GBTV - Where the Truth Lives

Election Season 2014

And it has brought us to this trainwreck called ObamaCare and we have bankrupted our kids and grandkids!

We are now headed into the 2014 Election Season and common sense and conservatism are on the rise. Please stand-up and be counted!

Reading Collusion: How the Media Stole the 2012 Election is a great place to start!

The Founding Father's Real Reason for the Second Amendment

And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).

The Leaders Are Here... Palin, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Chaffetz....

T'S A WONDERFUL LIFE

Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???

Bloggers' Rights at EFF

SIGN THE PETITION TODAY...

Showing posts with label NOW. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NOW. Show all posts

Thursday, April 12, 2012

And So It Begins… Ann Romney critic frequent White House visitor

There was a time when the goal of all Americans was to have moms stay home and raise their own children with their family’s values and run their households.  Look at this nice family.  Ann and Mitt Romney did a great job.  

romney-fam2005-340x229

Women married to businessmen often are also invaluable to their husbands in organizing entertainment, social and charity events as well as being active in their churches and their children’s schools; all of which is true of Ann Romney!

Ann Romney has M.S. & is a breast cancer survivor.  If she were a Democrat or a NOW member she would be a hero just for surviving.  But because she was a stay at home conservative mom married to the presumptive GOP nominee, where she is an invaluable asset… her life just isn’t enough?!?  Targeted by friend of radical Obama advisors Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod the low life Democrat Hillary Rosen, demeans stay at home moms.  

What is it with Progressive women?  Why is there this need to go after their more conservative sisters?  Look what they did to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann for starters, both women have degrees, smarts, are successful in their own rights, have stable families and children, only married once to the same husband and are good looking to boot.  So why are they and more traditional conservative women like Laura Bush and Ann Romney fader for the left’s negative comments… while Hillary Clinton can do no wrong?  Envy would be my initial reaction!

As long as we allow the progressives to divide us, whether it is through using race, religion, color, politics, income level or personal preferences… they win and our nation, our values and principles and all groups lose!

Divide and conquer is part of the Progressive playbook that is in full use right now and will continue through the November election and into Obama’s second term and beyond, if there is one.  This week alone they have hit the Romneys on their religion, remodeling their home and now Ann being a stay at home mom.

Game on… the stakes are high.  And congratulations to Ann Romney for winning this round!

Ask Marion~

Romney 2012

WND Exclusive: Democrat consult ant met with top Obama advisers Jarrett, Axelrod  

By Aaron Klein

While the Democratic National Committee was quick to distance itself today from marketing strategist Hilary Rosen, WND has found that Rosen held strategy meetings with top Obama aides Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod.

Rosen also sits on the board of a progressive organization described as the “idea factory” of the Obama administration.

Rosen is now under fire after she insulted Ann Romney and stay-at-home mothers, saying the wife of GOP candidate Mitt Romney never held a job.

“Guess what, his wife has actually never worked a day in her life,” Rosen said in an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper about women’s issues.

AThe Romneysnn Romney took to Twitter to respond, writing, “I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work.”

Rosen is a partner at SKD Knickerbocker, the public relations and strategy firm of former White House communications director Anita Dunn. SKD handled Obama’s 2008 campaign.

Among those distancing themselves from Rosen is David Axelrod, who tweeted his disapproval: “Also Disappointed in Hilary Rosen’s comments about Ann Romney. They were inappropriate and offensive.”

WND has found that Rosen held five White House meetings, including a March 11, 2009, meeting with Jarrett and a March 12, 2009, meeting with Axelrod described as a “communications message meeting.”

Rosen’s meeting with Axelrod was reported by the Associated Press and CBS News in November 2009.

CBS News noted Axelrod’s White House meeting with Rosen and 18 other strategists demonstrated “the political element of the health care debate.”

Rosen, meanwhile, serves as political director and Washington editor-at large for the Huffington Post and also is a regular commentator for CNN.

She’s on the board of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

The center is deeply involved in helping to influence White House policy under Obama.

Its founder, John Podesta, directed Obama’s 2009 transition into the White House.

Time magazine called CAP Obama’s “idea factory,” noting that “not since the Heritage Foundation helped guide Ronald Reagan’s transition in 1981 has a single outside group held so much sway.”

Time reported it is “difficult to overstate the influence in Obamaland of CAP.”

Rosen serves on the board of the George Soros-funded Human Rights Campaign Foundation and the Creative Coalition.

Already, the DNC has commented on Rosen’s remarks, with an official telling Politico, “Hilary Rosen is not an adviser to the DNC. Our contract for media services is exclusively with Anita Dunn.”

Rosen took to Twitter to further her remarks, writing, “When I said on [CNN] Ann Romney never worked I meant she never had to care for her kids AND earn a paycheck like MOST American women!”

Rosen later tweeted that Mitt Romney “now makes up false concern for women’s economic struggle” and “he should stop saying that she is his guide to women’s economic problems. She doesn’t have any.”

Rosen seemed to backtrack a bit when she posted an explanation at the Huffington Post.

“I have nothing against Ann Romney,” Rosen wrote. “She seems like a nice lady who has raised nice boys and struggled with illness and handles their long term effects with grace and dignity. …What is more important to me and 57 percent of current women voters is her husband saying he supports women’s economic issue because they are the only issues that matter to us and then he fails on even those.”

But don’t feel sorry for Ann… Ann Romney destroys attacking Obama advisor in 1 tweet!  Obama advisor Hilary Rosen’s mockery of Ann Romney for ‘never having worked a day in her life’ backfired in a huge way. Given she is a mother of 5 boys, has M.S. & is a breast cancer survivor - trying to go after her for ‘never working’ is not smart (and not true). Ann joined Twitter and dismissed Rosen in 1 tweet.

TPN:  Low Life Democrat Hilary Rosen Attacks Stay at Home Moms

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Snared in the Soros Web

clip_image002

I’m a digger, always have been… I dig until I uncover the facts, the truth is the only thing that stops me. Yesterday, I was doing what I love – uncovering the Progressives within The Sunlight Foundation, when I had an epiphany that rocked me.

As all researchers will tell you, deep research is like putting together a puzzle, one piece at a time. Sometimes those pieces fall into place all at once, showing a picture of what you are dealing with as a whole and you are never the same. That’s what happened to me yesterday and it took my breath away.

