Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Bailout, Wisdom of Charlie Daniels
If you read this column very often you know that I rarely suggest you go to other websites to check the voracity of what I'm writing about, but the issue of this bailout having such a catastrophic effect on the future of America, I think we should know what brought it on and who let it happen.Nancy Pelosi has been busy pointing her finger at the Republicans and President Bush in particular for the financial crisis we are in, but let's take a closer look.In the link below are some clips of a Congressional hearing on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2004. I think you might find it informative.What Caused our Financial CrisisAs we all know the House failed to pass the massive bailout that President Bush and oddly enough the Democrats are pushing for. But we also know that they'll bring it back up soon enough.Seven hundred billion dollars of American taxpayer's hard earned money to reward ineptitude, sloth and greed. That is absolutely ridiculous! Some of these rascals should be looking for someone to bail them out of jail instead of out of this horrible financial conundrum they and our government have gotten us into.The Wall Street bunch have been running ahead of the wind for years now, just barely escaping the clutches of bankruptcy and now the dominos are starting to fall, and of course the government is having it's normal reaction, throw our money at it.And folks this is just the beginning of the mess, Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall and even seven hundred billion dollars ($700,000,000,000) is not going to put him back together again.Have you wondered why the finger pointing between the Democrats and Republicans has not started in earnest? You'd think by now they'd be hanging the President in effigy by now, but the dirty little truth is that to varying degrees, members of both parties stood by and watched this - now I should say caused this to happen. You'll have to decide which party is the real culprit, and deserves the lion's share of the blame.Bill Clinton, along with the help of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and others practically forced lending institutions to make loans to people who had no hope of paying them back, but as long as good ol' Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac kept on buying the bad paper let the good times roll, get rich and get out, all with the tacit blessings of a do-nothing House and Senate.This for you cherry pickers, President Bush has been warning about this mess for a long time, in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007 and 17 times this year alone. SourceNow Barney Frank is one of the people in charge of putting a Band-Aid on the heart attack he helped to cause. Seems I heard about a case like that one time, something to do with foxes and hen houses, or inmates and asylums.Folks, I know you must get tired of me always harping on term limits but this latest disaster, and it is a disaster of monumental proportions, is a solid gold example of what happens when people stay in power too long.Barney Frank has been in the House of Representatives forever and Chris Dodd, his counterpart in the Senate, must have been born on the Senate floor.And if you don't think there's a political connection between Wall Street and Congress, you're sorely mistaken. Check out the campaign donation lists of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the major players on Wall Street. Many in Congress have fed at this slush fund of a slop bucket and I think the results speak for themselves.Folks, have you ever stopped to think how much the lobbyists in Washington are costing you and your family? It's the lobbyists who wine and dine the Congressmen and Senators you send to Washington to represent you and it's the lobbyists who represent the very people whose greed and ineptitude this seven hundred billion goes to benefit.And another thing, by buying up these worthless mortgages, that means the government is going into competition with private business, and mark my words there will be monolithic corruption and political partisanship when it comes time to divest itself of these worthless pieces of paper, and in the mean time the people of this country will be paying interest on seven hundred billion dollars or more.You could take seven hundred billion dollars and give every person on the planet one hundred dollars or everybody in the United States twenty-three hundred a piece.I am disgusted with the politicians in Washington who have led us to this mess.Bring them home. Bring them all home.What do you think?Pray for our troopsGod Bless AmericaCharlie DanielsSeptember 29, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
NoBama Wants NRA Ads Banned
The Obama camp has been threatening television and radio stations to keep them from airing anti-Obama ads.
The latest target is the NRA and stations in Pennsylvania.
Earlier this week, the National Rifle Association's Political Victory Fund released a series of radio and television spots to educate gun owners and sportsmen about Barack Obama's longstanding anti-gun record. In response to the NRA-PVF ads, a clearly panicked Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are doing everything they can to hide Obama's real record by mounting a coordinated assault on the First Amendment.
They have gone to desperate and outrageous lengths to try to silence your NRA by bullying media outlets with threats of lawsuits if they run NRA-PVF's ads.
The Obama camp is particularly angry with an NRA ad entitled "Hunter" which lays out Obama's record on gun control.
You can see the "Hunter" ad — Go Here Now.
Other NRA ads include "Way of Life" and another focusing on Joe Biden's record, "Defend Freedom, Defeat Obama."
This week, Obama's campaign general counsel Bob Bauer wrote seeking to censor the ads at stations in Pennsylvania.
"Unlike federal candidates, independent political organizations do not have a 'right to command the use of broadcast facilities,'" Bauer writes. "Moreover, you have a duty 'to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising.'"
"This advertising is false, misleading, and deceptive," Bauer continued. "We request that you immediately cease airing this advertising."
The NRA says Obama's camp are sending out these "intimidating cease and desist letters" to cable operators and television stations, threatening their FCC licenses if they run the ads.
The NRA charged that "Obama and the DNC have been using strong-arm tactics reminiscent of Chicago machine politics to try and cover up the truth and silence NRA by forcing the stations to assist them in hiding Obama's radical anti-gun record."
