THE POST EXAMINER

Who is Ron Paul?

noreply@blogger.com (MsTRay) — Thu, 26 May 2011 22:41:54 PDT

Before you believe all the lies the mainstream media is trying to sell about Ron Paul, get to know who he is and what he stands for first. He is the most, if only, honest man in Waashington and he's been the main defender of LIBERTY in Congress for 22 years. If you want to know what that means, exactly, go to http://paul4president2012.com. There you'll find a collection of all things Ron Paul. His speeches, interviews, links to bills he has sponsored in Congress, what the Ron Paul REVOLUTION is all about. If you find he makes sense and stands for what America is supposed to be, you can make a difference when the time comes. VOTE RON PAUL 4 PRESIDENT 2012.

Top 10 Reasons Liberals (still) Hate Sarah Palin

noreply@blogger.com (MsTRay) — Thu, 05 May 2011 01:48:49 PDT

If anyone thought it wasn't blatantly obvious during the elections, it certainly can't be mistaken now. The liberal left hate Sarah Palin, and it's no small hate, no passing phase. Drawn back into the media's spotlight and cross hairs by recent Letterman "jokes" which basically call Palin and her 14 yr. old daughter Willow sluts (Sarah: slutty flight attendant look, and daughter: gets "knocked up" at a baseball game), once again Sarah Palin is ridiculed and lambasted by the media. One would think that jokes making light of the impregnating of a minor being made by a 62 yr. old man would merit more than just Palin's conservative supporters behind her...one would think.

In all fairness, Palin, quite seasoned in dealing with their bottomless pit of disdain, can handle it - as she has said in the past, she has chosen to be a public figure. Palin didn't even really have much to say about Letterman's "top 10" list which blasts her in several ways. In regards to the slutty flight attendant comment, which she said she felt it was "pretty pathetic" to insult flight attendants calling them slutty (he wasn't insulting them as much as he was you. Hello? Sarah, he was calling YOU slutty). However, Palin rightfully had plenty to say in defense of Willow. She was a little more than irritated when she brought up the liberals double-standard. As an example she reminded us how during the elections, Obama said his family was “off-limits” and being that he was, as she put it, "the candidate who must be obeyed" they were left alone. Great, however, the same was not done on “the other side”. How very correct she is! Can one imagine if that joke had been made about one of Obama’s daughters getting impregnated by one of the players while at a Yankees game with her dad? Or anyone making jokes about Michelle Obama having a slutty flight attendant look (which, frankly, might actually be an improvement)?

Letterman, in response to the ball being returned to him with a little more force than he expected, ducked, as was to be expected. He claims that his "joke" wasn't about Willow, but instead about her “other daughter”. Bullshit, said Palin (well, she didn't use that word.... but close enough, when she said, "anyone who believes that (excuse) is naive. Willow was the only daughter with her at the Yankees game where Letterman jokes one of her daughters gets knocked up by one of the players. I agree with Palin, Letterman wasn't referring to Bristol, although the joke was (indirectly) on her too.
For certain, despite what he’s saying now, it seems the joke only makes sense if he was referring to the daughter at the Yankees game with Palin, Willow. The implication being she would be following in the steps of the other daughter Bristol, who was pregnant during the elections last year, like she is “easy” too (which is implying Bristol was as well).

I’m thinking the specific daughters name not being identified was no an accident. By leaving the name blank, but making the insinuation clear enough, Dave is left with a loop hole big enough for him to crawl through should he need to escape accountability. Exactly what he ended up doing! I think he thought it would be a funny implication, that the young one is going to get “knocked up” too. I don’t know what would be funny about that, but then again I am not a Palin hater, as Dave clearly is.

Letterman can say until he's blue in the face, he wasn't talking about Bristol, and although it's doubtful he's telling the truth about that...he’s missing a big point which is it doesn’t really matter which daughter he was calling a slut! Palin put it quite eloquently when she told Matt Lauder "It was a degrading comment about a young woman." That it was!

The mainstream media and any liberal with time to take a shot at Palin, however giddily disagree wholeheartedly. So far most reports have the media selling it like she is over-reacting, poor good ole Dave Letterman simply made a harmless joke, tongue in cheek. "Calm down pit-bull!" Feverishly, the leftist media could not wait to make her out to be a media hound and cast her in the light of hysteria. I actually saw a post from a woman responding to a "Huffington Post" article which condemned Palin for her reaction to Letterman “joke” which said; "this is exactly why Sarah Palin shouldn't be in the White House. Furthermore, The White House doesn't need the kind of drama and scandal that Palin seems to attract!". As if Palin and her daughter were "asking for it". I thought for sure I was going to see that one signed, Hilary Clinton... it wasn't, but still, she could be using a pen name.

