Here's the report (PDF).

If a conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, then no one should have one.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, they don't eat meat. If a liberal is vegetarian, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, they quietly enjoy their life. If a liberal is homosexual, they loudly demand legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful. Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal wants all churches to be silenced and God removed from public view..

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his.

Although Votevets claims to be the “leading progressive, pro-military organization of veterans” they are not actually a veterans organization as defined by Congress and set forth by the IRS. Even VoteVets themselves have admitted that only about 5 percent of their members are veterans of the GWOT. And even those are somewhat suspect. In fact, as Mothax discussed in his stolen valor piece, at least two VoteVets spokespeople used in television commercials have been proven to have either made up their military records entirely (Rick Duncan/ Strandlof) or vastly inflated their experiences (Josh Lansdale.) While every organization is capable of being infiltrated by phonies, it is unconscionable that an organization would use a guy in TV commercials who claimed to have had a finger shot off and a plate in his head when simple visual inspection revealed no scars.

Unlike The American Legion which operates from a resolution format where the priorities and positions of the organization are dictated by grassroots’ members, no one knows how VoteVets determines their positions. Take for instance their current campaign on behalf of the “Card Check” bill which would do away with secret balloting in Union votes. What is the basis for taking a position on this bill which seemingly doesn’t actually deal with veterans issues?

The chancellor and vice-chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley make their case for sticking their snouts even deeper into the Federal money trough:

Specifically, the federal government should create a hybrid model in which a limited number of our great public research and teaching universities receive basic operating support from the federal government and their respective state governments. Washington might initially choose a representative set of schools, perhaps based on their research achievements, their success in graduating students, commitment to public service and their record in having a student body that is broadly representative of society.

What about those public universities that are not judged by such worthies as Robert J. Birgenau and Frank D. Yeary, Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley? Does anybody really think that South Dakota State University (to name one at random) will make the cut and sit at the same table as the Lords of Berkeley and the Big 10?

Dear Mr. Birgenau and Mr. Yeary:

You have plenty of money to do what you're supposed to do. Get your hand out of my pocket in Lee's Summit, Missouri, get back to your campus and teach students more about freedom and liberty, calculus and chemistry, honor, honest work and responsibility, and less about class struggle, intolerant "diversity," post-modernist deconstruction of "what they really meant" and pseudo-scientific environmentalist dogma. Thanks.

The parade of Hollywood luminaries to rally to convicted child-rapist Roman Polanski tells you everything you really need to know about them. They have no morals beyond running with and viciously defending their particular pack. If you're in, they will defend you no matter how loathsome you are. If you're out, they'll attack you, no matter how virtuous you are.

But what about you, dear reader?

Do you really want to support people who side with a pedophile/rapist against his victim?

I'm afraid that you do that every time you watch a TV show or movie made by these people in Hollywood.

Or do you agree with these people that drugging and raping a 13 year old girls, and then skipping out on the justice system is good and appropriate behavior? Because that's what Roman Polanski did. He got a 13-year-old girl drunk. Then he slipped her barbituates. Then he took her clothes off. Then he arranged her limp, naked body in front of him. Then he raped her. Then he ran after he pled guilty, but before the judge pronounced his sentence.

This is an either-or issue. Either you support the rapist and his friends, or you don't.

I suggest "don't."

I ask because of this paragraph in Palin's speech in Hong Kong:

Think about it. How many books and articles have been written about the dangers of India’s rise? Almost as large as China – and soon to be more populous – virtually no one worries about the security implications of India becoming a great power – just as a century ago the then-preeminent power, Great Britain, worried little about the rise of America to great power status. My point is that the more politically open and just China is, the more Chinese citizens of every ethnicity will settle disputes in courts rather than on the streets. The more open it is, the less we will be concerned about its military build-up and intentions. The more transparent China is, the more likely it is they we will find a true and lasting friendship based on shared values as well as interests.

China is not the only country that is rising. So is India. But we do not worry about India’s rise. That is because India is a democracy. Almost everything it does is transparent to us. We share liberal values with India, including the desire to strengthen the post-World War II liberal international order of open trade and investment and the general desire among democracies to settle internal and external disputes peacefully and democratically. The fact that China is not a democracy matters greatly as it rises. It makes its rise more disruptive as countries have to divine its intentions and observe the gap between its rhetorical policy of a “Peaceful Rise” and some of its actions that are inconsistent with a peaceful rise.

Weird, isn't it?

UPDATE: Ah, I see that Blumenthal is in fact one of Palin's advisers. Makes sense then.