And now, Obama and the DNC have opened a new front in their assault on your First Amendment rights by calling on their followers to contact these station managers to demand that the stations not run NRA-PVF's ads.
NRA stands behind the accuracy of these ads, and NRA attorneys have responded to the Obama campaign's despicable and abusive attempt to trample on the First Amendment by sending a thorough rebuttal to station managers. This rebuttal clearly and conclusively refutes the Obama campaign's fallacious claims that the ads are inaccurate.
The NRA has set up a Web site detailing its position on Obama at www.gunbanobama.com.
The latest target is the NRA and stations in Pennsylvania.
Earlier this week, the National Rifle Association's Political Victory Fund released a series of radio and television spots to educate gun owners and sportsmen about Barack Obama's longstanding anti-gun record. In response to the NRA-PVF ads, a clearly panicked Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are doing everything they can to hide Obama's real record by mounting a coordinated assault on the First Amendment.
They have gone to desperate and outrageous lengths to try to silence your NRA by bullying media outlets with threats of lawsuits if they run NRA-PVF's ads.
The Obama camp is particularly angry with an NRA ad entitled "Hunter" which lays out Obama's record on gun control.
You can see the "Hunter" ad — Go Here Now.
Other NRA ads include "Way of Life" and another focusing on Joe Biden's record, "Defend Freedom, Defeat Obama."
This week, Obama's campaign general counsel Bob Bauer wrote seeking to censor the ads at stations in Pennsylvania.
"Unlike federal candidates, independent political organizations do not have a 'right to command the use of broadcast facilities,'" Bauer writes. "Moreover, you have a duty 'to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising.'"
"This advertising is false, misleading, and deceptive," Bauer continued. "We request that you immediately cease airing this advertising."
The NRA says Obama's camp are sending out these "intimidating cease and desist letters" to cable operators and television stations, threatening their FCC licenses if they run the ads.
The NRA charged that "Obama and the DNC have been using strong-arm tactics reminiscent of Chicago machine politics to try and cover up the truth and silence NRA by forcing the stations to assist them in hiding Obama's radical anti-gun record."
And now, Obama and the DNC have opened a new front in their assault on your First Amendment rights by calling on their followers to contact these station managers to demand that the stations not run NRA-PVF's ads.
NRA stands behind the accuracy of these ads, and NRA attorneys have responded to the Obama campaign's despicable and abusive attempt to trample on the First Amendment by sending a thorough rebuttal to station managers. This rebuttal clearly and conclusively refutes the Obama campaign's fallacious claims that the ads are inaccurate.
The NRA has set up a Web site detailing its position on Obama at www.gunbanobama.com.
Friday, September 26, 2008
The Fleecing of the American Taxpayer
On the Financial Crisis: The Fleecing of the American Taxpayer
Mike Huckabee
Frankly, I’m disappointed and disgusted with my own Republican party as I watch them attempt to strong-arm a bailout of some of America’s biggest corporations by asking the taxpayers to suck up the staggering results of the hubris, greed, and arrogance of those who sought to make a quick buck by throwing the dice. They lost, but want the rest of us to cover their bets so they won’t be affected in their lavish lifestyles as they figure out how to spend their tens of millions and in some cases, hundreds of millions in bonuses and pay which was their reward for not only sinking their companies, but basically doing the same to the entire American economy.
It’s especially disconcerting to see the very people who pilloried me during the Presidential campaign for being a “populist” and not “understanding Wall Street” to now line up like thirsty dogs at the Washington, D.C. water dish, otherwise known as Congress, and plead for help. I thought these guys were the smartest people in America? I thought that people like me are like people at the UN without a headset and that we just needed to trust those that I called the power bunch in the “Wall Street to Washington axis of power.”
The idea of a government bailout in which we’d entrust $700 billion to one man without Congressional oversight or accountability is absurd. My party or not, that is insanity and I believe unconstitutional.
Will there be far-reaching consequences of not some intervention? Probably, but we honestly don’t know since we’ve really never seen this level of greed and stupidity all rolled into one massive move. But may I suggest that letting “Uncle Sugar” step in and bail out the billionaires who made the mess will be far worse and will start a long line of companies and individuals who will demand the same of the government – which last time I checked means that they will be demanding it out of YOU and ME. This is not money that Congress is risking from THEIR pockets or future, but ours. Many, if not most, of us have already been hit by lost value on our homes, retirement accounts, and pensions. Now they’d like for us to assume some further risks so they won’t have to.
What happened to the “free market” idea? Is that only our view when we WIN and when we LOSE, we ask the government to come in and take away the pain? If you are a small business owner, is this the way it works at your place? When you have a bad month, a bad year, or face having to close, can you go up to Congress and get them to write YOU a fat check to take away your risk?
Some of what contributed to this disaster is too much government in the form of Sarbanes/Oxley. Some is due to the tax structure that created the hunger for companies to “game” the system. Some is the common sense that was ignored like loaning money to people who can’t pay it back.
Wall Street has become Las Vegas east, but at least in Vegas, people KNOW they are gambling and they don’t expect the government to cover their losses at the crap table. In Wall Street, they do. And the American taxpayer gets the crap.