So, playing off the ambitiousness of the “joke”, the media takes Letterman’s side, big shock, and have responded with a creepily familiar reaction in his favor. It's as if they are offended Palin could even dare suggest Dave would be making a joke of that nature about a 14 yr old. "He wouldn't, not David Letterman!" , “it's obvious” Letterman was referring to Bristol. No, Mainstream Media, no, it was not obviou, and no, he was not referring to "the other daughter" and you all know it!

The die-hard and excessive media persecution of Sarah Palin has always been a huge argument for those of us who believe the mainstream media is somewhat of a doppelganger for our current Congress in that it is controlled by the majority Democrats. Otherwise, why aren't any of the women in MM

Yes, the liberals hate for Sarah Palin runs deep, and while hungrily feeding on the opportunity to take more shots at the woman, they seem oblivious to how their actions expose their inherent hypocrisy, their blatant double standards are showcased.

So while the venom oozes from liberals whenever the topic is Sarah Palin their diehard loathing and relentless character assassination just doesn't seem to have any foundational justification. Do liberals hate all conservative / Republican women with such vehemence? Well, Ann Coulter gets it pretty heavy too, but some would say she is quite a bit more aggressive than Palin is in regards to calling out the Democrats. Ann, however, like Palin and any of her daughters, don't deserve to be called sluts, whores, or anything related to sexual deviance. None of of them are in the porn industry, or the business of sex; referring to them in sexually demeaning terms is... well, ...blatantly sexist. Clinton was screwing around on his wife, got caught, impeached and lied his ass off about his sexual escapades before and after he was President. Did anyone call him a man-slut? Noooo, and he IS one! Palin has done nothing to merit the media or anyone associating her with sexual promiscuity or sex at all for that matter.

Don't liberals supposedly hate sexism? Aren't most of the women who burned their bras back in the day, the "feminists", the ones that were fighting against exploiting women for their sex Democrat supporters? They should be rallying behind Sarah right now. What do they have to fear? Obama is in the White House and there is no threat there...for now. It just doesn’t make sense. I don't think the liberals even hate George Bush as much as they hate Sarah Palin and that's saying a lot.

In an attempt to figure out some of the reasons the left has for their catty and unnatural "Sarah spite" I came up with my own top 10 list, and really it's just speculative, just some possibilities I'm throwing out there...

TOP 10 REASONS LIBERALS (STILL) HATE SARAH PALIN

#10. Her daughter, Bristol, is a good argument for pro-life or abstinence, both of which they hate.. She kept her child and all is well. No need for the Planned Parenthood abortion fund.

#9. Palins' husband Todd isn't a womanizing liar who would humiliate her in front of the entire country. In fact he seems to look at her rather adoringly, and not too long ago, “knocked her up” for the 5th time! Major career running a whole state and a mom and an adored wife running a household of 6? Jealous much??

#8. Palin was chosen to run for VP being virtually unknown on a national level while their girl Hillary was denied a VP seat which instead was given to virtually unknown Joe Biden. Ouch.

#7. She's not afraid of guns like the sissy gun-control advocates on the left and she’s not afraid of the sissy gun-control advocates either despite how hard they tried to paint her as a violence monger for her NRA membership.

#6. She stands by her convictions even if it means deciding not to abort the child she knows will be born with Down Syndrome (which is non life threatening). She does not cop out and bend her morals to when it would seem convenient, or the easiest thing to do. She is woman of strength, substance, character and integrity. I don’t know if the liberals can name a woman like that on their team. If so, name one.

#5. Palin is no slacker. An excellent role model for women of either political party. Motivated, determined and seemingly fearless, she gives all beauty pageant contestants a good name, shows there’s brains inside that pretty little head. Now why would the Dems hate that? Well, sure they have Boxer, Feinstein, Clinton, Ferraro, Pelosi... all with varying levels of intelligence, but none of which possess the poise and grace under pressure Palin has shown, and none of them got to run for Vice President.

