I am not alone in noticing that Michelle "obama" is a TRANSVESTITE -- this 'suspicision' is all over the Internet. Why? Because there are plenty of people willing to SEE what is RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR FACES

OPEN YOUR EYES and SEE! Neither child looks anything like either Barry or "michelle".

This entire REGIME is too gross to stomach and now America has two FREAKS living as a "couple" with apparently two adopted girls in the Whitehouse.

Is their "grandmother" still in the whitehouse raising 'the girls'? This "grandmother" is very well paid.

Several "exhibits" follow as well as three pages of racist comments such as this one from "member" Bodhi:

Did you see her with that hula hoop
on the lawn, if barry got on her
bad side she would flip that
big ugly hip of hers into his little
curious george body and send him
flying out of the WH on Penn
Avenue on his ass so fast he
he wouldn't be able to say
Jack Robinson.

And this one from "member" BabyGotBeck that begins:

Oh, my, god. Becky, look at her butt.
It is so big. *scoff* She looks like,
one of those rap guys' girlfriends.
But, y'know, who understands those rap guys? *scoff*
They only talk to her, because,
she looks like a total prostitute, 'kay?
I mean, her butt, is just so big. *scoff*
I can't believe it's just so round, it's like,
out there, I mean - gross. Look!
She's just so ... black!

And this one from "member" sunflowers:

I've always said, those 2 girls don't look like they have a lick of white blood in them.

As I don’t have video, I’m attaching Jon Stewart’s brilliant take down of the right wing hypocrisy regarding this whole issue.

Despite the heavy editing, Stewart’s personal cell phone number remains in one video. Another classy move from Team Breitbart.

As has become customary, there was nobody on Hannity to offer a pro-ACORN perspective or even to question the claims of the filmmakers. Hannity didn’t even read ACORN’s refutation. But the fact that the segment did not air until the second half of the show, when the top story was a rehash with Elisabeth Hasselbeck of Hannity’s interview with Sarah Palin the night before, was a strong indication that Fox News producers knew they did not have anything like “what may be the most explosive ACORN video yet,” as Hannity gushed in his introduction.

Predictably, Hannity once again failed to question Giles about her inconsistent statements, saying first that no ACORN employee had refused to help the pair with their scam and then claiming that only employee had turned them down. Nor did Hannity follow up on Giles’ dubious statement, made on Hannity two months ago, that she had been “working on” verifying whether or not an ACORN employee in San Bernardino had been telling the truth when she boasted, in a previous video shown on Fox, that she had killed her husband or whether that employee had been pulling their legs, as she later claimed.

Breitbart complained to Hannity that while there has been no federal inquiry into ACORN, he, O’Keefe and Giles are being investigated (by AG Jerry Brown, in California). “That’s why we’ve been forced to offer this latest tape,” Breitbart said.

"Are you saying, Andrew, that there are more tapes?” Hannity asked, playing straight man because he already knew there were more.

“Oh, my goodness, there are,” Breitbart said. “Not only are there more tapes, it’s not just ACORN. (Hannity could be heard delightedly saying “Wow!” in the background). And this message is to Attorney General Holder. I want you to know that we have more tapes. It’s not just ACORN and we’re gonna hold out until the next election cycle or else if you want to do a clean investigation, we will give you the rest of what we have. We will comply with you, we will give you the documentation we have from countless ACORN whistleblowers who want to come forward but are fearful of this organization and the retribution that they fear, that this is a dangerous organization. So if you get into an investigation, we will give you the tapes. If you don’t give us the tapes (sic), we will revisit these tapes come election time.”

Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines “blackmail” as “extortion or coercion by threats especially of public exposure or criminal prosecution.”

Palin said of the media strategy of the McCain camp, “It was a bit perplexing for at least those on the vice-presidential side of the ticket and not really understanding where we were going there with the relationships with the media. It was just an indication maybe of some things in our campaign being out of touch with the normal, everyday, average American who wanted to truly connect with the candidates.”

Although O’Reilly seemed determined – as he stated on Wednesday night’s Factor (see my post here) – not to conduct a “cupcake” interview, he never promised to be fair and balanced, and it’s a good thing.