If Congress wants to do something, here are some suggestions:
Eliminate ALL capital gains taxes and taxes on savings and dividends right now. Free up the capital and encourage investment. This is the kind of economic stimulus the Fair Tax would bring and if Congress is going to lose money, let them lose it with lower taxes, not with public dollar bailouts of private market mistakes. Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley. It has failed. It was supposed to prevent this. It didn’t. Kill it.
Demand that the executives who steered their ships into the ground be forced to pay back the losses of their companies. Of course, they can’t, so let them work and just say that all that they earn above the poverty level goes back to the government and they can live like the people they put or kept there. It makes no sense to put them in jail – that’s just more they will cost you and me. I’d rather them go out and earn money – just not get to keep so much of it this time. I’m not talking about limiting CEO salaries – just those of the people who now are up in Washington begging for help because they ruined their companies. But those found guilty of malfeasance could earn all they could, but just would be able to keep enough to put them just above the poverty level.
Attempts by Democrats and Republicans to blame each other is nonsense. They are both guilty and ought to own up and admit it. They all lived off big fat campaign contributions and the swill of the lobbyists who strong armed them into permission to steal. Enough of fixing the blame – fix the problem!
This would be a start. If we don’t hold these guys responsible, we are all finished.
Mike Huckabee
Frankly, I’m disappointed and disgusted with my own Republican party as I watch them attempt to strong-arm a bailout of some of America’s biggest corporations by asking the taxpayers to suck up the staggering results of the hubris, greed, and arrogance of those who sought to make a quick buck by throwing the dice. They lost, but want the rest of us to cover their bets so they won’t be affected in their lavish lifestyles as they figure out how to spend their tens of millions and in some cases, hundreds of millions in bonuses and pay which was their reward for not only sinking their companies, but basically doing the same to the entire American economy.
It’s especially disconcerting to see the very people who pilloried me during the Presidential campaign for being a “populist” and not “understanding Wall Street” to now line up like thirsty dogs at the Washington, D.C. water dish, otherwise known as Congress, and plead for help. I thought these guys were the smartest people in America? I thought that people like me are like people at the UN without a headset and that we just needed to trust those that I called the power bunch in the “Wall Street to Washington axis of power.”
The idea of a government bailout in which we’d entrust $700 billion to one man without Congressional oversight or accountability is absurd. My party or not, that is insanity and I believe unconstitutional.
Will there be far-reaching consequences of not some intervention? Probably, but we honestly don’t know since we’ve really never seen this level of greed and stupidity all rolled into one massive move. But may I suggest that letting “Uncle Sugar” step in and bail out the billionaires who made the mess will be far worse and will start a long line of companies and individuals who will demand the same of the government – which last time I checked means that they will be demanding it out of YOU and ME. This is not money that Congress is risking from THEIR pockets or future, but ours. Many, if not most, of us have already been hit by lost value on our homes, retirement accounts, and pensions. Now they’d like for us to assume some further risks so they won’t have to.
What happened to the “free market” idea? Is that only our view when we WIN and when we LOSE, we ask the government to come in and take away the pain? If you are a small business owner, is this the way it works at your place? When you have a bad month, a bad year, or face having to close, can you go up to Congress and get them to write YOU a fat check to take away your risk?
Some of what contributed to this disaster is too much government in the form of Sarbanes/Oxley. Some is due to the tax structure that created the hunger for companies to “game” the system. Some is the common sense that was ignored like loaning money to people who can’t pay it back.
Wall Street has become Las Vegas east, but at least in Vegas, people KNOW they are gambling and they don’t expect the government to cover their losses at the crap table. In Wall Street, they do. And the American taxpayer gets the crap.
If Congress wants to do something, here are some suggestions:
Eliminate ALL capital gains taxes and taxes on savings and dividends right now. Free up the capital and encourage investment. This is the kind of economic stimulus the Fair Tax would bring and if Congress is going to lose money, let them lose it with lower taxes, not with public dollar bailouts of private market mistakes. Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley. It has failed. It was supposed to prevent this. It didn’t. Kill it.
Demand that the executives who steered their ships into the ground be forced to pay back the losses of their companies. Of course, they can’t, so let them work and just say that all that they earn above the poverty level goes back to the government and they can live like the people they put or kept there. It makes no sense to put them in jail – that’s just more they will cost you and me. I’d rather them go out and earn money – just not get to keep so much of it this time. I’m not talking about limiting CEO salaries – just those of the people who now are up in Washington begging for help because they ruined their companies. But those found guilty of malfeasance could earn all they could, but just would be able to keep enough to put them just above the poverty level.
Attempts by Democrats and Republicans to blame each other is nonsense. They are both guilty and ought to own up and admit it. They all lived off big fat campaign contributions and the swill of the lobbyists who strong armed them into permission to steal. Enough of fixing the blame – fix the problem!
This would be a start. If we don’t hold these guys responsible, we are all finished.