#4. For all their ruthless attacks on her, as they tried and keep trying their hardest to defame her, they just can’t break the woman. Most would have cracked by now, shown some signs of folding under the constant barrage of insults, attacks and falsities… Not Sarah Palin though. She’s still got a wink and a thumbs up for ya!

#3. Palin looks better in a bikini than anyone in the Democratic Party. Not to emphasize looks, in fact I wouldn't even bring it up, but the fanatics and “comedians” on the left are the ones always calling her whore, slut, and worse. Remember, that stupid video going around YouTube during the elections? The one with the couple with the crazy eyes singing a horribly insulting slanderous song to the music of “Hey There Delilah”, where the lyrics actually have a line which says “the axis of evil flows between her thighs”. Unbelievable.

Then Gina Gershon attempts to be funny as she tries to mock Palin in a video on FunnyorDie.com wearing a 2 piece bikini and wielding a shotgun. It might have been funny if it wasn’t excessively cruel and if Sarah Palin’s character wasn’t depicted so distorted in order to fit their agenda, which was to make her look dumb. It was a lame attempt to jump on the publicity wagon trying to send some badly needed attention to Ms. Gershon, whose 15 minutes were just about up.

#2. Unlike Hilary, and much to her chagrin, Sarah Palin just might be elected President someday. Ouch. Ouch.

#1. Sarah Palin looks way more like Democrat icon Jackie Kennedy Onassis than Michelle Obama and she doesn't even shop at JCREW.
http://www.vanityfair.com/style/features/2009/06/jackie-michelle-slideshow200906

NEWSFLASH TO THE LEFT: Jackie and Michelle Obama are not alike in ANY way. Not in fashion sense, not in demeanor, not in personality, and they are never going to be. The constant comparisons just come across as desperate, like someone trying to pull of a fake Rolex at L'Orangerie. People can tell the difference. Why don't you just accept Michelle Obama for who she is, closer in ideology to the Black Panthers of the 60's then to a white wasp debutante, .who, by the way isn't alive to defend herself.

Proposition H8TE

noreply@blogger.com (MsTRay) — Tue, 26 May 2009 19:37:07 PDT

The California Supreme Court has decided today to uphold Proposition 8 which bans marriage between same sex couples by supposedly "amending" the California Constitution to define marriage as being solely between a man and a woman. Proponents of the bill say they are defending the "sanctity" of marriage by making it illegal to marry someone of the same sex. Strangely enough, however, already married same sex couples can stay married. For those that had a longer engagement, tough sh*t, I guess. It makes no sense whatsoever. A hypocrisy within a hypocrisy. So with the the exception of the happily married same sex couples, the sanctity of marriage is safe for the time being, unless one considers the fact that California has a 50% divorce rate between heterosexuals. Honestly, it makes me wonder how anyone can say that Prop 8 is about marriage at all. Call a spade a spade, or metaphors aside, call it what it really is: hate.

Pro Prop 8 people can tell us all day long how it's not about hate, and expect the Supreme Court and the rest of us to listen to them excuse themselves and try to convince the world they have the right to vote away the rights of those that don't deserve to have them., and apparently gays fall into that category now.

One of the arguments I heard during the hearings, was from a Supreme Court judge who brought up the fact that California voted to overturn a Supreme Court decision regarding the death penalty labeling it cruel and unusual punishment, therefore denying criminals who commit violent crimes the fundamental right to life, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. California voters can legislate and remove the right to LIFE but not the right to MARRY? Californians vote to keep the death penalty was upheld, why not their vote to ban gay marriage?

Counsel representing anti-Prop 8 plaintiffs replied that the death penalty applies to all citizens who commit certain crimes, there is not a single group targeted. With all due respect, while that statement is somewhat correct, the very comparison is out of context and fallacious. Counsel could have mentioned that california voters only confirmed that ones forfeits ones own right to life when one takes the life of another in a violent crime in a way that the death penalty would be considered punishment for such crime. Californians voted that the right to safety and security and to not die by way of murder should be upheld, and the punishment for committing such crime is death. They also determined that the death penalty, in context woth the crime, was not cruel or unusual punishment. Besides, there is a targeted group here. Criminals who murder. In what way is this group to be considered a minority which should be protected under Equal Protection laws, which were written in the spirit of protecting minority groups with a history of persecution by the majority? Are we to assume a couple of the same sex are in the same category of violent, murderous criminals?

