The Left (and their minions, the Media and the Democratic Party) knowingly leaked Palin’s personal information

September 3rd, 2008 • Related • Filed Under

American Power has most the details. Apparently Redstate is also on to the story. They both are using Politico as the source but oddly since the stories broke the link no longer works.

The fact that the Democrats and their watch dogs would knowingly release Sarah Palin’s social security number defies decent journalism. I never knew it was so bad to be a conservative Republican. Someone is behind this. Someone in the higher echelons of the Democratic circle. They need to be exposed and they need to pay. Additionally, I believe a congressional hearing should be called over the actions of the media this past year. They have a moral and public obligation to report the news and stories. Not set agendas and promote ideology. If Fox gets a bad name, it’s only because of the MSM provided the necessity. Our media is a joke and only serves as an extention to the left.

The same thing happened to Michael Steel (a black conservative also known to Democrats and leftist as an Uncle Tom).

(Photo from Right Wing News)

There Are 20 Responses So Far. »

Comment by Kdog on 3 September 2008:

I enjoyed the magazine cover, but this article didnt give any more reason to believe the Obama camp was behind KOS than the previous speculation.

I have no problem with anything from Palin except for the secrets. Does any else think that it was a bad idea to keep so many things private when she knew she was about to be a public figure who was always in the spotlight?
Comment by Mild Observer on 3 September 2008:

I don’t think the article/author ever implied that Obama was behind this. Though I know he is fully aware rather he can stop it or not is another issue. It should be obvious that Obama’s surrogates, Democratic Party hatchet men or what ever are behind this. What business does the media have releasing such garbage. SSN home addresses?? Get real.

Besides where is the Obama-Ayers story? Where is Obama’s secrets, Kdog. Are you serious in that you don’t see some bias here? I was leaning Hillary but they completely derailed her. Its not a secret about the media love affair.

By the way what secrets were you referring to exactly? Her daughter is pregnant? That’s hardly a secret and certainly not something worth reporting and slandering someone over. I mean seriouisly, this isn’t exactly breaking news! John Edwards didn’t get 1 degree of this sort of pressure and he was banging some hippie chick while his wife is dieing!!

Secrets. Please, Obama has more secrets than jail house rat.

Come on get real!
Comment by Kdog on 3 September 2008:

Hmm no implications? I think you missed the title.

And yes, for her to be the pillar of conservative values a sexually active unwed teenager who becomes pregnant is a secret. Do I have any problem with the situation? no. However abstinance until marriage is a staple of conservative values. If you dont think she was trying to hide it, you are being naive.

As for the Ayers story, use the search engine. Trust me its there.

I didnt deny that Obama most likely has secrets, nor will I.
Comment by Bubby on 3 September 2008:

I am sick and tired of all this media bias crap. I am biting my fingers to really keep from telling people what I think about the lying media. The last one I heard has really got me fired up.. “Will the Vice Presidency hurt GOV Palins ability to be a mother?” Well here is the reply she should say, “Will the Presidency hurt Senator Obama as black man? It seems to me that he will not be able to attend racially charged church services or build pipe bombs covered with nails will Prof. Bill Ayers or since he is a black man this me be the perfect job for him. Black men don’t raise their children anyway.

I mean isn’t that the stereotype? They are telling her and all other female politicians to stay home and stay in the kitchen, tell him and black males should stay around and raise their kids. They are attacking a minority and the minority should attack back. On her second day of office, GOV Palin had more experience on leadership than SEN Obama. She has governed he has voted present and made speeches.
Comment by Red Spy on 4 September 2008:

There is no difference and you are right. but don’t hold your breathe waiting for them to be evenly critical. Your point was taken and i’m sure many are wondering the same thing. But Obama is there boy plain and simple. they’ve made no mystery to that fact. get used to it. however, after watching palin’s speech tonight, I think they are fearing a “sleeping giant”

And kdog, the ayres stories may be out there…sure they are. but the talking heads refuse to mention it. Has the NYT ran in front pages stories on it? No but they ran three on Palin over her daughter’s pregnancy!! now you tell me please, just what are they trying to accomplish.

you really need to pull your head out of the sand…or out of some place else.
Comment by Mild Observer on 4 September 2008:

red spy took the words right out of my mouth. It is so strange that two people can look at the same situation and draw to totally different conclusions. I guess that is life.
Comment by Kdog on 4 September 2008:

My head isnt in the sand, I’m not sure why people make assumptions about my point of view just b/c I’m an Obama supporter. I realize that most of the mainstream media is liberal, most except for Fox News. I have not denied that. Journalism or writing in general is a profession that will be dominated by liberals, just like business professions are dominated by republicans(including the owners of the aforementioned networks).