Monday, September 15, 2008
He's One of Them, She's One of US
Monday, September 15, 2008
By Patrick J. Buchanan
One wonders: What did Sarah Palin ever do to inspire the rage and bile that exploded on her selection by John McCain? What is there either in this woman's record or resume to elicit such feline ferocity?
What did we know of her when she was introduced?
That she was a mother of five who had brought into this world a baby boy with Down syndrome, thus living her Christian beliefs. That she was a small-town conservative who had risen from mayor of Wasilla (population 9,700) to be governor of a state twice the size of Texas.
That she was a reformer who had dethroned an old boys' network by dumping a sitting Republican governor. That she had taken on Big Oil, taxed the companies and returned the money in $1,200 checks to every citizen of Alaska. And that she had cut a deal with Canada to build a pipeline to bring natural gas to her fellow Americans.
And, oh, yes. She was "Sarah Barracuda" – a fierce high school athlete, a runner-up in the Miss Alaska pageant, a Feminist for Life and lifetime member of the NRA. Introduced by McCain, she praised Hillary Clinton and pledged to finish her work by smashing through the glass ceiling in which Hillary had made 18 million cracks.
(Column continues below)
What, in any or all of this, is there to justify the feral attacks within minutes of her introduction? What had she done to cause this outburst? Answer: absolutely nothing.
No. Sarah Palin is not resented for what she has done, but for who she is: a Christian conservative who believes unborn children are gifts of God, even those with birth defects, and have a God-given right to life.
Normally, the press is reluctant to rummage into the private lives of public servants, unless their conduct affects their duties or they preach virtues they hypocritically do not practice.
Yet, no sooner was Palin introduced than the media went berserk over the news that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. As one in three births in America is out-of-wedlock and Hollywood celebrates this lifestyle, why did the New York Times and the Washington Post splash this "news" on Page 1 above the fold?
How does Bristol Palin's pregnancy disqualify Sarah Palin to be vice president? Why is it even relevant?
They did it because they thought it would damage Sarah Palin in the eyes of a Christian community they do not comprehend.
So out of bounds was the media that Obama, in an act of decency, declared Palin's family off limits and reminded the media that he was himself born to a teenage single mom.
If one would wish to see the famous liberal double standard on naked display, consider.
Palin's daughter was fair game for a media that refused to look into reports that John Edwards, a Democratic candidate for president, was conducting an illicit affair with a woman said to be carrying his child and cheating on his faithful wife, Elizabeth, who has incurable cancer. That was not a legitimate story, but Bristol Palin's pregnancy is?
Why did the selection of Sarah Palin cause a suspension of all standards and a near riot among a media that have been so in the tank for Barack even "Saturday Night Live" has satirized the infatuation?
Because she is one of us – and he is one of them.
Barack and Michelle are affirmative action, Princeton, Columbia, Harvard Law. She is public schools and Idaho State. Barack was a Saul Alinsky social worker who rustled up food stamps. Sarah Palin kills her own food.
Michelle has a $300,000-a-year sinecure doing PR for a Chicago hospital. Todd Palin is a union steelworker who augments his income working vacations on the North Slope. Sarah has always been proud to be an American. Michelle was never proud of America – until Barack started winning.
Barack has zero experience as an executive. Sarah ran her own fishing fleet, was mayor for six years and runs the largest state in the union. She belongs to a mainstream Christian church. Barack was, for 15 years, a parishioner at Trinity United and had his daughters baptized by Pastor Jeremiah Wright, whose sermons are saturated in black power, anti-white racism and anti-Americanism.
Sarah is a rebel. Obama has been a go-along, get-along cog in the Daley Machine. She is Middle America. Barack, behind closed doors in San Francisco, mocked Middle Americans as folks left behind by the global economy who cling bitterly to their Bibles, bigotries and guns.
Barack has zero foreign policy experience. Palin runs a state that is home to anti-missile, missile and air defense bases facing the Far East, commands the Alaska National Guard and has a soldier-son heading for Iraq.
Barack, says the National Journal, has the most left-wing voting record in the Senate, besting Socialist Bernie Sanders. Palin's stances read as though they were lifted from Reagan's 1980 "no pale pastels" platform. And this is what this media firestorm is all about.
By Patrick J. Buchanan
One wonders: What did Sarah Palin ever do to inspire the rage and bile that exploded on her selection by John McCain? What is there either in this woman's record or resume to elicit such feline ferocity?
What did we know of her when she was introduced?
That she was a mother of five who had brought into this world a baby boy with Down syndrome, thus living her Christian beliefs. That she was a small-town conservative who had risen from mayor of Wasilla (population 9,700) to be governor of a state twice the size of Texas.
That she was a reformer who had dethroned an old boys' network by dumping a sitting Republican governor. That she had taken on Big Oil, taxed the companies and returned the money in $1,200 checks to every citizen of Alaska. And that she had cut a deal with Canada to build a pipeline to bring natural gas to her fellow Americans.
And, oh, yes. She was "Sarah Barracuda" – a fierce high school athlete, a runner-up in the Miss Alaska pageant, a Feminist for Life and lifetime member of the NRA. Introduced by McCain, she praised Hillary Clinton and pledged to finish her work by smashing through the glass ceiling in which Hillary had made 18 million cracks.