Ridiculous. And this argument was posed by a judge of the California Supreme Court. One of the judges who voted to uphold Prop 8 perhaps?

Let's also go one further and defend the "sanctity" of TRUTH too and stop calling Prop 8 an "amendment" to the Constitution (which if it qualified as an amendment would be totally within the rights of Califoirnian's to vote on... we are allowed to amend the Constitution, revisions, however are a different story altogether). Proposition 8 is being called an amendment to make it sound legal, because most people don't know the difference between an amendment and a revision, which by the way was heavily discussed during the the hearings to overturn the bill in California's Supreme Court, so you'd think that, in the least, the judges would know. Apparently they don't. An amendment must keep to the original concept of the Constitution. Normally amendments will give rights or overturn an antiquated concept which has evolved to current day standards and ethics, such as giving women the right to vote, or abolishing slavery. There has never been an amendment that has REMOVED the rights of any group or minority, in all of California's over 500 amendments to it's Constitution since its inception. (By the way the U.S. Constitution has had only 27 amendments in comparison!) Prop 8 is a REVISION of the California Constitution as it does not follow in the spirit of democracy of our country and it's Constitution, and Bill of Rights, which is based on a balance between "majority rules" and equal protection of minorities from that majority. Californians do not have the right to revise the California Constitution to deprive citizens of the inalienable rights and equality under the law to all people as deemed by the U.S. Constitution, to which it is subserviant. They can't have the constitutional right to vote away the constitutional rights of others even if the California Supreme Court says it's okay. It's not right and it will never be right. Proposition H8TE hypocrites will not have the last word.

By TwitterButtons.com

What's So Funny, Mr. President?

noreply@blogger.com (MsTRay) — Tue, 12 May 2009 13:39:07 PDT

I am still on vacation in beautiful and very very HOT Las Vegas, however I am still trying to keep up with the real world as best as I can from this "land of many ways to lose money" (or better, the Washington/Obama doppelganger, as in: The only place that can empty your pockets, leaving you with nothing to show for it, as quickly and efficiently as Washington/Obama).

One thing I could not avoid noticing this last week was Obama's bold attempt at stand-up comedy at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner. Was he funny? Sure, but it really depends on who you ask.

Apparently he finds great humor in things that have thoroughly disgusted many Americans (myself included). What I find to be more noticeable than his blatant lack of empathy for what his administration put New Yorkers through with the expensive and terrifying Air Force 1 "photo shoot", is that the media seems to share his sense of humor. The media and Obama seem to functioning as One. Or better, as Obama said when addressing the dinner guests, "You all voted for me". He does go on to exclude the "Fox" table from his group of followers, referring to them as his enemies. Very funny, Mr. President.

For those of you that missed the Roast (see the video in the sidebar) Obama also "jokes" about how his daughters could not attend the Dinner as they are "grounded" because "you can't take Air Force One for a joyride around Manhattan, no matter who your father is!" Really? So I guess he doesn't know what his daughters are doing either, mmm? Great.

I know that a Roast is supposed to be about making fun of the guest of honor. The question is, does Obama know that? He was not the guest of honor. So I think it might be fair to deduce there is some truth to his "jokes". Either that or he was drunk. Apparently oblivious to reports by those at the "Fox" table, which maybe aren't as loving as reports by the rest of the media, Obama makes reference to the God-like status he enjoys. He said his next 100 days in office will be so successful that he will complete them in 72 days, and (don't throw up) on the 73rd he "will rest". Can you imagine if Bush would have dared make such "jokes", which I suspect were more a display of his narcissism than at self-depracation. The mainstream media would have had a field day tearing up Bush had he implied, even in jest, that he is God. For Obama, they just have cheers. What a great guy that can make fun of such things. They call it joking, I call it mockery.

I would have been more impressed at his sense of humor had he actually not spent all his camera time roasting himself and had he been a little more sensitive to the fact that the American people need him to take his job seriously. His mistakes are funny to him. Ask those that were in Manhattan on 9/11 and then again on the "photo shoot" day how funny they think he is. I for one, would rather have a President that cares about Americans than one that cares about being so "funny". I would also prefer the media be less impressed with his sense of humor and focus a little more on his sense of duty and responsiblity. Still, I think he falls short in both areas, but I am not a blogger on The Huffington Post, so what do I know?