I also agree with Bubby that the attacks on Palin are unfair. However, it is much different than what you said about Obama. Black deadbeat dads is a stereotype. On the other hand, mothers are crucial for kids when they are young according to child development specialists everywhere. Red Spy, if you think they are the same perhaps “you really need to pull your head out of the sand…or out of some place else.” Personally I dont care, it has no affect on what kind of Vice President she will be.
Comment by bubby on 4 September 2008:

Kdog, or Special K, I know you and were you come from. Why in the world are you supporting Obama? I am not judging you, I defend your right to choose. To say that health care or some “same ol song and dance” will not cut it. Every person in this country is entitled to health care.. Think about it. You know more than anyone that this is true.
I am glad you are over there working and doing great, so I have been told. I only wish that you and my younger brother would have worked to pay taxes. To say you have is false, when you and him get out and get real jobs and have to see chunks taken out to support social programs for someone els that is to lazy to work, you will change your mind.. Continue to rebell,, enjoy it… It all changes soon. “Ignorance is waisted on the youth”
Comment by Special K on 4 September 2008:

Well since you asked I will share my politics. For the most part I believe in the republican economic structure. However what we have seen over the past 8 years hasn’t been anything like what the conservative party is supposed to represent. The party of small tax, small government, and small spending has spent more money than any other administration in the history of America. High spending while not taxing has created a huge deficit thereby causing value of the dollar to go down. So in effect you have been taxed through the decline of your dollar’s value.

Mortgages that the Republicans handed out to people who couldnt pay, and a war built on a false premise havent exactly helped out the economic situation either.

The next thing is as you say, you “have worked to pay taxes.” As matter of fact you most likely pay a higher percentage than the upper estrilon of society. Through tax right offs and good lawyers, they pay a lower percentage than you, trust me. Warren Buffet once said his secretary paid more taxes than he did. I in no way believe someone in your tax bracket should have their taxes raised whatsoever. It is the tax cuts for the rich(his buddies) that Bush has done that disgust me.

I hate social programs btw.

As far as rebelling goes, after the experience you are referring to, my parents party affiliation may not be what you would think.

Is Republican the better party? yes
Must they still be held accountable for their actions? yes
Comment by Loozianajay on 4 September 2008:

Kdog, I would agree with most of that. Most, not all, but especially your take on the Republican Party and Bush’s “compassionate conservatism”. And Kdog, is free to support/vote for whom ever he wishes.
Comment by Loozianajay on 4 September 2008:

But K, isn’t it true that 1% pay 90% of taxes. The actual percentage may be lower, yes, but the truth is most income taxes are paid by the nation’s richest. Of course, the capital gains income/tax always fogs things up.

But for sure, the top half of earners earn 88% of the income and pay 97% of the taxes. The bottom half earn 12% of the income and pay less than 3% of the taxes. This means our tax code is highly progressive; i.e. the rich pay much more taxes than the poor, even after adjusting for earnings. (According to WSJ)

I don’t buy into vilifying the rich.
Comment by Eric J. Tyler, Esq on 4 September 2008:

The top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent pay54.4 percent, the top 10 percent pay 65.8 percent, and the top 25 percent paid 83.9 percent.

I have data that shows (I may try to locate it and come back and post it later) hat the share of total income taxes paid by the wealthy has risen even as statutory tax rates have fallen sharply.

A common liberal retort to these data is that they exclude payroll taxes, which are assumed to be largely paid by the poor. However, it turns out that when one includes payroll taxes in the calculations, they have far less impact on the distribution of the tax burden than most people would assume, because the wealthy also pay a lot of those taxes.

At some point, those on the left must decide what really matters to them — the appearance of soaking the rich by imposing high statutory tax rates that may cause actual tax payments by the wealthy to fall, or lower rates that may bring in more revenue that can pay for government programs to aid the poor. Sadly, the Left nearly always votes for appearances over reality, favoring high rates that bring in little revenue even when lower rates would bring in more.
Comment by Loozianajay on 4 September 2008:

Ok when did we start getting so frikkin smart here. I liked it much better when we just bashed Obama without giving good explanations for it.

I’m not sure I even understand what is being said here.