(Column continues below)
What, in any or all of this, is there to justify the feral attacks within minutes of her introduction? What had she done to cause this outburst? Answer: absolutely nothing.
No. Sarah Palin is not resented for what she has done, but for who she is: a Christian conservative who believes unborn children are gifts of God, even those with birth defects, and have a God-given right to life.
Normally, the press is reluctant to rummage into the private lives of public servants, unless their conduct affects their duties or they preach virtues they hypocritically do not practice.
Yet, no sooner was Palin introduced than the media went berserk over the news that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. As one in three births in America is out-of-wedlock and Hollywood celebrates this lifestyle, why did the New York Times and the Washington Post splash this "news" on Page 1 above the fold?
How does Bristol Palin's pregnancy disqualify Sarah Palin to be vice president? Why is it even relevant?
They did it because they thought it would damage Sarah Palin in the eyes of a Christian community they do not comprehend.
So out of bounds was the media that Obama, in an act of decency, declared Palin's family off limits and reminded the media that he was himself born to a teenage single mom.
If one would wish to see the famous liberal double standard on naked display, consider.
Palin's daughter was fair game for a media that refused to look into reports that John Edwards, a Democratic candidate for president, was conducting an illicit affair with a woman said to be carrying his child and cheating on his faithful wife, Elizabeth, who has incurable cancer. That was not a legitimate story, but Bristol Palin's pregnancy is?
Why did the selection of Sarah Palin cause a suspension of all standards and a near riot among a media that have been so in the tank for Barack even "Saturday Night Live" has satirized the infatuation?
Because she is one of us – and he is one of them.
Barack and Michelle are affirmative action, Princeton, Columbia, Harvard Law. She is public schools and Idaho State. Barack was a Saul Alinsky social worker who rustled up food stamps. Sarah Palin kills her own food.
Michelle has a $300,000-a-year sinecure doing PR for a Chicago hospital. Todd Palin is a union steelworker who augments his income working vacations on the North Slope. Sarah has always been proud to be an American. Michelle was never proud of America – until Barack started winning.
Barack has zero experience as an executive. Sarah ran her own fishing fleet, was mayor for six years and runs the largest state in the union. She belongs to a mainstream Christian church. Barack was, for 15 years, a parishioner at Trinity United and had his daughters baptized by Pastor Jeremiah Wright, whose sermons are saturated in black power, anti-white racism and anti-Americanism.
Sarah is a rebel. Obama has been a go-along, get-along cog in the Daley Machine. She is Middle America. Barack, behind closed doors in San Francisco, mocked Middle Americans as folks left behind by the global economy who cling bitterly to their Bibles, bigotries and guns.
Barack has zero foreign policy experience. Palin runs a state that is home to anti-missile, missile and air defense bases facing the Far East, commands the Alaska National Guard and has a soldier-son heading for Iraq.
Barack, says the National Journal, has the most left-wing voting record in the Senate, besting Socialist Bernie Sanders. Palin's stances read as though they were lifted from Reagan's 1980 "no pale pastels" platform. And this is what this media firestorm is all about.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Thanks Guys, the Media's Attacks on Palin Backfire
by William Kristol 09/15/2008
The editors of THE WEEKLY STANDARD believe in giving credit where credit is due. The presidential race looks a whole lot better today than it did two weeks ago. For this, thanks are owed to two men--Barack Obama and John McCain--and to that herd of independent minds, the liberal media.
First: Thank you, Barack Obama. He lacked the confidence or the strength to ask Hillary Clinton, recipient of some 18 million votes, to join him on the ticket. Such a ticket, uniting and exciting the Democratic party, would have been hard to beat in this Democratic year. Having ruled out Clinton, Obama then lacked the nerve to double down on the theme of change, by selecting, say, Virginia governor Tim Kaine or Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius. A change versus experience election wouldn't have been a bad bet for Obama. Instead, he settled on an unimpressive vice presidential pick, a long-time, long-winded overrated senator from a safe state, who gave him no lift at all in the polls, and offers no prospect of doing so.
Second: Thank you, John McCain. He showed guts with his pick of Sarah Palin. He also demonstrated a shrewd strategic sense. He knew that running on experience would carry him only so far--most likely to a respectable defeat. He understood the implications of Obama's passing over Hillary--not that Clinton voters would vote for McCain-Palin (though if even a few do so, it could make a difference), but that his pick of Palin when compared with Obama's shying away from Hillary would show McCain as a bolder and more confident leader. And he had the sense that Palin's anti-establishment conservatism, pro-family feminism, and tough-minded reformism would add something important to his campaign.
Third: A special thank you to our friends in the liberal media establishment. Who knew they would come through so spectacularly? The ludicrous media feeding frenzy about the Palin family hyped interest in her speech, enabling her to win a huge audience for her smashing success Wednesday night at the convention. Indeed, it even renewed interest in McCain, who seems to have gotten still more viewers for his less smashing--but well-received--presentation the following evening.