It turns out that many of the sources I use for research are connected to George Soros‘ money. Here are a few I dug up and there are many more that are not listed here:

· George Soros —> Open Society Institute —> Wikipedia —> Source: Keywiki

· George Soros —> Open Society Institute —> Wikimedia Foundation —> Source:Keywiki

· George Soros —> Open Society Institute —> The Sunlight Foundation —> Congresspedia —> SourceWatch —> Source: Keywiki

· George Soros —> Open Society Institute —> Open Secrets —> Source: Open Secrets

· George Soros —> Open Society Institute —> The Campaign Legal Center —> Source: Campaign Legal Center

· George Soros —> Open Society Institute —> The Campaign Finance Institute —>Source: The Campaign Finance Institute

· George Soros —> Proteus Fund —> The Joyce Foundation —> Campaign Finance Information Center —> Source: Campaign Finance Information Center

· George Soros —> University of California —> The Law Blog —> Source: Election Law Blog

· George Soros —> Open Society Institute —> Open Secrets —> Follow the Money Database —> Source: Follow the Money Database

· George Soros —> Open Society Institute —> The Sunlight Foundation —> Sunlight Foundation Reporting Group —> Source: The Sunlight Foundation

· George Soros —> Open Society Institute —> The Sunlight Foundation —> govtrack.us —> Source: govtrack.us

· George Soros —> Open Society Institute —> Open Secrets —> Lobbying Database —>Source: Lobbying Database

· George Soros —> Open Society Institute —> The Sunlight Foundation —> Poligraft —> Source: Poligraft

· George Soros —> Open Society Institute —> Open Secrets —> Revolving Door: Search Database —> Source: Revolving Door: Search Database

· George Soros —> Open Society Institute —> Center for Investigative Reporting —>Source: Keywiki

· George Soros —> Google.org —> Google —> Source: Keywiki

Soros has spread his money far and wide. He has created a myriad of Internet sources that actually are the polar opposite of what their titles indicate. He has masterfully placed Marxists on the boards of these companies – I see some of the same names over and over again. He now has people everywhere that are following a set Progressive/Marxist agenda. It’s like the mob – once you take his money and his people, the only way out is a toe tag either for the business or you.

I have been at this long enough that I can ferret out facts found on these sites and still glean info from them. But sometimes, they fool even me. This is a warning to my fellow researchers out there – Soros basically owns the majority of information sources on the web. Even if the company claims they are neutral, by taking his funds funneled through various layers of foundations, they have opened themselves up to the potential of influence and corruption. They are tainted.

The Soros Files shows this wonderfully, as does Keywiki. I want to lay out the Soros Media Network for you next and this makes my stomach curl in on itself. A special thanks to Trevor Loudon of New Zeal and Cliff Kincaid of America’s Survival, Inc. for their excellent documentation and research on The Soros Files.

The Soros Media Network:

· Proteus
Media Democracy Fund
The Media Consortium: “a network of the country’s leading, progressive, independent media outlets.” Tracy Van Slyke, Director

· Center for Investigative Reporting
Media Partners: ABC News, CNN, Frontline, Los Angeles Times, Salon.com, the Washington Post, American Radio Works

· Russia Today (RT) – Thom Harmann
Huffington Post
Mark Keiser / RT / Press TV / Al-Jazeera

· Democracy Now!Amy Goodman – 900 stations

· Free Press / Media Matters

· Link TV – “Television Without Borders” – Danny Glover, Board Member
Channel 9410 DISH
Channel 375 DirecTV
Distributes Al-Jazeera and “Weather Underground” film

· Free Speech TV – “Anti-Fox network” – Don Rojas, Director, worked for Maurice Bishop of Grenada
DISH Network (channel 9415)
DirecTV (channel 348) and part-time on 200 cable affiliates in 39 states.
Seeks OSI funding.
Distributes Al-Jazeera

· Inter Press Services “is the world’s leading provider of information on global issues, backed by a network of journalists in more than 100 countries…”

· Sundance Institute / PBS

· National Public Radio
$1.8 million from Open Society Foundations in 2010. 10.6% from CPB. 900 stations.

· Pacifica Stations
CPB funding: 2009-2010
KPFA, Berkeley $451,000, $299,958
KPFK, LA $382,035, $350,464
WPFW, DC $238,381, $282083
KPFT, Houston $160,529, $156,474
WBAI, NY $359,915, $319,525

· Project Syndicate: distributes commentaries from George Soros and Joseph Stiglitz to 474 leading newspapers in 151 countries.

· Other Worlds news service – IPS
Southern Poverty Law Center
Free Press
People for the American Way

Magazines:

· Bitch Magazine

· ColorLines

· Dollars and Sense

· Hightower Lowdown

· In These Times

· Mother Jones

· Ms.

· Sojourners

· The American Prospect

· The Nation

· The Progressive

· The Public Eye

· The Texas Observer

· The Washington Monthly

· Utne Reader

· AlterNet

· Buzzflash

· COA News

· Cursor

· Grist

· Huffington Post

· Media Channel

· New America Media

· Pop + Politics

· RH Reality Check

· Salon

· The Raw Story

· The Washington Independent

· TruthDig

Progressive Media Allies:

· Campaign for America’s Future

· Center for American Progress

· Center for Independent Media

· Center for Media Justice

· Color of Change

· Free Press

· Media Matters

· MoveOn

· NAMAC

· New Politics Institute

· Progressive Book Club

· Progressive Communicators Network

· The Media Consortium

· Women’s Media Center

· Working Assets/CREDO

· Democracy Now!

· Free Speech Radio News

· National Radio Project

· Pacifica

· Public News Service

· Radio Nation

· Balcony Films

· Brave New Films

· CurrentTV

· Free Speech TV

· Guerrilla News Network

· LinkTV

· MichaelMoore.com

· Paper Tiger Television

· PoliticsTV

· The Real News

· Third World Majority

· Veracifier

Book Publishers:

· Berrett-Koehler

· Chelsea Green

· Monthly Review Press

· Seal Press

· Seven Stories

· South End Press

· The New Press

As you can see from the list above, Soros has his fingers in everybody’s pie. The old spider is crafty and evil as hell and won’t quit until he collapses the US and he is doing a fine job so far. Notice the deceit in the names – black is white here and transparency does not exist in reality. They claim to be transparent and non-partisan, but they are anything but that.

Tread carefully on the web. Vet your information thoroughly, check every detail. It’s like dancing with the devil who is promising you heaven and earth. You can’t believe anything you see or read at first blush. Don’t get snared in the Soros web.