Mr. Tyler, I appreciate the comment thanks for visiting.
Comment by Special K on 4 September 2008:

Those numbers are going to be based on what is claimed; my argument is based off of what is not claimed.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/03/05/for-super-rich-growth-in-income-surpasses-growth-in-income-tax-paid/

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=1973
Comment by Judge Roy on 5 September 2008:

Great comment. I’ve pulled my load too. Where did you get your J.D., Eric?

Let’s add a little to this and put tax cuts in practical terms where everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten
comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like
this. The first four men — the poorest — would pay nothing; the fifth
would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the
ninth $18. The tenth man — the richest — would pay $59.

That’s what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy
with the arrangement — until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the
cost of your daily meal by $20.’

So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the
first four men were affected. They would still eat for free.

But what about the other six — the paying customers? How could they divvy
up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man
would end up being *paid* to eat their meal.

So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s
bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts
each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid
$5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a
bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’ declared the sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth. ‘But he got $7!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too.
It’s unfair that he got seven times more than me!’

‘That’s true!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $7 back when I
got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate
without him.

But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.
They were $52 short!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college
instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest
taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack
them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.
Comment by Loozianajay on 5 September 2008:

Thanks to all of you, I’m not going to law school.
Comment by Special K on 5 September 2008:

Close Judge but no cigar. The bill never changed, it was still 100, but the richest men reduced their portion so that they were paying $80 total. This means that they kept going to dinner and each time they just got $20 further in debt until eventually their money wasnt worth anything anymore.

“And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is” what happens when you pay less than your full bill.

“The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.” I tried to put some practical application to this analogy but it just did not make any sense. The rich are just going to stop paying taxes and get arrested by the IRS?

I can make up an equally crappy lesson to be learned. Here it goes.
“The people who pay the least taxes get the least benefit from a tax reduction; the only thing they get back is a declining dollar. Work them too hard, pay them too little, and they just may not show up to your factories anymore.”

Btw your pretentious supposition that no one else has the capacity to comprehend the progressive tax really isnt necessary.
Comment by Volunteer on 5 September 2008:

K said= “The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.” I tried to put some practical application to this analogy but it just did not make any sense. The rich are just going to stop paying taxes and get arrested by the IRS?

K, I think he meant that those who are rich usually employ hundreds or thousands of employees. Multiply that number several times and millions of American rely on jobs that the rich create.

So the point was, tax them too much (payroll taxes, capital gains, corp. taxes, income, etc.) and they will cut cost somewhere and that usually means layoffs or ship work over seas. At least that is what I got out of that and if so, I’m inclinced to agree.

K said= “Btw your pretentious supposition that no one else has the capacity to comprehend the progressive tax really isnt necessary.”

We do agree here.

K said= I can make up an equally crappy lesson to be learned. Here it goes.
“The people who pay the least taxes get the least benefit from a tax reduction; the only thing they get back is a declining dollar. Work them too hard, pay them too little, and they just may not show up to your factories anymore.”

That hasn’t happened since 1848 and certainly hasn’t happened since TR. That’s what unions were for and labor laws. So that nightmare scenerio isn’t plausible. The Unions control most of the work force and at the expense of undermining the economy and labor to boot.
Comment by Special K on 6 September 2008:

I like your post Volunteer and I agreed with much of it, but let me point out where we differ.

You speak of millions of layoffs, but based on your logic that shouldnt be plausible because such massive amounts of unemployment hasnt existed since The Great Depression.

As for my lesson, it was meant to be crappy, but I will defend it a bit since you brought it up. Historically any time that a large group of people have become disenfranchised and the disparity of the wealth between the rich and the poor became too great that society fell shortly after. Every day the disparity in America increases, and it stands to reason that there is a threshhold, although no one knows what it is.

I do think it possible that we could be the exception to the aforementioned rule. We do have devices such as labor union(and X-boxes) in place that previous societies didnt. However even if this appears to be true, history is our greatest teacher, and I wouldnt take its lessons too lightly.
Comment by Special K on 6 September 2008:

One thing I forgot to mention is that I’m only calling for the Bush tax cuts to be removed. As I recalled, the rich were still “[showing] up at the table.” As a matter of fact unemployment was lower then than it is now.

The Partisan Report

The Left (and their minions, the Media and the Democratic Party) knowingly leaked Palin’s personal information

There Are 20 Responses So Far. »

Post a Response

Popular

Most Comments

Search

Tags

Archives

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Good Sites

Meta