The astounding (even to me, after all these years!) smugness and mean-spiritedness of so many in the media engendered not just interest in but sympathy for Palin. It allowed Palin to speak not just to conservatives but to the many Americans who are repulsed by the media's prurient interest in and adolescent snickering about her family. It allowed the McCain-Palin ticket to become the populist standard-bearer against an Obama-Media ticket that has disdain for Middle America.
By the end of the week, after Palin's tour de force in St. Paul, the liberal media were so befuddled that they were reduced to complaining that conservatives aren't being narrow-minded enough. Thus, Hanna Rosin--who has covered religion and politics for the Washington Post, and has also written for the New Yorker, the New Republic, and the New York Times--lamented in a piece for Slate: "So cavalier are conservatives about Sarah Palin's wreck of a home life that they make the rest of us look stuffy and slow-witted by comparison." I suppose it was ungenerous of conservatives, in our broad-mindedness and tolerance of human frailty, to have let Ms. Rosin down, just when she was counting on us to bring out the tar and feathers. But she gives us too much credit when she suggests we make the liberal media look stuffy and slow-witted. They do that all by themselves.
For instance, what in the world can she be thinking when she refers to "Sarah Palin's wreck of a home life"? The only "domestic irregularities" (to use Ms. Rosin's loaded term) she cites are "two difficult pregnancies--Palin's with a Down syndrome baby and now her unmarried teenage daughter's." The second of these is a situation that the young woman and her family seem to be dealing with appropriately by their own lights. "Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family," the Palins said. But what is "irregular" about bringing to term a Down syndrome child? Is Rosin suggesting--without having the courage to say so--that Mrs. Palin should have aborted the baby? Is it upsetting to her to have a prominent woman choose not to do so?
Some may think we should also thank Sarah Palin for coming through, under pressure, with flying colors. But we're looking forward to expressing those thanks personally, at the vice presidential residence here in Washington.
The editors of THE WEEKLY STANDARD believe in giving credit where credit is due. The presidential race looks a whole lot better today than it did two weeks ago. For this, thanks are owed to two men--Barack Obama and John McCain--and to that herd of independent minds, the liberal media.
First: Thank you, Barack Obama. He lacked the confidence or the strength to ask Hillary Clinton, recipient of some 18 million votes, to join him on the ticket. Such a ticket, uniting and exciting the Democratic party, would have been hard to beat in this Democratic year. Having ruled out Clinton, Obama then lacked the nerve to double down on the theme of change, by selecting, say, Virginia governor Tim Kaine or Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius. A change versus experience election wouldn't have been a bad bet for Obama. Instead, he settled on an unimpressive vice presidential pick, a long-time, long-winded overrated senator from a safe state, who gave him no lift at all in the polls, and offers no prospect of doing so.
Second: Thank you, John McCain. He showed guts with his pick of Sarah Palin. He also demonstrated a shrewd strategic sense. He knew that running on experience would carry him only so far--most likely to a respectable defeat. He understood the implications of Obama's passing over Hillary--not that Clinton voters would vote for McCain-Palin (though if even a few do so, it could make a difference), but that his pick of Palin when compared with Obama's shying away from Hillary would show McCain as a bolder and more confident leader. And he had the sense that Palin's anti-establishment conservatism, pro-family feminism, and tough-minded reformism would add something important to his campaign.
Third: A special thank you to our friends in the liberal media establishment. Who knew they would come through so spectacularly? The ludicrous media feeding frenzy about the Palin family hyped interest in her speech, enabling her to win a huge audience for her smashing success Wednesday night at the convention. Indeed, it even renewed interest in McCain, who seems to have gotten still more viewers for his less smashing--but well-received--presentation the following evening.
The astounding (even to me, after all these years!) smugness and mean-spiritedness of so many in the media engendered not just interest in but sympathy for Palin. It allowed Palin to speak not just to conservatives but to the many Americans who are repulsed by the media's prurient interest in and adolescent snickering about her family. It allowed the McCain-Palin ticket to become the populist standard-bearer against an Obama-Media ticket that has disdain for Middle America.
By the end of the week, after Palin's tour de force in St. Paul, the liberal media were so befuddled that they were reduced to complaining that conservatives aren't being narrow-minded enough. Thus, Hanna Rosin--who has covered religion and politics for the Washington Post, and has also written for the New Yorker, the New Republic, and the New York Times--lamented in a piece for Slate: "So cavalier are conservatives about Sarah Palin's wreck of a home life that they make the rest of us look stuffy and slow-witted by comparison." I suppose it was ungenerous of conservatives, in our broad-mindedness and tolerance of human frailty, to have let Ms. Rosin down, just when she was counting on us to bring out the tar and feathers. But she gives us too much credit when she suggests we make the liberal media look stuffy and slow-witted. They do that all by themselves.
For instance, what in the world can she be thinking when she refers to "Sarah Palin's wreck of a home life"? The only "domestic irregularities" (to use Ms. Rosin's loaded term) she cites are "two difficult pregnancies--Palin's with a Down syndrome baby and now her unmarried teenage daughter's." The second of these is a situation that the young woman and her family seem to be dealing with appropriately by their own lights. "Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family," the Palins said. But what is "irregular" about bringing to term a Down syndrome child? Is Rosin suggesting--without having the courage to say so--that Mrs. Palin should have aborted the baby? Is it upsetting to her to have a prominent woman choose not to do so?