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton  -  The NoisyRoom

Friday, July 22, 2011

Australia: Sharia - Sanctioned Polygamy and Child Marriage

Posted By Andrew Boston On July 21, 2011

Despite an overall apologetic tone borne of transparent obeisance to cultural relativism, two legal academics, Dr. Ann Black and Dr. Kerrie Sadiq from The University of Queensland TC Beirne School of Law are "suggesting [2]" in their research publication, "Good & Bad Sharia: Australia's mixed response to Islamic Law" (due to be published in the University of New South Wales Law Journal on Monday July 25, 2011) that, "Australia is right to act with caution in dealing with Sharia law."

Why are even these obviously [2] devout votaries of the academic social religion of cultural relativism concerned about the practice of Sharia in Australia at all, or what they term, with revealing euphemism, "legal pluralism?"

One reason was extracted from the forthcoming paper of Drs. Black and Sadiq, and cited by The Australian's legal affairs editor, Chris Merrit [3]:

"Valid Muslim polygynist marriages, lawfully entered into overseas, are recognized, with second and third wives and their children able to claim welfare and other benefits."

Merrit's background article on Black and Sadiq's findings also noted [3] how this practice of Muslim polygamy in Australia involved "marriages where one party is under the lawful marriage age." And Merrit provided this additional context [3]:

"The findings come soon after Ikebal Patel, president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, triggered a backlash inside the Islamic community when he called for Australia to compromise with Islam and embrace legal pluralism

"...The latest research has found that while polygamy is unlawful, mainstream law accommodates men who arrive in Australia with multiple wives and gives some legal standing to multiple partnerships that originate in Australia."

More alarming "context" not addressed by the report of Drs. Black and Sadiq, and in fact dismissed by Dr. Black [2] in these words, "The 'foreignness' of Sharia law is increased by media reports which highlight 'differences' and feed into fears about the Muslim presence in Australia," was provided by The Australian Daily Telegraph [4]:

"On Sunday, a recent convert to Islam in Sydney was allegedly lashed 40 times with electrical cable by men from his mosque, in a terrifying home invasion, as punishment for drinking alcohol - forbidden under Shariah law. Two people have been arrested in connection with the attack."

The staid report by two Australian cultural relativist academics should (but won't) make our mainstream media talking heads curious about how mainstream Islamic opinion views polygamy in the United States. For example, what have the esteemed mainstream Islamic clerics of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) opined regarding polygamy? The AMJA [5] mission statement maintains:

"[The AMJA was] founded to provide guidance for Muslims living in North America. ... AMJA is a religious organization that does not exploit religion to achieve any political ends, but instead provides practical solutions within the guidelines of Islam and the nation's laws to the various challenges experienced by Muslim communities."

A report in The Muslim Observer [6] published October 21, 2010, highlighting AMJA's "seventh annual American conference of imams," confirms that the organization is accepted [6] as such by the mainstream American Muslim community. AMJA and its recent "training" conference for American imams were described [6] in these banal terms:

"The organization AMJA (Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America) has a list of scholars associated with it which stretches from Al-Azhar University to Virginia's Open University, and back across the ocean to the professors at Saudi universities. Its website, amjaonline.com, provides fatawa on many issues and promises 24-hour access to scholars who can give legal opinions on the issues people face. AMJA focuses on providing fatwas to Americans, and believes it is able to provide culturally appropriate fatwas although many of their scholars are not American-because they have some American scholars and because of the technological ties that bind AMJA's American scholars with those abroad. AMJA just had, in Houston, its seventh annual American conference of imams, and two local Michigan imams attended, namely Imam Musa of Bloomfield's Muslim Unity Center, and Imam Ali of MCWS. Mr. Sadiqul Hassan of AMJA explained that 'the event was the 7th annual imam workshop.' Mr. Hassan said that AMJA is 'a fiqh council basically,' with 'scholars who live abroad and inside the U.S.; we have experts in different fields to educate about life in the U.S. -- fatwa are based on life in the U.S.'"

Not only does AMJA extol polygamy in accordance with the Sharia, AMJA endorses its extra-legal (i.e, vis a vis US law) application here in America, as can be readily gleaned from these two "fatwas" or Islamic legal rulings:

Fatwa 2134 [7] Dr. Main Khalid Al-Qudah Date 2006-10-27

Polygamy in Islam is permissible for different reasons, like:

1- The sexual energy of men is more than that of women in general. So, in some cases, one wife is not enough to fulfill the conjugal desire of her husband

2- Pregnancy and delivery negatively affect the shape and physical attraction that women have.

3- World wide, the percentage of females is always more than that of males, eventually, there must be a solution, either to permit adultery and prostitution, or to allow polygamy

4- One husband could take care of more than one wife at the same time; socially, financially, and even sexually as I mentioned above. However, the opposite is not right because of the physical and psychological capability that Allah the all mighty gave men.

Fatwa 3370 [8] Scholar Dr. Hatem al-Haj Date 2007-08-08

Comment from Muslim questioner: We know that polygamy is against USA law. But I heard from my friend that as long as you don`t register your marriage to the registrar, it is okay to have more than one wife here in the states, i.e., all the wives are living here. The argument that he made was that the law that prohibits marrying more than one is against the shaariah so, it is okay for us to break it...There are some scholars in the USA are practicing polygamy without the knowledge of the authorities using that argument....

Dr. Hatem al-Haj's response: Polygamy is halal in Islam and may be highly recommended when the number of females is bigger than that of males to afford all females a decent life that suffices their physiologic, emotional and other needs. The US law about polygamy is against the Islamic law, for no one can make prohibited that which Allah specifically made allowable.

Wake-up America!!  In order for Utah to become a state, the majority population there had to give up Polygamy, a part of their religion.  This is no different.  If immigrants wan to come here or people want to practice a religion that goes against the law of our land, they have to change their practices or choose not to come here.  Americans have been so brainwashed to politically correct that we’ve lost all our common sense!

The column below by Andrew Bostom zeroes in on one aspect of the threat of sharia to the West: Islamic polygamy. An NPR article in 2008 cited sources estimating that as many as 100,000 Muslims live in polygamous families in the U.S. Click here to read the article: http://tool.donation-net.net/Act4America/Polygamy20110722.cfm?dn=1097&commID=67068112&ID=274727

Note that the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America has issued fatwas sanctioning polygamy, in keeping with sharia law. One ruling declares American law prohibiting polygamy "against Islamic law."

The petition supporting Tulsa police Captain Fields is now at 51,000 signers. If you haven't yet done so, please add your name today!

Click here to read and sign the petition: http://tool.donation-net.net/ACT4America/CaptFields.cfm?dn=1097&commID=67068112&ID=274727

--------------

ACT for America

P.O. Box 12765

Pensacola, FL 32591

www.actforamerica.org

ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America's national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam.