“It’s fair to say that you were over-controlled by the McCain people,” O’Reilly stated. Hey, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t he supposed to be asking questions, not stating answers? Just askin’.

“They were the ‘experts,’” Palin said, punting responsibility, “They had run national campaigns before . . . so . . . obviously having to put a lot of faith in their strategy . . . those times that I was more assertive were the times that I was called ‘going rogue,’ and that being leaked to the press . . . there were mistakes being made in the campaign, I made mistakes in the campaign . . . .” Nope, she still can’t string five words together into a coherent, grammatically correct sentence. It’s comforting that some things never change.

When asked by O’Reilly if Palin had ever gone to McCain with her beefs about her “operatives,” Palin said (crucifix shining brightly around her neck – wait, aren’t Christians supposed to tell the truth?), “I never bad-mouthed any of the [McCain] operatives, I had faith that Senator McCain was working with those operatives . . . .” Guess Palin-style Christians go the “situational ethics” route: As reported by Politico in October 2008, “Palin blames her handlers for a botched rollout and a tarnished public image . . . .” . Sounds like bad-mouthing to me.

“Woah woah woah woah woah, wait wait wait,” O’Reilly cried, “You’re frustrated and you’re not seeing their vision, don’t you think you should have gone to the presidential candidate and said, hey, they’re mismanaging me, you’ve gotta let me loose?”

Palin responded with typical Palin-speak, i.e., not translatable as any sort of proper English by any educated person, “Not necessarily . . . Not wanting to burden him with the internal operatives.”

O’Reilly blew the “no cupcake” pledge once again, stating, “You guys could have won the election, I think . . . the press was against you, we all know that. Bush had a lot of trouble and that hurt the Republican ticket. But it was close . . . .” Close? Obama won 53% of the vote, McCain 46%, with Obama sweeping 365 electoral votes to McCain’s 173. Right, if it weren’t for that “gotcha” liberal elite media, McCain-Palin would have closed that gap right up.

O’Reilly went from “cupcake interview” to, like, “sugar-free pudding” interview – he, in his mind at least, pinned her to the wall with his rough questions.

O’Reilly opined, “The two signature moments that got you in trouble, with all due respect, Governor, were the Gibson interview when he looked down at you with his nose, with the glasses on the nose, and he said, [clip of Gibson], ‘Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?’ When I heard that, I said, what Bush Doctrine?’”

Roll the Gibson clip where she fumbles the “Bush Doctrine” question. I watched it a couple of times for comic relief.

“Do you think that Gibson did that to demean you, to make you look stupid?” O’Reilly asked, moving back into the “cupcake” zone.

Here we go – Palin had to slam the MSM – the same people who, in fact, asked simple questions that did, in fact, make her look stupid: “Those are the ‘gotcha’ techniques that some in the – what some people call mainstream, others call now the lamestream media, want to participate in . . . had he explained a little bit more, the context of the question he was asking, probably could have answered it.”

O’Reilly cruised back and forth from “cupcake” to “sugar-free pudding” zones, saying, first, “It hurt Gibson because a lot of women said, that’s not fair [it’s a cupcake!]. . . Katie Couric asked you an easy question, and you booted it, Governor. [yummy sugar-free pudding].”

Palin acknowledged, “I sure did.”

Roll the clip of Couric’s “gotcha” question about what Palin reads. Played that one a couple of times, too, for a chuckle.

“Why did you boot it?” O’Reilly asked.

Palin sneered, “It’s ridiculous to suggest that . . . I couldn’t tell people what I read . . . it was quite obvious that it was going to be a bit of an annoying interview . . . it seemed to me that she didn’t know anything about Alaska, about my job as Governor, about my accomplishments as a mayor or Governor, my record, and a question like that, though . . . I should have been more patient and more gracious in my answer . . . It seemed to me that the question was more along the lines of, do you read . . . .” So, her mistake was not in being unable to name what she read – her mistake was not being more of a saint and showing patience and grace at the “gotcha” journalist who had the nerve to ask her what she read.