Some may think we should also thank Sarah Palin for coming through, under pressure, with flying colors. But we're looking forward to expressing those thanks personally, at the vice presidential residence here in Washington.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Monday, September 8, 2008
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Sarah Palin Speaking ar Her Church
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1766638341
Praise God for raising up a Godly Woman as a leader of Alaska and the USA.
Praise God for raising up a Godly Woman as a leader of Alaska and the USA.
Friday, September 5, 2008
The Tears of Clowns, a bummed MSNBC
By Stephen Spruiell
St. Paul — If you watched MSNBC on mute Wednesday night after Sarah Palin’s speech, it looked like the top story was that a hurricane swept through the North Pole and killed Santa Claus, so crestfallen were the network’s stars. It was the same with the sound up. Keith Olbermann’s first words after the applause in the Xcel Center finally died down were, “That appears to be the end of it.” He sounded relieved. The same man who literally couldn’t find anything wrong with Barack Obama’s speech in Denver last week — calling it “spellbinding,” “fully realized” and “tough” — found that the best he could say of Palin’s speech was, “People who like this sort of thing will find this… the sort of thing they like.” Chris Matthews, who gets thrills up his leg when Obama speaks, sounded shell-shocked. “Well, I have to say that I was completely surprised by what I saw,” he said, without an ounce of enthusiasm. “She is a torpedo aimed directly at the ship of Barack and Michelle Obama. That’s what she is. She’s an alternative to them. This is not an alternative to Hillary. This is a cultural alternative to Obama and his proposed First Lady. This is a very direct cultural shot.”After he’d had a moment to compose himself, Olbermann tried to come up with a better reaction. Of the speech, he said there was some “condescension in there towards Obama.” Condescension is an interesting word. Here’s a woman who was belittled for being a small-town mayor by a guy who described small-town people as clinging to their guns and religion because they’re bitter. And yet, when she hits him back, she’s the condescending one.It wasn’t just MSNBC’s anchors who were struggling to respond. On the floor of the convention center, a visibly depressed Andrea Mitchell interviewed a beaming Rudy Giuliani about Palin’s speech. Some context: Last week, reporting from among the Democratic delegates at Invesco Field, Mitchell relayed the reaction of the delegates to some of Obama’s best lines, literally shouting, “Whooee! Whooee!” into the camera. But there would be no sharing in the Republican delegates’ joy over Palin’s speech for Mitchell. Instead, after her interview with Rudy was over (sample question: “And you don’t think she’s vulnerable on the size and scale of her executive experience and the brevity of her political experience?”), she stared dead-eyed into the camera and said, “The war has begun.”Some might say the war actually began when the media decided to aggressively pursue every smear against Palin the left-wing blogosphere could think up. First, they questioned the maternity of Palin’s son, Trig, after a left-wing blog accused Palin of faking the pregnancy to cover for her daughter, Bristol. This forced the campaign to make a very private matter — Bristol’s real pregnancy — public. (Bristol’s pregnancy predates Trig’s birth by two months, proving she’s not his mother.)The latest smear is an attempt to paint Palin as an anti-Semite. Two weeks ago, the executive director of a group called Jews for Jesus spoke at Palin’s church. Her pastor says she was in church that day. The guest speaker made some controversial comments and insinuated that the conflict in the Middle East is attributable to God’s “judgment of unbelief.” So, just to be clear: This was a guest speaker, not a man that Palin sought out, befriended, and received spiritual guidance from for over 20 years. Nevertheless, the newest addition to MSNBC’s prime-time line-up, Air America radio host Rachel Maddow, was quick to imbue this story with grave portent Wednesday night after Palin’s speech. “Was she sitting in the pew in her church in Wasilla two weeks ago when a speaker said that the Israelis deserves terrorist attacks because Jews are unbelievers in Christ?” Maddow said. “I mean, there are tough questions she’s going to have to answer.”Maybe so. Maybe someday, the media’s campaign to bury Sarah Palin will yield something more substantial than the smears and innuendo we’ve seen so far. Maybe somewhere, a left-wing blogger is closely inspecting a JPEG of young Willow Palin and gleefully discovering the baby bump that will sink McCain’s campaign. But there is no joy in MSNBC-ville — mighty Sarah has struck back.