We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.

The news items, blogs, educational materials and other information in our emails and on our website are only intended to provide information, news and commentary on events and issues related to the threat of radical Islam. Much of this information is based upon media sources, such as the AP wire services, newspapers, magazines, books, online news blog and news services, and radio and television, which we deem to be reliable. However, we have undertaken no independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the information reported by these media sources. We therefore disclaim all liability for false or inaccurate information from these media sources. We also disclaim all liability for the third-party information that may be accessed through the material referenced in our emails or posted on our website.

Related:

Lambs to the Slaughter

Check out “Muslim Leader Admits Islam Not a Religion of Peace”…

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

From California

The Tim Tebow Super Bowl Ad highlighted that Liberal Women’s Movements like NOW are only for choice… if it is their choice!!! Is that really freedom of speech? And after the commercial aired and was popular, NOW has come up with some insane statement about the ad promoting violence against women, but if you believe that strangely there was no word against the ad showing Betty White being tackled… guess tackling Old Women isn’t violence. And except for the radical women’s groups, like NOW, the main comment heard about the Tebow commercial, even from men, is that is was sweet. Don’t be duped by the left’s games, girls. They don’t care about you, just their left-wing ideas and promoting their organizations… like unions it isn’t really about the overall good of the workers and definitely not about the good of America or viability of the workplace! When Megyn Kelly spoke to the author of a blog post on the Tebow ad subject earlier today, she back peddled trying to direct another attack on Focus on the Family, perhaps realizing how ridiculous this all sounded and how unbalanced her point of view was, considering they had not addressed the commercial with Betty White, which would have been just as ridiculous considering most Americans have a sense of humor.

And then there is the $2.5 million Census commercial paid for by you to manipulate you into distribution of wealth.

Please watch the comparison on the video below:

Obama’s spending is suicidal… But we are still blaming Bush…??? Bush’s spending and deficits vs. Obama; both too much but Bush is a piker in comparison to Obama… even if you erase all of the spending for 2009 and 2010 and blame it on Bush! Wake-up, America!! Please~ Even if it was Bushes fault for all the deficit through 2011, Obama’s presidency would have spent double of what Bush spent in 8 full years with two wars.

As California Goes… So does the rest of the nation. Businesses are fleeing California.

Deficits - video 2

Carly Fiorina – running for Senate…

Glenn: How do you go to Washington and not lose your soul??

Carly: “Things are so dire that people have to get involved!” “Most businesses could not be started in California today…” “The Federal Government has confiscated 30-acres of a families land to protect a fly…but they still have to pay the taxes.”

NO NEW TAXES!!!

CUT SPENDING!!!

I AM NOT A CAREER POLITICIAN, NOT WANT TO BE, AND I KNOW HOW THE REAL WORLD WORKS. SO WILL ASK THE TOUGH QUESTION AND DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE!!!

Glenn with Fiorina - video 3

Glenn has a solution for California’s budget woes… will anyone listen?? (California is like the petrie dish for Washington)

Pete Wilson had a budget that was out of Control… then worse under Grey Davis… then Arnold… much worse. $124.15 Billion in debt.

California is the BTK of the business world. 8.4% taxes… so they leave. California has the second highest progressive taxes in the U.S. and even Oprah lies about her residence to save tax money.

NJ has lost 70% in business revenues because they are leaving.

There is a disconnect between the people and the government in California. 43% of the ‘liberal people’ said cut services.

Don’t buy the Progressive lies… lower taxes equal more revenue, not less.

The fight is against the Progressives… not either party, Obama alone, or any one person in Congress.

California Budget - video 4

Chuck Devore (Running for Senate) understands the Progressive Movement and the dangers. Glenn likes him!! Devore left the California Assembly because of their unbridled spending.

Chuck Devore -video 5

Make sure you buy and read: A Patriot's History of the United States: From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror

This is the mentality of the Progressive Dems from California – See Video of Queen Nancy and her Entourage to the Copenhagen Climate Summit , after the ClimateGate and most Americans we screaming NO to signing the Copenhagen Treaty :

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=A6_xgKWzhRw – You know if CNN says Nancy Pelosi is an awful women that it has got to be so!!

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Why Are They So Afraid of Sarah Palin???

READ TO THE VERY END! VERY ENLIGHTENING!!! AND VERY DISTURBING!!!

By Dewie Whetsell, Alaskan Fisherman

As posted in comments on Greta's article referencing the MOVEON ad about Sarah Palin.

The last 45 of my 66 years I've spent in a commercial fishing town in Alaska . I understand Alaska politics but never understood national politics well until this last year. Here's the breaking point: Neither side of the Palin controversy gets it. It's not about persona, style, rhetoric, it's about doing things. Even Palin supporters never mention the things that I'm about to mention here.

1. Democrats forget when Palin was the Darling of the Democrats, because as soon as Palin took the Governor's office away from a fellow Republican and tough SOB, Frank Murkowski, she tore into the Republican's "Corrupt Bastards Club" (CBC) and sent them packing. Many of them are now residing in State housing and wearing orange jump suits The Democrats reacted by skipping around the yard, throwing confetti and singing, "la la la la" (well, you know how they are). Name another governor in this country that has ever done anything similar.

2. Now with the CBC gone, there were fewer Alaskan politicians to protect the huge, giant oil companies here. So she constructed and enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called "ACES." Exxon (the biggest corporation in the world) protested and Sarah told them, "don't let the door hit you in the stern on your way out." They stayed, and Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being filthy rich. Of course, the other huge international oil companies meekly fell in line. Again, give me the name of any other governor in the country that has done anything similar.

3. The other thing she did when she walked into the governor's office is she got the list of State requests for federal funding for projects, known as "pork." She went through the list, took 85% of the m and placed them in the "when-hell-freezes-over" stack. She let locals know that if we need something built, we'll pay for it ourselves. Maybe she figured she could use the money she got from selling the previous governor's jet because it was extravagant.
Maybe she could use the money she saved by dismissing the governor's cook (remarking that she could cook for her own family), giving back the State vehicle issued to her, maintaining that she already had a car, and dismissing her State provided security force (never mentioning - I imagine - that she's packing heat herself). I'm still waiting to hear the names of those other governors.

4. Now, even with her much-ridiculed "gosh and golly" mannerism, she also managed to put together a totally new approach to getting a natural gas pipeline built which will be the biggest private construction project in the history of North America. No one else could do it although they tried. If that doesn't impress you, then you're trying too hard to be unimpressed while watching her do things like this while baking up a batch of brownies with her other hand.