O’Reilly answered, once again, for Palin, stating, “So that was your inexperience . . . you were fed up, you were frustrated.”

Clearly not wanting to cite inexperience, Palin responded, “It was my inexperience in having to deal with a badgering, condescending line of questioning. It had no reflection at all on my inexperience in terms of administrative record or accomplishments . . . and you know what, so what, so I wasn’t doing the right thing to ingratiate myself with liberal media personalities to make ‘em like me. So what . . . I think if most normal Americans were put in the same position that I was there they’d probably look at her and have that proverbial eye roll and say, are you kidding me? . . . .”

O’Reilly commented, “That led in my opinion to the McCain people . . . saying, you know, we can’t trust her out there, because she booted that . . . although Katie Couric . . . says she wasn’t out to get you.”

Pointing a finger at Palin [Tonya Reiman, body language expert, what say you?], O’Reilly said, “But you think she was out to get you.” (Emphasis mine)

Palin continued to spin the interview as a “gotcha,” saying, “. . . I think that she was out to get, if you will, anyone who didn’t believe in her perspective. It’s not like she was gonna get in there and be, I think, unbiased, objective and fair . . . But it is ‘my bad’ . . . in my response, a very annoyed response, to a very annoying question.” Damn, if she thinks “What do you read?” is an annoying question, it’s a good thing nobody asked her what her favorite color is, or favorite food. Talk about “gotcha!”

O’Reilly teased her about her ‘my bad’ comment, which netted him a little cutesie pout, a little shoulder shrug, and a sultry look to the side.

Whirlwind book tour, sympathetic Fox News hosts, and some PR props for her presidential bid in 2012? She’s ba-ack!

On Monday, (11/16/09), Special Report discussed health care reform in a not-so fair and balanced way that just happened to take Republican Mitch McConnell’s spin and present it as news. With video.

AP noted the following: “When poll questions were framed broadly, the answers seemed to indicate ample support for Obama's goals. When required trade-offs were brought into the equation, opinions shifted - sometimes dramatically.” Baier did not mention this observation from the AP, which allowed him to add that “lack of broad public support is just one of the problems facing senate’s top democrat as he prepares to unveil his plan.”

Next, reporter Jim Angle showed Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell stating that none of the 99 senators actually saw the bill as it is still with Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. Fox viewers saw McConnell demanding senators have enough time to look at the bill. So how exactly is this a problem? Angle reported nothing to put McConnell’s partisan comments in context. It was not just speculation but GOP hype presented without verification.There was also no Democratic view presented as balance.

Angle also made much of the opposition to abortion restrictions from Democrats. So in this case, “fair and balanced” meant presenting Republican and Democrat opposition to the bill instead of presenting support and opposition.

The bill’s cost was also discussed based on the analysis of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The analysis “predicts that between 2010 and 2019, the overall national health expenditures would increase by $289 billion, or 0.8%, from baseline projections established earlier this year.” Misleadingly, the Fox report says “national expenditure would increase by $289 billion.” The $289 billion figure is in fact an offset in projection over the next 10 years but the Fox report omits both key phrases.

Although Baier noted in the beginning of his report that there is an “even split” on the health care bill, no view supporting the bill was presented. 3 arguments against; 0 arguments for.

But at the end of the day, Hamilton prevailed. Has Jesus stopped listening to Fox Nation?