As I started The Post Examiner to review the medias take on "news", especially news about the current administration and the leftist bias therein, I am including a link here to a post from one of my favorite blogs which sums up the liberal agenda running amuk online.

The Daily NObama (tm): Musings of Hate and Intolerance

By TwitterButtons.com

Closer Look: "Air Force One" Story Doesn't Fly

noreply@blogger.com (MsTRay) — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:49:33 PDT

The current administrations lack of empathy in relation to certain matters and hyper-sympathy towards others less deserving is becoming more and more disturbing. It blows my mind to think that this was an idea someone paid to work for us in the White House came up with. What was the thought process, I wonder, which lead someone to the idea that "what our country needs right now are photographs of Air Force One flying around Lower Manhattan, the Statue of Liberty and especially around Ground Zero"?

The planning took a couple of weeks and involved several different federal agencies. Didn't anyone involved have the same reaction the people on the ground in New York and apparently, the President, had? Didn't make a little light go on for anybody, huh? No one asked, "why do we need this" or "what will be the consequences"? No one could foresee what a bad, bad idea it would be?

I can't imagine any conversation in regards to this "mission" which wouldn't include some reference to New York's City's traumatic experience with low flying jets around buildings, or if the uninformed public might become panicked seeing something like this. All for something as frivolous as some glamour shots of the Presidents airplane no thought was given to the populations below and the potential fear they might experience when witnessing such a horrifyingly familiar visual.

Yes, it was 8 years ago, but when I saw the video footage of this little stunt, the images and accompanying memories came right up to the surface and although I already knew what I was watching, I still had that anxiety in my stomach as I half expected to see it crash into something. One persons voice who is commenting while videotaping the incident gives away a similar anxiety, albeit much more real and anxious. With good reason. As if the jet liner circling over New York's head wasn't sufficient, The F-16 flying behind it (the "escort") made the scene even more chilling.

We are to believe this was all for a photo shoot for Air Force One? What? For real? When did this start? Although I'm sure there are photos of it in existence, can anyone recall any previous "photo shoots" for the Presidents airplane? If so why do we need to "update" them? What are the photos for? Christmas cards? Show and tell for the Obama girls? Or to rub in the noses of the countries whose asses we are actually pretty busy trying to kiss right now? It seems to me we wouldn't WANT a bunch of photos of the President main form of transportation all over the place. Why on earth would Air Force One need or want P.R.? and if so why wouldn't the President himself be informed of it, or better asked permission?

This almost reminds me of the "weather balloon" excuses the government always feeds the public whenever anything weird happens in the sky which they don't feel like either sharing or explaining.

Showing off Air Force One as if it were a luxury item to brag about, like it belongs on an episode of "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous: The Politicians" especially in times this tight..., especially when poor Michelle Obama won't wear a dress over $1,000.00 and gets cheered for humble thriftiness because she wore a J. Crew sweater to Buckingham Palace.... it all just seems weird to me.

It seems pretty indulgent for a country who is needing to make several trillion dollars out of thin air to "stimulate" our economy during what Obama has referred to the worst financial crisis, possibly, of all time. It also seems pretty insensitive for a country who has barely gotten around to healing from when we last noticed planes flying much too low in the New York sky.

Frivolous, expensive, arrogant, insensitive. Stupid. It doesn't make sense.

Wouldn't you know Obama was reported as having been "furious" when he "learned what happened". "What happened?" Really? He didn't know until after the fact? The media and government must believe that American citizens are either blind or dumb, or both.

If Obama didn't know, because no one was inclined, much less obliged, to tell him during the "planning" stages, that they were getting set to take his plane out for a spin, along with a couple of F16's, to get some bling shots in the sky over Ground Zero, then something is very wrong on "the Hill". For President Obama's "reaction" to be one of fury, I'd like to ask, at whom was he furious? Furious is pretty strong word.

Seems to me whether it was a promotional "photo shoot", a military exercise, or a cover-up for a security breach because some drunk disgruntled pilot got the keys and took it out for a joyride, it doesn't change the fact that whether or not he knew about it in advance or not, and especially if he didn't, he has no one to be "furious" with but himself. He is the one in charge. He is responsible ultimately, and the whole thing never should have happened.

