Hard Questions for Barack, Michelle

The MSM (mainstream media) delights in asking Sarah Palin loaded questions, but they have no interest in asking Obama anything that might even mildly irritate "The Great One." For example, the Anchorage Daily News (http://www.adn.com/) hates Gov. Palin with a passion and has repeatedly asked her to verify that she is in fact Trig Palin's mother.

NOTE: On Friday evening, I'll be posting a piece on "The MSM's Decline and Fall." It will deal with how the major news networks and publications are drowning in a fetid pool of bias and bile -- and what we can do to accelerate the process of their demise.

Note: On my other blog (on Wednesday) I have a provocative piece about "Michelle Obama: How Many Abortions?" As the saying goes, "Enquiring minds want to know."

I don't recall them asking for such verification by Michelle Obama about the parentage of Malia and Sasha. Why not?

Overall, the media avoid asking any searching questions about Sasha and Malia -- and perhaps on whether Michelle aborted any of her fetuses and, if so, why. When has Michelle been asked why she subjected her children to Rev. Wright's hate-filled sermons denigrating women and white people? Was that a sign of responsible parentage by the Obama's?

And why hasn't she been queried about the real nature of her "community relations" job -- at $300,000 per year -- at the University of Chicago hospital? Reportedly, her job was to increase the hospital's earnings by discouraging poor people from seeking care. If that wasn't her job, then what exactly was her function?

Obama has admitted to using cocaine earlier in his life. When did he stop, if in fact he ever stopped? And, did he ever sell cocaine or heroin or other mind-altering drugs? And if so, to whom? When Michelle indicated that, prior to Obama's triumphs, she had "never been proud of [her] country," was that meant as a slam against the Clinton presidency?

Why hasn't Obama ever been asked if Joe Biden's story was true about his being offered the job of Secretary of State? Or is that just another in Biden's long string of lies about himself? Why doesn't at least one reporter dig into that story?

Also, why hasn't Obama been asked about his two enthusiastic endorsements of Blagojevich? Why did he change his mind about the appointment of machine politician Roland Burris? Why does there appear to be a strong correlation between companies that donated to Obama's last two campaigns (2004 for the U.S. Senate and 2008 for the presidency) and the amount of bailout money they received?

Of course such questions would never be posed to "The Great One" or TGO's angry, sour wife. When Michelle appeared on "The View," she presented the "enquiring" ladies there with a list of questions they were not allowed to ask. Sarah constantly gets asked "no win" questions right out of the "when-did-you-stop-beating-your-spouse?" category.

The media doesn't do contrasts between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, mainly because she has solid executive-style achievements and basically he has none. Why don't we hear more about his signal lack of success as a "community organizer?" Why don't we hear more about his dismal records as an Illinois State Senator and a U.S. Senator, where he rarely even showed up in DC?

Amazingly, we know a great deal about Sarah Palin and her family. Essentially, however, we know nothing about the Obamas and their lives together. Presumably, there are reasons why they keep their lives such a secret, but if we're waiting for the MSM to help us there, we're almost certainly waiting in vain.

Barack Obama: Sowing Economic Disaster

The problem is that the Democrats look at most of the public as helpless babies, waiting for Big-Mama-Government to feed and "take care of" them. Of course, the liberals love to foster this notion, because the more people become dependent, the more they rely completely on "the government" (i.e., those of us who pay taxes) to take care of them.

Thus, we give big "tax cuts" to people who pay no income tax. If you provide men and women with "tax cuts" when they're not federal taxpayers, you're taking resources from the productive -- the working, wealth-generating, job-creating people -- and giving them to the unproductive. When you reward people for merely being alive, you provide powerful incentives for an increasing number of individuals to contribute nothing to society. They take much; they give back little or nothing.

In exchange, we give away our rights to a vigorous economy and a free society. As Dick Morris recently said, our country turns from a dynamic USA into a lassitudinous, slow-growth France.

This is a "speech" that Barack Obama could give -- and should give -- but won't. Thus, he and his allies commit one immoral act after another, giving money to the current generation and sending huge bills to future generations. That doesn't produce economic recovery. It produces short-term and long-term economic disaster.

Obama is really a slicker -- and more discreet -- form of Gov. Rod Blagojevich, whom Obama supporting in "Blago's" runs for Illinois governor. Clearly, Obama believes in "pay for play" politics. In the past, those who rewarded Senator Obama with campaign contributions got big paybacks in the form of earmarks and legislation.

It's "Chicago politics," the only kind Obama knows. So, the stimulus package is loaded with goodies for the unions and other groups that contributed to -- and voted for -- Barack Obama. Is the original "Mayor Daley" up in heaven (or somewhere?) smiling?

If the current President's agenda represents change, it's the kind Blagojevich and Obama have always stood for: pay off your supporters and punish your opponents.