5. For 30 years, Exxon held a lease to do exploratory drilling at a place called Point Thompson. They made excuses the entire time why they couldn't start drilling. In truth they were holding it like an investment. No governor for 30 years could make them get started. Then, she told them she was revoking their lease and kicking them out. They protested and threatened court action. She shrugged and reminded them that she knew the way to the court house. Alaska won again.

6. President Obama wants the nation to be on 25% renewable resources for electricity by 2025. Sarah went to the legislature and submitted her plan for Alaska to be at 50% renewables by 2025. We are already at 25%. I can give you more specifics about things done, as opposed to style and persona. Everybody wants to be cool, sound cool, look cool. But that's just a cover-up. I'm still waiting to hear from liberals the names of other governors who can match what mine has done in two and a half years. I won't be holding my breath.


By the way, Palin was content to return to AK after the national election and go to work, but the haters wouldn't let her. Now these adolescent screechers are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face off. Shoulda known better.

You have just read the truth about Sarah Palin that sends the media, along with the democrat party, into a wild uncontrolled frenzy to discredit her. I guess they are only interested in skirt chasers, dishonesty, immoral people, liars, womanizers, murderers, and bitter ex-presidents' wives.

So "You go, Girl." I only wish the men in Washington had your guts, determination, honesty, and morals.

I rest my case. Only FOOLS listen to the biased media.

If you've read this far ...............................................

First Lady Michelle Obama's Servant List and Pay Scale

First Lady Requires More Than Twenty Attendants
1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Dir ector of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary to The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special=2 0Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide to The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)

(This is community organizing at it's finest.)

Oh and then she and the President share services of advisor and friend Valerie Jarrett… not in her budget.

There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President's own pocket.

Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe.

FRIENDS.....THESE SALARIES ADD UP TO SIX MILLION, THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($6,364,000) FOR THE 4 YEARS OF OFFICE????? AND WE ARE IN A RECESSION?????

WELL....MOST OF US ARE. I GUESS IT'S OK TO SPEND WILDLY WHEN IT'S NOT YOUR OWN MONEY?????

Copyright 2009 Canada FreePress.Com

Yes, I know, The Canadian Free Press has to publish this because the USA media is too scared they might be considered racist. Sorry USA!

THE NEXT JACKIE KENNEDY….PLEASE!?! HER TRUE CLASS REALLY SHINES THROUGH!

clip_image001Is She the Piñata? (Good Thing She’s Not at the Shooting Range!)

Jackie Kennedy had 1 personal assistant.
Hillary Clinton had 3 personal assistants.
Barbara Bush had 1 personal assistant.

Michele Obama has 20 personal assistants (and they still let her get dressed like that!)

What Recession? Michelle Obama Wears $635 Shoes on $4,000 Per Night Vacation

----------

Sarah Palin: Women's Rights Groups: Your Double Standard is Showing

Women's Group Clobbered by Palin for Super Bowl Ad Attack

Yesterday at 5:26pm

Women’s Rights groups, like NOW, commendably call out advertisers and networks for airing sexist and demeaning portrayals of women that lead to young women’s diminished self-esteem and acceptance of roles as mere sexed-up objects.

What a ridiculous situation they’re getting themselves into now with their protest of CBS airing a pro-life ad during the upcoming Super Bowl game. The ad will feature Heisman trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mom, and they’ll speak to the sanctity of life and the beautiful potential within every innocent child as Mrs. Tebow acknowledges her choice to give Tim life, despite less than ideal circumstances. Messages like this empower women! This speaks to the strength and commitment and nurturing spirit within women. The message says everything positive and nothing negative about the power of women – and life. Evidently, some women’s rights groups like NOW do not like that message.

NOW is looking at the pro-life issue backwards. Women should be reminded that they are strong enough and smart enough to make decisions that allow for career and educational opportunities while still giving their babies a chance at life. In my own home, my daughter Bristol has also been challenged by pro-abortion “women’s rights” groups who don’t agree with her decision to have her baby, nor do they like the abstinence message which she articulated as her personal commitment. NOW could gain ground and credibility with everyday Americans, thus allowing their pro-women message to be heard by more than just their ardent supporters, if they made wiser decisions regarding which battles to pick. They should call attention to and embrace the Tebows’ message, instead of covertly and overtly disrespecting what Mrs. Tebow, Bristol, and millions of other women have chosen to do (in less than ideal circumstances).

My message to these groups who are inexplicably offended by a pro-woman, pro-child, pro-life message airing during the Super Bowl: please concentrate on empowering women, help with efforts to prevent unexpected pregnancies, stay consistent with your message that for too long women have been made to feel like sex objects in our “modern” culture and that we can expect better in 2010. But don’t let your double standard glare so vividly as to undo some of the good to which you could contribute.

And CBS: just do the right thing. Don’t cave. Have the backbone to run the ad.

To the Tebows: thank you. America is listening. We appreciate you.

- Sarah Palin

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Reporter: 'We Took Sides, Straight and Simple' Against Palin

As If Anyone With A Brain Didn’t Know This… Reporter Finally Admits: 'We Took Sides, Straight and Simple' Against Palin

On AOL Politics Daily, long-time White House reporter Carl Cannon bluntly declared that the political press gave Sarah Palin a raw deal in the 2008 campaign, and seriously failed to scrutinize Joe Biden, especially his fact-mangling and odd statements in the vice presidential debate. Cannon summed up:

In the 2008 election, we took sides, straight and simple, particularly with regard to the vice presidential race. I don't know that we played a decisive role in that campaign, and I'm not saying the better side lost. What I am saying is that we simply didn't hold Joe Biden to the same standard as Sarah Palin, and for me, the real loser in this sordid tale is my chosen profession.

Cannon suggested female journalists failed to make up for male sexism in Palin coverage because she didn’t match the kind of Hillary Clinton candidate they wanted to represent women in politics:

From the beginning, and for the ensuing 10 months, the coverage of this governor consisted of a steamy stew of cultural elitism and partisanship. The overt sexism of some male commentators wasn't countered, as one might have expected, by their female counterparts. Women columnists turned on Sarah Palin rather quickly. A plain-speaking, moose-hunting, Bible-thumping, pro-life, self-described "hockey mom" with five children and movie star looks with only a passing interest in foreign policy -- that wasn't the woman journalism's reigning feminists had envisioned for the glass ceiling-breaking role of First Female President (or Vice President). Hillary Rodham Clinton was more like what they had in mind – and Sarah, well, she was the un-Hillary.