Unlike a Democrat peeve, I don't think this subject needs to be dragged into redundancy or harped upon endlessly. Although it did deserve a little more notice and attention than the brief blips and damage control clip it received. Big shock. Ariana Huffington and bloggers are so busy making sure they have at least one or two posts daily railing on Bush, Cheney, water boarding and how it's their morals, not the lack there-of fueling the witch hunt they seem to have completely overlooked this major Obama faux-pax. How's that for Ms. Huffington's blatant refusal to admit her own addiction (to liberal partisanship: see post Waterboarding: Confuse the Issue Until You Forget" )? I believe the name is hypocrite.

Maybe it wasn't liberal bias or protecting the President and his glam-plane....Maybe The Huff Post ran out of space because of the giant Obama praising headline which takes up more then half of the "front page" or because they throw in stupid fluff piece about Jennifer Anniston's private life to satisfy Ariana Huffingtons fascination with the rich, and the famous....anyway, does any of The Huffington Posts regular readers even care really? I doubt it.

Below is the damage control press release on ABC and one video of what it all looked like... what New Yorkers saw and even a CNN reporters shocked reaction. What's your opinion? Was it a photo shoot? Did Obama know beforehand? What does it mean?

NEW YORK (WABC) -- A photo shoot involving an Air Force aircraft and a fighter jet led to hundreds of frightened calls from residents and workers in Lower Manhattan Monday.

For a half-hour, the Boeing 747 and F-16 jet circled the Statue of Liberty and the lower Manhattan skyline near the World Trade Center site. Offices evacuated. Dispatchers were inundated with calls. Witnesses thought the planes were flying dangerously low. The exercise involved an F-16 escorting the plane, a Boeing 747, over Battery Park City and up the Hudson River. Some reports quoted an administration official who said the purpose of the photo op was to update file photos of the president's plane near the Lady Liberty.

The large plane is the military version of the 747 and is the type of plane the president uses to fly. When he is aboard, the plane is referred to as Air Force One.

The head of White House Military Office apologized for the incident late Monday.

"Last week, I approved a mission over New York. I take responsibility for that decision," said Louis Caledra. "While federal authorities took the proper steps to notify state and local authorities in New York and New Jersey, it's clear that the mission created confusion and disruption. I apologize and take responsibility for any distress that flight caused."

President Obama was apparently not informed of the flight. When he learned what happened, sources said Obama was furious.

The maneuver was coordinated in advance with the FAA and state and local officials.

The Defense Department "coordinated the flight with FAA," FAA spokeman Jim Peters said, "and we made the notifications to the city of New York, as well as the 311 and 911 centers, the NYPD, New Jersey State Police and various operations centers in the New York area."

City officials were notified, but not the general public.

"The flight of a VC-25 aircraft and F-16 fighters this morning was authorized by the FAA for the vicinity of the Statue of Liberty with directives to local authorities not to disclose information about it, but to direct any inquiries to the FAA Air Traffic Security Coordinator," a police statement read.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg says he is furious that the federal government flew the planes near Ground Zero. Bloomberg says the flyover so near the World Trade Center site showed "poor judgment" and was insensitive. He says he is furious that the NYPD and another city agency were notified last week, but did not tell him.

If he had known, Bloomberg says he would have tried to stop it. Eyewitness News

By TwitterButtons.com

The Daily NObama (tm): The Woman Who Would Be Hilary or Needs a Village?

noreply@blogger.com (MsTRay) — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 07:34:03 PDT

Great Link (check it out and don't forget to subscribe):

The Daily NObama (tm): The Woman Who Would Be Hilary or Needs a Village?

Waterboarding: Confuse the Issue Until We Forget

noreply@blogger.com (MsTRay) — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 03:45:15 PDT

Ariana Huffington wants George Bush and Dick Cheney's heads on a stick. Furthermore , she wants to convince her readers the current lynch mob she leads for their blood on the issue of waterboarding is non-partisan. Ariana Huffington, non-partisan, and apparently, non-media? She writes in her blog post today, (ironically) titled, "The Torture Moment",

"This is a defining moment for America.
The way we respond -- or fail to respond -- to the revelations about the Bush administration's use of torture will delineate -- for ourselves and for the world -- the kind of country we are.
It is a test of our courage and our convictions. A test of whether we are indeed a nation of laws -- or a nation that pays lip service to the notion of being a nation of laws.

And everyone engaged in our public conversation has a role to play.

So far, the media are not getting high marks. They can't seem to shake their addiction to looking at every issue -- even one that pivots on questions of morality, not politics -- through the archaic prism of right vs. left."

