By Frances Rice
“Why Sarah Palin Quit: The Five Best Explanations” by Jay Newton-Small quotes Alaska state legislators who lay the blame at the door of the Democrats. Quoted is Alaska State Senator Gene Therriault, a Republican representing the town of North Pole who said: "We started seeing a proliferation of ethics complaints against her. It was an orchestrated effort to take her down”. That article can be found on the Internet at: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1908800,00.html
Governor Sarah Palin’s surprising resignation announcement in the face of the horrific treatment she received from Democrats and their media allies struck within me a familiar cord. Although Palin’s abuse was mental harassment inflicted through public humiliation via spoken and written words and mounting debt from frivolous ethics charges, she was nonetheless effectively hounded out of public office. This brought to mind the sinister tactics used by Democrats against Republicans after the American Civil War that freed blacks from slavery.
Determined to keep blacks in virtual slavery after losing the Civil War, Democrats set about the task of ending Reconstruction and driving out of the South all Republicans, a result that kept blacks at the mercy of ruthless Democrats for over 100 years.
The facts about the horrors inflicted upon Republicans by Democrats are laid bare in the books “A Short History of Reconstruction” by Dr. Eric Foner and “Unfounded Loyalty” by Wayne Perryman.
The meticulous research by Foner and Perryman uncovered inhumanity by Democrats so startling as to seem surreal. Democrats, Perryman wrote, used every means possible to destroy Reconstruction including lynching, whippings, murder, intimidation, assassinations and mutilations.
Foner exposed how the Ku Klux Klan, that was founded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club and became the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party, spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a “reign of terror” against Republican leaders, black and white. The Klan lynched over 2,000 black Republicans and 1,000 white Republicans.
In a chilling passage Foner wrote: “Jack Dupree, a victim of a particularly brutal murder in Monroe County, Mississippi - assailants cut his throat and disemboweled him, all within sight of his wife, who had just given birth to twins - was ‘president of a republican club‘ and known as a man who ‘would speak his mind’” .
Sarah Palin is a woman who speaks her mind. She is a decent and honorable citizen who loves her family and country. Palin was subjected to a high-tech lynching by Democrats and their media minions because she had the audacity to be a Republican elected official and an apparent great political threat to the Democratic Party’s ruling elite.
For nearly a century, most blacks were aligned with the Republican Party and, thereby, posed a significant threat to the Democratic Party’s quest for power. Terror was used by Democrats for 100 years and monetary handouts for the past 50 years to mold blacks into reliable pawns in the Democratic Party’s political power game. It is ironic that the Democratic Party is now led by President Barack Obama, a black man who unabashedly helps Democrats keep blacks corralled on the Democratic Party’s economic plantation, voting mindlessly for any politician identified as a Democrat.
America, how did we come to the point where we are all held in the Democratic Party’s iron grip of fear of being destroyed personally, as was Sarah Palin, while the Democrats work feverishly to make us economic slaves?
A mock liberal rant, “I Still Hate You, Sarah Palin - The Republicans bring a knife to a gunfight, and lose again” by David Kahane presents a hysterical tirade against Palin by a fictional Democratic Party operative. A comparison of Kahane’s feigned scorn with the real hatred directed at Palin by Democrats shows that his article is close to reality. That article can be found on the Internet at: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDE3MmE5MDVmMGM1YjQ2NmVhMjJkN2I2ZTcxMzhlNjU=
The NBRA tribute to Sarah Palin made long before her resignation announcement can be viewed on the NBRA website at: http://www.trustedpartner.com/docs/library/000143/NBRA%20Tribute%20To%20Palin%20Newsletter.pdf
Frances Rice is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel, a lawyer and chairman of the National Black Republican Association. She can be contacted at: www.NBRA.info
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
FRC: Urge "NO" Vote on Pro-Abortion Governor; Me: Magnify Your Efforts
The following is from the Family Research Council. You all know that Obama has filled his Cabinet with people with ethical challenges. They fly through without any major challenges. It seems that we are fighting against the wind as we write, call, fax our opposition to the many actions by Obama, Pelosi, Reid and friends.
I have a suggestion. Rather than JUST sending petitions to Washington D.C. and contacting our elected representatives, let's also contact every media outlet we can imagine. Not just this time, but every time you have a concern.
If you call your Senator, call the local news stations, too. If you write your Congressman, write every media outlet you can find (radio, television, newspaper, etc.). Duplicate everything you do ten-fold.
They're saying the opposition isn't there. They're ignoring our pleas for ethical representation. They're treating us like pesky flies that can be swatted away. Let's show them.
Magnify everything you do.
Get the addresses for every media outlet you can find and make sure you copy them when you send your letters. Get the email addresses of every national and local news outlet you can dig up and copy them on every email you send in protest.
Let's overwhelm them. Let's make it impossible for them to ignore us or swat us away.
Here's the email on Sebelius. We need to do everything possible to stop her from being confirmed. Time is short.
Time is running out to stop the confirmation of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to be President Obama's Secretary of Heath and Human Service. A floor vote in the U.S. Senate is imminent and your signature is urgently needed on our petition to block this nominee. Gov. Sebelius has compiled a record that is anti-woman and anti-life, yet President Obama has chosen her not only to lead the federal government's largest agency but to oversee a massive expansion of the government's role in health care.
Troubling news about Gov. Sebelius continues to pour in. Her close alliance with Kansas's abortion industry has been known, but the extent of her ties, as now revealed, suggest that she may owe her entire political career to the huge sums this industry spent on and gave to her campaigns for public office. In particular, the notorious George Tiller, who has established his Wichita, Kansas facility as a national hub for second- and third-trimester abortions, helped launch Gov. Sebelius by:
This record underscores how beholden Sebelius is to the ugliest business in America. It renders her unfit for any office, but particularly to lead the agency charged with protecting our families' health.