But the most eye-opening part of Cannon’s piece looks at the vice-presidential debate. He chronicled some of Palin’s mistakes on that night, but then made a list of Biden’s egregious errors that were overlooked by a supportive media elite:

Sen. Biden, however, was in a place by himself when it came to bogus claims, absurd contentions, and flights of rhetorical fancy. He threw out several assertions that were so preposterous that – had Palin made them – they would have prompted immediate calls for McCain to dump her from the ticket.

The good senator from Delaware warmed up slowly, erroneously claiming that McCain voted with Obama on a budget resolution, and asserting wrongly that Obama wanted to return to the Reagan-era marginal income tax rates. He also embarked on an appallingly wrongheaded monologue about the constitutional history of the vice presidency. But when the talk turned to national security, presumably Biden's purported area of expertise, he went completely off the grid.

• "John McCain voted against a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that every Republican has supported," Biden stated. (Actually, in a 1999 vote in Congress, McCain sided with 50 other Republicans to kill the treaty. Only four joined the Democrats.)

• "Pakistan already has deployed nuclear weapons," Biden said. "Pakistan's weapons can already hit Israel and the Mediterranean." (Pakistan has no known intercontinental missiles. The range of its weapons is thought to be 1,000 miles – halfway to Israel.)

• "When we kicked -- along with France -- we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, 'Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't...Hezbollah will control it.'" Biden recalled. "Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel." (Except that the U.S. never kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon or anywhere else. They've been entrenched in Lebanon since 1982. Actually, Hezbollah, insofar as it was responsible for the 1983 suicide bombing at the Marine barracks that killed 241 U.S. servicemen, kicked America out of Lebanon, not the other way around.)

• "The president...insisted on elections on the West Bank, when I said, and others said, and Barack Obama said, 'Big mistake. Hamas will win. You'll legitimize them.' What happened? Hamas won," Biden said. (Only the last two words of Biden's strange soliloquy are true. The rest are false. For one thing, Fatah controls the West Bank. Biden was thinking of Gaza. Secondly, neither Biden nor Obama predicted the 2006 victory for Hamas in Gaza's legislative elections. Third, McCain and Obama – but not Biden -- signed a letter urging the president to pressure Palestinians to require that candidates adhere to democratic principles before being allowed to run for office. Fourth, Biden served as an election observer and later wrote an article expressing high praise for Bush's actions. To sum up: One factual error and three fibs in only 31 words. Pretty impressive, in its way.)

• "With Afghanistan, facts matter...we spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spend on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan. Let me say that again..." (He did say it again, but that didn't make it true. It's wildly and weirdly off the mark. Yes, facts matter. The facts here were that at the time Biden was speaking, the U.S. had spent $172 billion in Afghanistan. The Iraq War consumes between $7 billion and $8 billion every three weeks. Biden's math was off by 2,000 percent.)

• "Can I clarify this? This is simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say (he'd) sit down with Ahmadinejad." (He most certainly did. And among those who criticized him at the time for it was Joe Biden, who told Byron York of National Review that the idea of a president meeting with the likes of the Iranian president or Hugo Chavez was "naVve.")

Those were alarming mistakes. To me Biden's most discordant claims concerned his Animal House-like history lecture about the office of the vice president. It came while Biden was dressing down Dick Cheney, who was not present, for supposedly being unfamiliar with the Constitution. "The idea (that) he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States – that's the executive branch – he works in the executive branch," Biden said. "He should understand that. Everyone should understand that. And the primary role of the vice president of the United States is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and, as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit....He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the legislative branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive, and look where it has gotten us."

Lord, would Tina Fey have had fun with this jumble of misinformation – if only Palin had said it! Article I defines the legislative, not executive, branch. The vice president is, indeed, mentioned there. What Biden finds "explicit," hasn't been so to previous vice presidents or to most constitutional scholars. Prior to the 20th century, vice presidents didn't even have offices at the White House compound – they were housed in the Capitol. The notion that a veep's constitutional authority is to provide advice to a president springs from Biden's brow; it certainly isn't mentioned, or even contemplated, in the Constitution, which doesn't even say whether the vice president should receive a salary.

Should Joe Biden have known this stuff? Since he chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, you'd hope so. But even if he didn't, you'd think it would be news when he unleashed a veritable fount of misinformation to impugn Palin's knowledge of the federal system while attacking a sitting vice president. It barely rated a mention in the collective mainstream media.

Facts matter, the man said. But they didn't in 2008, not when it came to Joe Biden (our guy) against Sarah Palin (odd outsider). The ladies and gentlemen of the press were more interested in her hair, her glasses, her wardrobe, he accent, her sex life, her kids' sex lives, and her hunting habits than in whether her opponent knew anything about foreign policy, the Constitution of the United States, or the job he was running for. They still are. The relentlessly negative coverage of Palin goes on unabated -- she's the subject of a much-ballyhooed hatchet job in Vanity Fair this month -- even as Biden makes minor news from time to time by continuing his penchant for gaffes, this time while serving as the second most powerful person in the federal government.

Photo of Tim Graham.

By Tim Graham - July 10, 2009 - 07:56 ET

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.

And Posted On Hannity.com – Carol (ah Carl) Cannon is a well Respected Journalist in Washington circles…

And he gave a STUNNING account of just how BIAS the MSM was in favor of Joe Biden during the election.

If there is no Media Bias why are SO MANY Journalists ADMITTING it lately?? On AOL Politics Daily, long-time White House reporter Carl Cannon bluntly declared that the political press gave Sarah Palin a raw deal in the 2008 campaign, and seriously failed to scrutinize Joe Biden, especially his fact-mangling and odd statements in the vice presidential debate. Cannon summed up:

In the 2008 election, we took sides, straight and simple, particularly with regard to the vice presidential race. I don't know that we played a decisive role in that campaign, and I'm not saying the better side lost. What I am saying is that we simply didn't hold Joe Biden to the same standard as Sarah Palin, and for me, the real loser in this sordid tale is my chosen profession.

Comments:

(1) Carl aint' tellin' the whole truth: "and seriously failed to scrutinize Joe Biden,"
Ummm, Carl, the LMSM seriously failed to scrutinize both Biden AND Obama at ANY point in the campaign.

(2) Looks like the luster is coming off their chosen Golden Boy and now they are suffering through a serious case of buyers remorse.

(3) Democrats : THEY LIE TO US!! THEY PLAY ON OUR FEARS!

(4) What's that I hear??...Liberal crickets??? Give it 5 minutes, the Libs are compiling attack info on this guy...Soon he will be called a hack, etc, etc... Could it be that little by little, the media is realizing how badly they've been made puppets??
I am hopeful, AND doubtful, at the same time.........Time will tell..

