of Palin for his running mate. It's almost hard to believe all the stupid, petty, idiotic crap that they are trying to throw around about Palin. Let's just look at some examples:

1. "She isn't experienced enough."

Please, and Obama is? At least Palin has had real executive experience that has resulted in actual change and progress in her state. All Obama has done is serve as a state Senator for a few years and then the US Senate for a few years, most of which has been spent campaigning for President. How much real change and reform has Obama actually brought about in his time as a Senator? As for foreign relations, I'd say they are just about the same, and that is why Obama chose an old white guy, Biden, as his running mate - to give his ticket some foreign relations credentials. Why is it okay for Obama to pick Biden (especially over Hillary who arguably really earned the VP candidacy) as a ploy to add that to his ticket, while it's not okay for McCain, who has plenty of his own foreign relations experience, to pick Palin who adds an element of "reality" to his ticket (where one of Obama's biggest criticisms of McCain is that he isn't "in touch" with the "common people"). Aside from her government service, Palin is very much an example of "common people."


2. "Conservative women aren't allowed to have careers and a family at the same time."

Wow, I really shouldn't have to explain the idiocy of that one, but apparently, it is necessary after all. I didn't make this up either. I just heard some old crotchety bag actually say that on TV about Palin. She actually said that it was hypocritical for conservatives to support a woman with five children, one of which is a Downs baby and another of which is a pregnant teen. She implied that Palin is a bad mother because she has common human family problems. So, somehow just because someone is a conservative they are automatically held up to some ridiculous higher standard than a "normal" person. Well, sorry, that's complete bullshit and pretty much as stupid as saying that because Palin had an amnio test during her pregnancy (certainly ordered by her doctors because of her mature age) then she shouldn't be against abortions. Yes, I have actually heard people say that too. Very stupid isn't it? That's about the same as saying that someone who has had a surgery shouldn't be against stabbing murders. Someone please explain to me why the rules must be different for conservative women than for liberal ones. What ever happened to equality and equal rights for all women?


3. Jane Smiley: "If the red phone rings in the middle of the night and she's breastfeeding, will she answer it?"

You know, how can a woman actually attack another woman in that way? It's really beyond horrible and hypocritical that so-called feminists would even imply that being a mother somehow reduces a woman's ability to do her job effectively. Doesn't that pretty much contradict all of their own philosophies and agendas about women being as capable as men and expecting equality, etc.?

I'm not sure if the above is a completely accurate quote of Smiley, but here is an equally stupid article about Palin's "hypocrisy" based on her own private choices as a mother and so on.

Smiley calls Palin "a woman who reinforces patriarchal power rather than challenges it." Say what?? "... a woman who attaches herself to men in power and then does them one better. She uses the freedom that the women's movement has brought her [to] quash the liberation of women with other views than hers." I really do hope that everyone can see how incredibly hypocritical and stupid Smiley's statements are here. So, according to Smiley a successful female politician should be a childless lesbian who hates men? It just confounds me that feminists are the first ones to attack a successful woman. Palin isn't trying to take away any other women's "liberation". If Smiley is referring to Palin's anti-abortion position, then that only refers to being against killing babies in the womb, not any kind of "women's lib."

There are many other such ridiculous statements and implications in Smiley's article. She says that Palin is hypocritical if she isn't breastfeeding her baby (even though breastfeeding also supposedly makes her unfit to work), as if it's anyone's business anyway. So does that make any woman who supports abortions a hypocrite is she doesn't actually have an abortion? You just cannot follow these liberal arguments because they all conflict and nullify each other. And it never matters what someone does because it is always the wrong thing to these rabid liberals because they are so confused themselves that they don't know right from wrong.

Smiley also says, "Who is taking care of the kids while she is away, including the baby? If it's the husband, I'm glad. If it's a nanny and always has been, then I want to know how a wealthy woman with a nanny helps women in general -- wealthy women with nannies are nothing new." Okay, so it's okay if she's making enough money for the hubby to stay home and care for children, but it's not okay for her to be making enough money to afford a nanny? Wow. Stupid idiots who get paid for writing tripe are nothing new either. Why isn't Smiley asking all of these questions of Nancy Pelosi's (who is actually in a pretty powerful position) childrearing practices and childcare history?

Another 'brilliant' point by Smiley: "If she produced a child at 44, I want to know if she believes in birth control, because birth control is a political issue. I also want to know her views on the government's obligations to the disabled. Do the disabled children of rich people get special treatments that their parents can afford, while the disabled children of poor people get nothing?" My God, does this Smiley woman have a brain at all? Does she even have any children herself? Has she never seen that the disabled children of the poor get all kinds of help for free and how exactly is it fair to desire for rich, disabled children to suffer needlessly? Just because a child has rich parents he is automatically less deserving than a poor child? Who does she think pays all the taxes to care for the poor kids anyway? It's those rich people, honey, who are paying for their own kids *in addition to* those poor kids.

Well, I kind of went off on a tangent away from the big balls of conservatives. But maybe it's just that conservative men have bigger balls and conservative women know how to handle them better (than the rabid liberal bitches who just want to tear them apart). ;-)


*I'm not saying that all liberals are rabid. Just making that clear.