E-mail the show: friends@foxnews.com

Comment: Wow, I sure hope Doocy and Kilmeade score some plenary indulgences on that one because they sure did the bishop’s bidding in totally misrepresenting this bill in favor of “pro-life” propaganda. They really tipped their hand when they referred to “ending a life” when the correct language should have been “what some consider to be ending a life” because not all religions feel that women are murderers. But beyond this, the total lack of any journalistic standards was amazing. There are some serious questions regarding the Stupak Amendment which the guys didn’t address. The Stupak Amendment goes beyond Hyde in that it would prohibit women who pay for their own coverage to have access to plans that do cover abortion because, according to the lifers, this money would spill over into funding abortions. It’s like saying that if you get food stamps (a government subsidy) you can’t use your own money to pay for your abortion. Not noted by the guys is the fact that 17 states currently allow Medicaid funded abortions because the state funds are segregated. Not mentioned in the interview was the Capps Amendment which would have set up a mechanism for insurance companies to do the same. Marci Hamilton, a legal scholar, contends that this amendment is unconstitutional as it violates “equal protection, due process, and privacy rights.” CNN”s legal commentator, Jeff Toobin, also argues that the intent of this legislation is make access to abortion much harder as it prohibits the federal plan from offering plans that cover abortion and in so doing will discourage the private sector insurance companies from offering any plans, to anybody, that cover abortions. A new study from the GWU School of Health makes this quite clear. Since the moment that this passed, there has been a lot of deconstruction of the onerous consequences of the bill – but you didn’t hear it on Fox&Friends. Funny, on the same day that the guys provided a platform for Stupak, Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand spoke of how she and other pro-choice women politicians are vowing to defeat the Stupak Amendment. Wonder if Fox&Friends will interview her? Of all the propaganda pieces I’ve seen on Fox’s morning kid’s show, this one takes the cupcake!

“I am still perplexed as to why we weren’t fair to the electorate and discussed those associations,” Palin responded. “…I think that it was quite unfortunate… It wasn’t negative campaigning and it wasn’t off-base… Now what you did and other common-sense conservatives – what you guys did was try to do the job that a campaign should have done. We really missed the boat on that.”

“Yeah, it surprised me.” Hannity reiterated a litany of accusations supposedly “proving” Obama and Ayers were close. However, Hannity undoubtedly knows that, as CNN reported in a fact check of Palin’s “palling around with terrorists” charges against Obama during the campaign, “There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now ‘palling around,’ or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are.”

Of course, every time Hannity postures about someone else’s “radical associations,” we can’t help but respond by pointing out his bigoted associations with white supremacist Hal Turner and anti-Semite Andy Martin as well as a special fondness for people in the hot seat for racially dubious comments.

“Why not bring up Rev. Wright? …It still amazes me that that was not a bigger issue in the campaign,” Hannity said.

Palin was selfless as ever. “It should have been a bigger issue because I think it was indicative of some of the quote, unquote tolerance of a candidate in terms of hearing a message and being fed things that are not good for our country.”

Hannity wasn’t done with his hate mongering. “Is the president then more radical than he let on? Do you think the president’s radical?”

Palin didn’t want to go there. “I will not hesitate to say that his associations, his associates have been extremely radical and we see that then in some of the appointments that he has made. And again, I think that it is unfair to the electorate to, for a candidate or a campaign to hesitate in calling someone out on what their record really represents.”

“I agree with that,” Hannity said.

Then, as Palin acknowledged that her husband Todd, is not a registered Republican, Hannity “joked,” that “He’s part of that group, by the way, that wanted to secede.”

“Oh, yes, supposedly, right,” Palin said sarcastically.

Not supposedly but actually. It has been proven that Todd Palin was a member of the Alaskan Independencde Party for seven years. Take a look at their website which states that their members, "advocate a range of solutions to the conflicts between federal and local authority; from advocacy for state's rights, through a return to territorial status, all the way to complete independence and nationhood status for Alaska." FactCheck.org points out that Palin attended at least one of AIP's conventions. Talking Points Memo reported that Palin courted the founder of AIP despite the fact that he has expressed hatred for the United States.

So Palin has some significant anti-American associations, and they are a lot deeper than Obama’s tenuous ties to the now-respectable Ayers. But it’s funny how “Great American” Hannity and the rest of “we like America” Fox News never seems to care.

Hannity not only completely bought her story, he raised her one, so to speak. After a bit of image rehab in which Hannity urged Palin to rewrite her disastrous Katie Couric interview by telling the audience how she wished she had answered the questions, he said (at about the 4:14 mark in the video below), “You talk about the thumping, you talk about ‘Rules for Radicals,’ and you talk about Rahm (Emanuel) and the Democrats and you got The Chicago Treatment. Do you think they were responsible for a lot of the investigations that ensued which, you know, became very troublesome and expensive for you, which led to the resignation?”