(5) "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." – JFK

(6) The American people are the real losers in this story!

(7) If you are not watching Fox Cable News and reading… Fushion Magazine, and books like Catastrophe, American Progressivism, Glenn Beck's Common Sense, Liberty and Tyranny, Saving Freedom, Green Hell, etc etc you are in the dark!!

*Shame on NOW and the women journalists… Sarah Palin is the closest person I know of to the Woman’s Movement… You Can Have It All Model. They let themselves and their own Mantra down!

Checkout: Conservatives4Palin.com

Related Articles:

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Friday, June 19, 2009

Standing Up for People, Values and Ideals

Dr Laura An all-too-typical issue that comes up on my radio program is cowardice, because someone didn’t stand up for others, for values and/or for ideals. The standard excuses range from not wanting to escalate a situation, being afraid of other people getting mad, fear of being marginalized or left out, being afraid of being “judged,” not “liking” confrontation, not wanting to lose the image as a nice person, and so on.

I disrespect the actions of not standing up for friends, fairness (even when a friend is not involved), and values. Some of my callers are parents whose adult children are behaving recklessly, thoughtlessly, and in total opposition to how they were brought up. Too many of these parents are more concerned with “peace at all costs” instead of continuing their parental leadership by clarifying their position and drawing the line.

I remember a long time ago, there was a talk show host coming on right after my program. We were polar opposites in our political views, and she would use her three hours on the air to critique my program. This, of course, annoyed the heck out of me, but I never spoke about it on the air - not even once - because I don’t use my air time to do anything but help people do and be better in their lives.

Fast forward several years later, and a feminist group went after her with venomous attacks, attempting to destroy her career. Mind you, she was a feminist activist leader herself, but she dared to have her own opinion about something that went against the grain of the activist group’s position. It turns out that I was the first person who called her the next morning - with a call of support. It galled me that there was a concerted effort to unfairly destroy her career. I just don’t like life’s unfair qualities, and I have generally stood up to them no matter what.

Fast forward again years later, and I was being unfairly attacked by a different activist group that she had once been part of. She went into numerous public venues to defend and support me.

We both took hits for doing these things, but we both turned out to like each other very much, and we both still maintained the bulk of our differing opinions. We did, however, agree on one point of ethics, morals, and values: you defend who or what is being attacked unfairly, and consequently, we both defended responsible free speech.

We both lost to the power of the activist groups, however, but we won each other’s respect and support, all while keeping the high ground. We each went on growing in success and the respect of our peers as well.

That’s one very personal experience for me. I hope the next time you see rudeness or cruelty, you will stand up.

Racial comments coming from Don Imus are as ugly and unnecessary (except for ratings) as the joke about Sarah Palin’s daughter getting “knocked up” by a baseball player. It isn’t the term “knocked up” that’s the issue - I use it all the time for out-of-wedlock pregnancies, because they usually end up with the child being aborted or growing up with the chaos of a life with one parent gone. David Letterman wanted to shoot insults at Palin simply because she’s Republican, and he aimed his gun at her child. That’s disgusting. How many of you would stand for that happening to your child?

Imus lost his job…temporarily…and Letterman’s ratings are higher. And I’m left wondering if you’ll stand up for others (or values, morals, ethics and principles) when most others around you will turn their gaze away. –Dr. Laura~

TrackBack URIDr. Laura’s Blog

Let us all take a lesson from the inequities of the experiences and occurrences in this post. In the end, it is a question of rights, freedom and values. We each need to stand up for the right of everyone to speak freely as well as all the rights given us, Americans, by the Founding Fathers in the Bill of Rights and we should fight for every shred of every right. Never give up a right for security or anything else and never let the government take your rights away, like what is happening now on a daily basis. Stand for each other. Stand for your rights. And remember, when you defend someone’s right to speak, display, or write you are defending not what they say or believe but rather their right to say or belief it… It is what makes America the land of the free and different from the rest of the world!!!

The fact that NOW (the National Organization for Women) has not stood up for Sarah Palin over the Letterman issue or while she was the Republican Vice Presidential Candidate nullifies the entire value of that organization. NOW should be standing up for the rights of all Women, not just the one’s that agree with their now liberal agenda and beliefs, just as we all should stand up for everyone’s right of free of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and the list goes one. -Ask Marion~

Remember:

FIRST THEY CAME...

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

Then they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I did not protest;
I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
I did not protest;
I was a Protestant.

Then they came for the Jews,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

Source: Daily Thought Pad

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

Related Articles:

Friday, June 12, 2009

Palin Demands Letterman Apology: Tells Americans to 'Rise Up' | The FOX Nation - Updated




Michelle Malkin » David Letterman: Perv


Letterman to Palin: Now that I’ve trashed your family, come on my show!


June 10, 2009 11:41 PM by Michelle Malkin


Fire David Letterman Campaign Has Surfaced

Attend Tuesday's FIRE DAVID LETTERMAN RALLY
4:30 PM at the Ed Sullivan Theater
1697 Broadway, New York City
(click here to sign on to Facebook Event)


Our Mission Statement:
David Letterman Must Held Be Accountable For His Disgraceful Statements

62 Year Old Letterman Violates Common Decency
With Sexist Insults of 14 Year Old Girl



Press Contacts:
New York State Assemblyman Brian Kolb, Gwendolyn Lindsay-Jackson, attorney, John Ziegler, radio talk show host and Producer, Media Malpractice
Subscribe to www.firedavidletterman.com now!

Coulter to Palin: Take Your Time… Let Mitt In First… We Will Wait for You! Or How About Teaming Up?

REPUBLICAN DEBATE DES MOINESPalin 06-09
(GOP12) Ann Coulter expressed reluctance regarding Sarah Palin's readiness to run for President on Sean Hannity's show last night, and instead offered Mitt Romney, Jeff Sessions, and Mark Sanford as alternatives, Coulter said Palin should "take a little time" before she runs, even while suggesting liberals are "manifestly terrified of her". "I mean, I wasn't that particularly wedded to Sarah Palin's being our next Presidential candidate. But, I love her.
If I were in her shoes, I think I'd take a little time to be governor of Alaska, and think about running in 8 or 12 years, so you talk to Republicans, people talk about Mitt Romney or Jeff Sessions or Governor Sanford, you hear a lot of names out there, but then you keep coming back to Palin because liberals are manifestly terrified of her, and so just when you think she's moving on, you say 'gosh, there must be something to her.'
"They [the media] see that Republicans have gold in Sarah Palin. If I were Sarah Palin’s adviser I would strongly advise her to not run in 2012. She’s very young.
Raise your children so none of them turn out like Ron Reagan Junior, and be a good governor, and then I think she could be another Ronald Reagan… She has everything you can’t get from books, you can’t get from experience. She has heart and soul and absolute integrity, and charisma, and holds the crowd rapt.
Now she needs the wisdom and the experience, and I think she could be another Ronald Reagan.”

