Political Tidbits

Palin’s ‘Banned Books’ List Is a Hoax (from NewsMax.com)

"After reports surfaced that Sarah Palin had sought to ban books from her local library when she became mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, a list of the books she supposedly wanted to ban began appearing on a number of Web sites.

"The list included such classics as 'Huckleberry Finn,' 'Silas Marner,' 'To Kill a Mockingbird,' and Chaucer’s 'Canterbury Tales.' It even found its way to a blog linked to the My.BarackObama Web site, where it was claimed that the list 'comes from the records of the Wasilla library,' and was distributed via e-mail by a Palin foe.

"The truth is, Palin never compiled that or any other list of books to be removed from the Wasilla library, various sources have reported.

"In fact, several of the books on the list, including four 'Harry Potter' books by J.K. Rowling, were not yet published when Palin took over as Wasilla’s mayor in 1996.

"It turns out that the list is a reproduction of a generic list of 'Books Banned at One Time or Another in the United States,' which has been on the Internet for years, according to conservative pundit Michelle Malkin.

"The original source of the hoax is unclear. But the Anchorage Daily News in Alaska reported that when Palin first became mayor in 1996, she asked the city librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, what her response would be if Palin asked her to remove some books from the library’s collection. She did not mention any specific books. Emmons responded by saying she would resist all efforts to ban books.

"Emmons subsequently received a letter from Palin informing her that she was going to be fired. The censorship issue was not mentioned as a reason for firing, according to the Daily News.
'The letter just said the new mayor felt Emmons didn’t fully support her and had to go,' the paper reported. 'After a wave of public support for [Emmons], Palin relented and let Emmons keep her job.'"

The Hypocrisy of the Left

We have always believed that liberals are confused and out-of-touch with real Americans -- and they are doing everything in their power to prove us right. To borrow a cliche, it's like shooting fish in a barrel; they're making it too easy.

Hypocrisy #1: The left is constantly complaining that conservatives cling to their religion and are crazy, wacko evangelists; yet, liberals are the ones who are now making campaign buttons that state "Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor." So, let's see if we can get this straight: if a conservative evangelist invokes Jesus in a conversation or speech, it's due to some kind of right-wing fanaticism. But when the left decide to dust off their religion for political purposes, it's okay. It doesn't matter that they only pull Jesus off the shelf when they need a comparison for their presidential candidate.

Yet, the use of Jesus in this manner shows how out of touch they really are. They will never be able to appeal to the Christian base by making light of the role of the real Messiah. If we follow the liberal example, we need to disdain religion when we are winning, but cling to Jesus when we are challenged and start losing. Ironically, Jesus' message is that He is our Savior ALWAYS -- to pray to in good times and bad times, to be our friend, someone with whom we can share anything. He's not a campaign slogan.

Hypocrisy #2: Liberals don't want anyone to hunt and kill animals, but they never met a fetus they didn't mind aborting.

Hypocrisy #3: Liberals claim that they are for the poor and oppressed, they want income redistribution to help those people; yet, the major leaders of that movement -- John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, The Clinton's, and you can pretty much pick any Hollywood liberal for this list -- haven't stepped up to take the walk that they are talking. How many houses do each of them own and in what neighborhoods would we find them? And the stupidity that is a part of the income redistribution mindset is beyond comprehension. If we want to give to the poor, why do we need the government to act as our bank? Why don't we just give to the poor? By the time the government has paid salaries and overhead for the department handling the redistribution -- not to mention the red tape and paperwork the poor have to complete -- how much income will be left? Certainly not even close to the 100% that we could have directly given to someone to help them.

You can add lack of common sense to out-of-touch and confused on the liberal list.

Hypocrisy #4: Selecting Joe Biden as a running mate. Obama has been running his campaign on the theme of bringing change to Washington, then he picks someone who has been part of the Washington establishment since 1973. How is that change?

We heard today that there is a group who are campaigning for Senator Obama to dump Joe Biden and put Hillary Clinton in as the Vice President nominee. That ought to be interesting -- it certainly is desperate and shows that their candidate and his message can't carry them to Washington. If Obama did dump Biden and pick Clinton, what would liberals like Matt Damon say since he publicly declared that Sarah Palin's pick was done for political reasons? How could dumping Biden and picking Clinton not be a political maneuver? Of course it would be. And would Hillary Clinton even be interested? Why would she want to save someone who didn't think she was good enough in the beginning? Besides, she wants to be president. Is she willing to consider a vice-presidential position for a possible eight years and then try to run for president when she will be turning seventy years old? After eight years of a Democrat president, would the country even be willing to look seriously at a third term?

We may be wrong, but our opinion is that Hillary would not accept the vice-president position if offered to her. We believe she will take her chances on another run for president in four years if John McCain wins. Even if, by some chance, Barack Obama does get in for eight years, as long as she's not part of his administration, she can still run for a third Democrat term based on the "change" theme that we are seeing now.

If Senator Obama does replace Biden with Clinton, what does that say about his judgment? Sure, people make poor choices, especially our politicians, but considering how much vetting is done for vice presidential choices, Obama needs to stand by his choice or admit that he can't make a good choice, regardless of how much research he does. Besides, making such a V.P. switch at this point would make Mr. Change-Maker-Obama appear to be a follower in the Democrat party instead of a leader. It would mean that he does what the Democrat party tells him to and certainly doesn't come with the back bone needed to be president. Compare that to Sarah Palin who has proven she will stand against her own party.

Additionally, throwing Biden under the bus at this point would prove conservative talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, to be correct. Limbaugh has already stated that if Biden goes, it will be done under the smoke screen of some mysterious illness or family problem. No matter how Obama's team tries to cover Biden's exit, we will all know that Obama made a bad choice, that he's not fit to make the big decisions in Washington, and that he'll throw any of his people under the bus if it works better for his political career.

Governor Palin is very popular right now. How would Hillary fare against that popularity? How would she appeal to women now that Governor Palin is in the race? Pitted against Palin's new-face-in-Washington, Clinton would appear as old Washington establishment -- exactly what the Democrats are trying to stear away from.

Hypocrisy #5: Obama is running scared. Sarah Palin has his head all messed up. Obama's team has sent approximately thirty people, including attorneys, to Alaska to try and dig up anything they can on Governor Palin. Why can't he just run on the issues? Is it because his issues have no substance or foundation to hold them up?

Liberals can't stand that the first woman in the White House will be a conservative and they really can't stand that Republicans will be able to do what their own party couldn't -- put a woman in the White House.

It's hard to be a hypocrite -- eventually the two lies of each tale being told will clash and explode.