…A nervous young McCain staffer took it upon himself to explain to Palin the facts of life in a national campaign, the intense scrutiny she’d be under from the media, the viciousness of the assault that she’d be facing, etc.:

Palin: “Thanks for the warning. By the way, do you know what they say the difference is between a hockey mom and a Pit Bull?”

McCain aide: “No, Governor.”

Palin: “A hockey mom wears lipstick.”

That quote had me laughing today every time I saw a pit bull.

This is why more and more this country is becoming unrecognizable to me. We used to be the country where, whomever you are, you could make it. Now, it would seem that feminism no longer has any room for those of us Conservative women. Liberal women no longer care to debate the particulars with their conservative sisters, they’d just rather punt us aside because we “embarass” the cause or we have nothing to add.

What an utterly sad thing this situation is. I’m not sure that this is the kind of legacy that such women’s rights activists as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton would have agreed with.

Ain’t feminism grand?

The one benefit of all this, as Rush put it, is that feminism has now been exposed for what it really is, just another channel for liberalism. The NAGS could care less about real-life women.

Come on we know Obama isn’t a Muslim because in his own mind there’s no God higher than himself

I can admit when something is funny and that was really funny.

The MSM has so lost their minds with BDS and now PDS that they have no shame at all.

It’s not 1972.

Bill Ayers knows that too. Here’s what he wrote on his blog on April 2006:

Still I’m disinclined to apologize because I hear the demand for a general apology as a howling mob with an impossibly broad demand, and on top of that I’m not sure what exactly I’d apologize for. The ’68 Convention? The Days of Rage? Bombing the Pentagon? Every one of these can be unpacked and found to be a complicated mix of good and bad choices, noble and low motives.
In some part, apologizing is rejecting, letting go or giving up—conversion. There’s something deeply human at stake, something in both the heart and the head, an intellectual severance, an emotional break. And a broad, general apology may be just too much—I am not now nor have I ever been… Even when true, the words are mortifying. They are the end not only of a dream, but of a life. The apology in general is uttered, and suddenly you die.

…

In my case, my actions are all well-known, I’ve resolved the legal charges, and I’ve faced the consequences. Yet a central moral question remains—the question of individual responsibility and of the nature of judgment. But I still refuse to grow up if the price is to falsely confess a sin I don’t take to be a sin.

So how does this compare to his statement against terrorism?

I’ve never advocated terrorism, never participated in it, never defended it.

If he “never participated in it,” yet admits to what he did, then there would appear to be a contradiction. Unless, of course, he doesn’t consider what he did to be terrorism. Let’s look at the last line of his earlier statement again, shall we?

But I still refuse to grow up if the price is to falsely confess a sin I don’t take to be a sin.

How can you reasonably claim that he has repudiated what he did when he clearly thinks that what he did was not terrorism, and not even wrong? How can you claim (without the rest of us rolling around the floor in laughter) that he is repentant when he equates apologizing to dying? Can you find a confirmable quote where he specifically repudiates his actions with the Weather Underground and not simply “terrorism” carried out by someone else?