I find it amusing, albeit annoying, that Ms. Huffington has conveniently separated herself from "the media" . Never mind that her blog, The Huffington Post, is the self-proclaimed "internet newspaper". Of further annoyance is her hypocritical criticism of how "they can't seem to shake" what she acknowledges as an addiction to "looking through the archaic prism of right vs. left", not even on issues which pivot "on questions of morality".

Halleluliah.

Had she not referred to the media as "they", it would have been a relief to hear such a confession coming from someone inside mainstream media, especially someone like Ariana Huffington, who has made a career out of championing the Democratic Party and liberal agendas. Instead she has oddly positioned herself outside this "archaic prism" and is pointing her finger at the media questioning it's morality for being so partisan on the issue of waterboarding.

In otherwords, any media mouthpiece who does not agree with her take on the issue, if they are conservative, are now deemed immoral, to paraphrase Ms. Huffington. So, this is not a campaign against Bush or Cheney, I'm sure if it were Obama she would still be calling for him to stand trial for war crimes. Right. She might've even fooled me had that been all she said. The side jumping and the finger pointing are what sold her out, because we all know she and "they" are one and the same.

Whether or not an individual beleives waterboarding was unecessary torture or a necessary and justified means to an end is not a matter of politics or morals. Ms. Huffington, however, is making it an item on her political agenda and yet disguising it as an issue of morals. Imagine that.

Ariana Huffington can make this an issue of morality, our nations morality if she wants. This is a free country with free press, for the most part. She can rally for the rights of the men who held information crucial to our nations security, she can abhor the madness of war, she can do and say whatever she wants.

I, for one, do not agree. Why does Ariana Huffington think she is an authority on morals, going so far as to accuse a whole nation of lacking them if we do not first agree with her assessment of the issue and second "respond" as she would have us? What of us who do not think it immoral, and instead are grateful because we don't believe in the inherent cruelty of Dick Cheney, Bush or of our military, and believe it was necessary to thwart another day like September 11th, 2001. When I think of torture, I don't think of waterboarding. When I think of torture, I can only imagine it as what those innocent people, who, trapped and horrified at the hell engulfing them experienced as they were forced to plunge to their deaths or be consumed by the suffocating black smoke and the unbearable scorching heat of the flames.

Although this conveniently gets omitted when waterboarding is discussed, it has been determined the men on whom waterboarding was used knew of further plots, which were consequently thwarted, when the information was extracted from them. Yes, extracted. How is that cruel?

Ariana Huffington is not the authority on morals, she in not the authority on anything, much less the voice of American morality. Pointing her finger at "the media", the whole of which she unquestionably is a part, without acknowledging herself as part of the "addicted" bunch, is clearly a flaw in the area of ethics, or in the least, character.

I consider myself a moral and ethical person. I also consider myself a somewhat intelligent person who is intelligent enough to not take events out of context, to realize that the circumstances surrounding this issue, if all included, justify the extreme measures taken.

These were not innocent men. Ariana Huffington wants to rally to their defense and call for Bush's head on a stake and that's her right. It is questionable, however, that she implies any dissent to her opinion is immoral. The accusation that those who do not agree, and believe the means justified the end, in this particular case, are unable to see things clearly, are addicted to partisanship and not understanding the relevance of the cause, is manipulative. It is the classic liberal, and fallacious, "biased sample" tactic. If you do not agree then you are in some way impaired, addicted, or worse, immoral.

I am yet to see a single post in "The Huffington Post", written by Ariana Huffington or any of her staff bloggers, which is not blatantly liberally slanted. The H. Post reporting of the recent "tea parties" is a perfect example of an inherent hypocrisy in the liberal media. The tea parties were in fact, NOT, a partisan effort, yet were reported by Huffington Post bloggers as if it were a Republican event. Participants, who hailed from either party, or neither, and were simply exercising their right to the peaceful protest of the unfair and unconstitutional taxation of American citizens, were called "crazy right-wingers". Clearly an "ad-hominem attack" quite obvioulsy coming directly through the "archaic prism of left vs. right" from Team Left. The issue of waterboarding used during the interrogation of terrorists involved in the events of September 11 i s also coming through that same archaic prism, despite what "they", or better, Ariana Huffington, would have you believe. Context is the link to the truth conveniently being omitted and contradiction and hypocrisy make lousy substitutes in it's place.