A great ticket would be Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin and then Sarah run in the number one spot after that!!

Sunday, May 17, 2009

The Quayling of Sarah

With Dan Rather-like subjectivity, Chris Matthews talked recently about Alaska Sarah in Juneau Governor Sarah Palin’s new book deal.

“Plus, Sarah Palin – now don’t laugh – is writing a book. Not just reading a book: writing a book. Actually, in the word of the publisher, she’s collaborating on a book. I love the way that sounds. Does that mean that she answers questions of the writer, and then the writer writes the book? I guess the reason to have someone write a book for you and claim it’s your book is you get to do a nation-wide book tour, and act the part of a, of an author yourself.”

Well, in the famous laugh-words of Ralph Kramden: “Har-har-hardy-har-har.”

I’m sure some network executive was at that very moment picking up the phone and calling yet another NBC bigwig. The conversation probably went something like:

“Hey, did you just hear Chris - what’s his name? - Yeah, that’s him. Well, I was thinkin’ that we might want to review our plans about sending the dude with the floppy hair out to California.”

“You mean Conan The Barbarian?”

“No, his name is O’Brien, I think.”

“Whatever - I usually watch the Hannity encore on Fox News at that time.”

“Ok, Ok – not the point. What I am saying is – I think this Matthews guy may be pretty funny – and we could get him for less money for chin man’s replacement. He’s cheap and easy, I hear. Real easy, in fact, you just gotta make his legs tingle and you have him at ‘Hello.’”

Of course, the MSNBC host of Hardball wasn’t the only talking head trying to hide a smirk - the way disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich tries to hide his hair - when describing Palin’s multi-million dollar pact with publishing giant HarperCollins. The widely reported story received coverage from the mainstream media that was occasionally only dismissive.

That’s because most of the time it was outright derisive.

The “Dan Quayling” of Sarah Palin continues and this make-her-look-stupid-campaign testifies to the fact that she remains a formidable political figure. The irony of this is largely lost on most of the “beautiful” minds over at NBC, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, & ABC, where the teleprompters double as mirrors.

The charismatic Governor of Alaska draws enthusiastic crowds wherever she goes – even after the defeat of the Republican ticket at the hands of the yes-we-can guys. And the very idea that she can make millions with a book at a time when publishers are shy about taking many risks in these challenging economic times, suggests that the lady has not-too-shabby metaphorical legs, as well as real ones.

Any nine-year-old child or MSNBC show host (pardon the redundancy) understands that the idea is to vex and therefore hex Sarah Palin. The goal is to click repeatedly on her image and drag her into a folder marked either “too dumb to lead,” or “demonize by caricature.”

The problem is, all this will do is make her more popular with an important constituency – her core base, in fact – that could very well propel her to the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Sure, it’s way too early. But did anyone really think a community organizer from Chicago, who had just been elected to his first term as a junior senator, would beat a presumptive nominee named Hillary, not to mention mop up the floor with a genuine American hero en route to the White House, way back in 2005?

For Matthews et al to mock Sarah Palin’s book deal in a way that suggests she doesn’t know how to write and therefore has to depend on a “collaborator” – that word used almost as a synonym for “sneer” by Chris Matthews – is beyond hypocritical.

It’s also stupid.

He apparently has so little respect for his audience that he assumes they won’t dig into this a little more. Or maybe Matthews has studied his show’s demographics and is therefore confident that his viewers themselves don’t read much beyond the titles touted on his show – and maybe those of Keith Olberman, Nora O’Donnell, and Rachel Maddow.

I write, you decide.

Chris Matthews is an all-things-Kennedy fan from way back (though as a kid, he wanted Nixon to beat JFK in 1960 and cried when RN lost), so while he mocks Palin he is, of course, aware that there is a ghost, or at least a skeleton, in the Camelot closet.

When I was a young boy, my dad gave me a copy of Profiles in Courage, written by none other than John Fitzgerald Kennedy. It took me a while, but I made my way through it and still have that copy in my library. It was a cool book about statesmen who had defied the political correctness of their day (another irony?) and did what they thought was right. It was as much a work about character as it was about courage.

I loved the book and the author became an early hero of mine. When he was killed, I cried.

Later, though, I learned – as most of us do when we grow up – that the story behind the story is often the real story. Discovering that the man who wrote about two important virtues and values seemed himself to be deficient in both was, well, a bummer, to say the least. He had a lot of girl friends, a practice that didn’t seem to reinforce the idea of sterling character. But, at least, I still had that courage thing to embrace.

Then I found out – oh, sad, sad day that it was – that the book I loved, that little bestseller that had won a Pulitzer Prize (which I heard was, like, a really big deal), had been written mostly by, gulp, someone else.

I must have spent days walking around in a funk, looking down at bells at the bottoms of my not-quite-long-enough-geek-jeans, for days.

A guy named “Theodore” had done most of the work, I heard. Theodore? The very name didn’t not bespeak, “cool” as Kennedy’s did. I had an image in my head of a bookish guy with old-man glasses. So, I looked him up in the library – and sure enough.

Then it got worse. You remember that Pulitzer Prize? Well, I came to find out that John F. Kennedy’s daddy – a pretty rich and powerful guy, I was told – got a buddy of his on the Pulitzer committee, New York Times columnist Arthur Krock, to champion his boy’s book. Originally, the book was not on the committee’s short list, one that had been submitted by some expert reviewers, but somehow it made it to that important table. At any rate, it wasn’t as “weighty” as prize winners usually turned out to be. But, before long “it came out of nowhere” and won the roses.

It was all pretty good publicity in the run up to the 1960 campaign. After all, though most candidates these days have books out while they run for the big office, Kennedy was one of the pioneers of the practice. And his had won a Pulitzer, which said that he was smart, erudite, eloquent, and therefore would make a good leader.

But his erudition and eloquence were implants.

So, Mr. Matthews – go ahead and make fun of Sarah Palin. Do your best to color her ditzy and as someone with no depth. But just remember, she actually has character and courage. And Americans will be seeing more of her graceful, politically popular, and winning profile for many years to come.

David R. Stokes :: Townhall.com Columnist by David R. Stokes

Source:  Townhall.com