St. Paul — If you watched MSNBC on mute Wednesday night after Sarah Palin’s speech, it looked like the top story was that a hurricane swept through the North Pole and killed Santa Claus, so crestfallen were the network’s stars. It was the same with the sound up. Keith Olbermann’s first words after the applause in the Xcel Center finally died down were, “That appears to be the end of it.” He sounded relieved. The same man who literally couldn’t find anything wrong with Barack Obama’s speech in Denver last week — calling it “spellbinding,” “fully realized” and “tough” — found that the best he could say of Palin’s speech was, “People who like this sort of thing will find this… the sort of thing they like.” Chris Matthews, who gets thrills up his leg when Obama speaks, sounded shell-shocked. “Well, I have to say that I was completely surprised by what I saw,” he said, without an ounce of enthusiasm. “She is a torpedo aimed directly at the ship of Barack and Michelle Obama. That’s what she is. She’s an alternative to them. This is not an alternative to Hillary. This is a cultural alternative to Obama and his proposed First Lady. This is a very direct cultural shot.”After he’d had a moment to compose himself, Olbermann tried to come up with a better reaction. Of the speech, he said there was some “condescension in there towards Obama.” Condescension is an interesting word. Here’s a woman who was belittled for being a small-town mayor by a guy who described small-town people as clinging to their guns and religion because they’re bitter. And yet, when she hits him back, she’s the condescending one.It wasn’t just MSNBC’s anchors who were struggling to respond. On the floor of the convention center, a visibly depressed Andrea Mitchell interviewed a beaming Rudy Giuliani about Palin’s speech. Some context: Last week, reporting from among the Democratic delegates at Invesco Field, Mitchell relayed the reaction of the delegates to some of Obama’s best lines, literally shouting, “Whooee! Whooee!” into the camera. But there would be no sharing in the Republican delegates’ joy over Palin’s speech for Mitchell. Instead, after her interview with Rudy was over (sample question: “And you don’t think she’s vulnerable on the size and scale of her executive experience and the brevity of her political experience?”), she stared dead-eyed into the camera and said, “The war has begun.”Some might say the war actually began when the media decided to aggressively pursue every smear against Palin the left-wing blogosphere could think up. First, they questioned the maternity of Palin’s son, Trig, after a left-wing blog accused Palin of faking the pregnancy to cover for her daughter, Bristol. This forced the campaign to make a very private matter — Bristol’s real pregnancy — public. (Bristol’s pregnancy predates Trig’s birth by two months, proving she’s not his mother.)The latest smear is an attempt to paint Palin as an anti-Semite. Two weeks ago, the executive director of a group called Jews for Jesus spoke at Palin’s church. Her pastor says she was in church that day. The guest speaker made some controversial comments and insinuated that the conflict in the Middle East is attributable to God’s “judgment of unbelief.” So, just to be clear: This was a guest speaker, not a man that Palin sought out, befriended, and received spiritual guidance from for over 20 years. Nevertheless, the newest addition to MSNBC’s prime-time line-up, Air America radio host Rachel Maddow, was quick to imbue this story with grave portent Wednesday night after Palin’s speech. “Was she sitting in the pew in her church in Wasilla two weeks ago when a speaker said that the Israelis deserves terrorist attacks because Jews are unbelievers in Christ?” Maddow said. “I mean, there are tough questions she’s going to have to answer.”Maybe so. Maybe someday, the media’s campaign to bury Sarah Palin will yield something more substantial than the smears and innuendo we’ve seen so far. Maybe somewhere, a left-wing blogger is closely inspecting a JPEG of young Willow Palin and gleefully discovering the baby bump that will sink McCain’s campaign. But there is no joy in MSNBC-ville — mighty Sarah has struck back.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Obama, An Empty Suit
Friends,
Senator McCain, on the Saddleback Forum, referenced Jack Wheeler, as one of the 3 most important people with which he would council. Here's more on Jack Wheeler! Also attached is a brief history of this remarkable man, of which most of us have never heard.
Something to read....extremely interesting!! Jack Wheeler was the author of Reagan's strategy to break the back of the Soviet Union with the star wars race and expose their inner weakness. For years he wrote a weekly intelligence update that was extremely interesting and well structured and informed. He consults(ed) with several mega corporations on global trends and the future, etc. He is in semi-retirement now. He is a true patriot with a no-nonsense approach to everything. He is also a somewhat well known mountain climber and adventurer.
Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.
He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya . Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.
What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is 'African-American,' the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave trade owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.
Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.
It's something Hillary doesn't understand - how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult, whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.
Thus Obama has become the white liberals' Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd.
Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior.
His candidacy is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking American.
Pass this on to every thinking American you know .
"Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable."
G. K. Chesterton
Senator McCain, on the Saddleback Forum, referenced Jack Wheeler, as one of the 3 most important people with which he would council. Here's more on Jack Wheeler! Also attached is a brief history of this remarkable man, of which most of us have never heard.
Something to read....extremely interesting!! Jack Wheeler was the author of Reagan's strategy to break the back of the Soviet Union with the star wars race and expose their inner weakness. For years he wrote a weekly intelligence update that was extremely interesting and well structured and informed. He consults(ed) with several mega corporations on global trends and the future, etc. He is in semi-retirement now. He is a true patriot with a no-nonsense approach to everything. He is also a somewhat well known mountain climber and adventurer.
Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.
He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya . Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.
What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is 'African-American,' the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave trade owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.
Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.
It's something Hillary doesn't understand - how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult, whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.
Thus Obama has become the white liberals' Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd.
Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior.
His candidacy is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking American.
Pass this on to every thinking American you know .
"Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable."
G. K. Chesterton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