“Absolutely,” Palin said. “But it wasn’t just me. It was the burden put on the state administration. The millions of dollars, the thousands of hours that my staff had to spend just to respond to the frivolous things that were thrown our way and that was all quite unfortunate.”

Obama and Emanuel must have remarkable clairvoyant powers. The Troopergate investigation, for example, began before her nomination. And Rahm Emanuel wasn't working for Obama until after the election.

“Do you believe,” O’Reilly asked Palin, “That you are smart enough, incisive enough, intellectual enough, to handle the most powerful job in the world . . . ?”

“I believe that I am,” Palin said in her usual narcissistic, egotistical, totally deluded way, “Because I have common sense, and I have I believe the values that are reflective of so many other American values.”

I actually gasped.

Reiman noted, “I thought she was intimidated by you.” Music to O’Reilly’s ears – no cupcake interview! Reiman noted that when O’Reilly started asking questions, Palin’s lips tightened, which is “fear, anxiety,” and O’Reilly seemed happily surprised to hear that. Reiman went on to say that when O’Reilly pointed his hand at her, and leaned in, his thumb “goes down.”

“You were trying to make sure that this came across as an interview not an interrogation . . . thumbs are power digits,” Reiman told O’Reilly.

“I tried to be very respectful to Sarah Palin,” O’Reilly said, the Knight in Shining Armor, “Because so many people have given her a hard time and I didn’t want to do that . . . but on the other hand I didn’t want it to a cupcake interview, and it wasn’t.”

O’Reilly disagreed that she was intimidated, saying, “I thought she was relaxed . . . .”

Reiman backed off a bit, conceding, “She was guarded . . . very guarded.”

“Here’s the difference,” O’Reilly said. “She didn’t control this interview . . . and she did control the Walters-Oprah interviews . . . .” Ah, yes, the all-important control. Notice how he denigrated Oprah and Walters (two females) for not having “control” of their subject?

Moving on to Sally Quinn – O’Reilly said last week he “had to rough her up a little – verbally, of course . . . the Ft. Hood thing, she wouldn’t put the terrorist designation on the Major who killed all those people.” Hmmm, first he’s into “control” of one female, and now he has to rough up another.

Out of the gate, O’Reilly attacks and demeans Quinn, crying indignantly, “A third grader gets this and you’re resisting it – I wanna know why.” And here’s a third – he demeans Quinn for not being as savvy as a third-grader.

Quinn wouldn’t commit to the “terrorist” tag, so O’Reilly kept bullying her until she finally humored him, saying flatly, “Okay, he’s a Muslim terrorist.”

Reiman told O’Reilly that Quinn’s final comment was a “that’s enough” comment. Reiman also pointed out that O’Reilly had the “double chop” with Quinn – both hands pointing at her (no thumb down?) -- and O’Reilly cackled a bit about that.

“You were very animated, and on the flip side she’s so passive during this interview,” Reiman noted. Evidently, O’Reilly-speak is catching, because that “animated” thing Reiman talked about was really bullying, and “passive” on the part of Quinn was actually calm, cool and collected,

Reiman noted a point where Quinn’s mouth turns down into a frown, and O’Reilly boasted, “But she knew she couldn’t win the argument, I was overwhelming her with facts.” And underwhelming the rest of us.

On to Dobbs . . . there wasn’t a lot to say, because O’Reilly gave Dobbs a pretty wide latitude. Reiman noted that Dobbs has “excellent body language,” and said he carried himself well. She denied any defensiveness, thought he was relatively relaxed, saying, “He recognized that this is your territory,” and said the Dobbs interview was a “whole different level of intimidation” than the Palin interview.

“Cupcake” interview – with the female. “Control” the interview – with the female. “Rough her up a little” – the female, of course. “A third grader gets it” – oh, those dumb females. “Double chop” – only with the female. “She couldn’t win” – zero sum game, if she wins, I lose.

O’Reilly could sit as still as a statute, and his body language would still scream “sexist control freak.”

A little wiggle here, a little sultry shoulder move there, and voila – a Foxette in training. Can't beat the "family values" network for pure sleaze.

SMH (shake my head).