Please click here to watch the video I've made about the Tiller-Sebelius pipeline and to sign our petition to Senate leaders. We have no time to lose to prevent one of the worst Cabinet choices in U.S. history.
Thank you and God bless you.
Watch the video on the Tiller-Sebelius pipeline and sign our petition urging Senate leaders to reject the nomination of pro-abortion Gov. Sebelius.
Sincerely,
Tony Perkins
President
Family Research Council
801 G Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
P: 202/393-2100 or 888/372-2284
W: frc.org
I have a suggestion. Rather than JUST sending petitions to Washington D.C. and contacting our elected representatives, let's also contact every media outlet we can imagine. Not just this time, but every time you have a concern.
If you call your Senator, call the local news stations, too. If you write your Congressman, write every media outlet you can find (radio, television, newspaper, etc.). Duplicate everything you do ten-fold.
They're saying the opposition isn't there. They're ignoring our pleas for ethical representation. They're treating us like pesky flies that can be swatted away. Let's show them.
Magnify everything you do.
Get the addresses for every media outlet you can find and make sure you copy them when you send your letters. Get the email addresses of every national and local news outlet you can dig up and copy them on every email you send in protest.
Let's overwhelm them. Let's make it impossible for them to ignore us or swat us away.
Here's the email on Sebelius. We need to do everything possible to stop her from being confirmed. Time is short.
Time is running out to stop the confirmation of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to be President Obama's Secretary of Heath and Human Service. A floor vote in the U.S. Senate is imminent and your signature is urgently needed on our petition to block this nominee. Gov. Sebelius has compiled a record that is anti-woman and anti-life, yet President Obama has chosen her not only to lead the federal government's largest agency but to oversee a massive expansion of the government's role in health care.
Troubling news about Gov. Sebelius continues to pour in. Her close alliance with Kansas's abortion industry has been known, but the extent of her ties, as now revealed, suggest that she may owe her entire political career to the huge sums this industry spent on and gave to her campaigns for public office. In particular, the notorious George Tiller, who has established his Wichita, Kansas facility as a national hub for second- and third-trimester abortions, helped launch Gov. Sebelius by:
Donation $200,000 in abortion proceeds to his own political action committee in Kansas in 2002, making it the largest PAC in the state and a primary supporter of Sebelius's.
Raising $70,000 from other Kansas abortionists for this fund to support Sebelius.
Donating more than $23,000 directly to Sebelius's own campaign committee, after which, as governor, she vetoed legislation that would have guaranteed minimum health standards to protect women in the state's abortion mills.
This record underscores how beholden Sebelius is to the ugliest business in America. It renders her unfit for any office, but particularly to lead the agency charged with protecting our families' health.
Please click here to watch the video I've made about the Tiller-Sebelius pipeline and to sign our petition to Senate leaders. We have no time to lose to prevent one of the worst Cabinet choices in U.S. history.
Thank you and God bless you.
Watch the video on the Tiller-Sebelius pipeline and sign our petition urging Senate leaders to reject the nomination of pro-abortion Gov. Sebelius.
Sincerely,
Tony Perkins
President
Family Research Council
801 G Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001
P: 202/393-2100 or 888/372-2284
W: frc.org
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Congress Expires Critical Tool for Screening Illegal Alien Employment
From W.A.M.:
The E-Verify Program, on which businesses across the country rely to screen employment of illegal aliens expires this Friday, March 6.
E-Verify has been in use since 1997 by businesses nationwide - but Congress appears to be 'hoping' Americans won't notice that they removed the extension of this regulation from the "Stimulus Plan" and the issue has been ignored and screened out of Mass Media news coverage.
LET'S SHOW WASHINGTON WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION and we are opposed to the hiring of illegal aliens.
SIGN the Urgent E-VERIFY PETITION Now - and send this link to your friends to sign on in support of this "Smart Business Practice."
http://www.wam08.org/TakeaStand.html
The E-Verify Program, on which businesses across the country rely to screen employment of illegal aliens expires this Friday, March 6.
E-Verify has been in use since 1997 by businesses nationwide - but Congress appears to be 'hoping' Americans won't notice that they removed the extension of this regulation from the "Stimulus Plan" and the issue has been ignored and screened out of Mass Media news coverage.
LET'S SHOW WASHINGTON WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION and we are opposed to the hiring of illegal aliens.
SIGN the Urgent E-VERIFY PETITION Now - and send this link to your friends to sign on in support of this "Smart Business Practice."
http://www.wam08.org/TakeaStand.html
Monday, January 26, 2009
Nationalization of banks around the corner?
Yesterday Nancy Pelosi publicly indicated nationalization was on the table (Nancy Pelosi - Nationalization of Banks a Good Idea? Yep.).
Today I received the following article link in my daily round up of news that I torture myself with each morning:
At first read, surprisingly for a New York Times article, it seemed fairly balanced. However, as I re-read it I came away with the feeling that the author was laying the groundwork, i.e., Obama really doesn't want to nationalize the banks, but the situation is worse than he thought so he'll be forced to take this drastic step.
There is a suggestion that IF Obama does go down the nationalization path it may only be for a few banks and that it may only be for a short time.
It's that old slippery slope. Look at history. Once government gets involved their tentacles tighten, they don't release their prey. Using another, hopefully less plausible, comparison dictators and the like often start out as saviors. They make this little change here, that change there and the next thing the citizens of their country realize, the dictator's new government has a stranglehold on everything.
The article did present a lot of good arguments as to why the Obama administration might be trying to steer clear of going the nationalization route. It seemed to me though, that the arguments were just included so we'd understand that it must be really, really bad if Obama is forced to make the horrible decision to nationalize banks given all the negatives. It set the stage for the masses to applaud Obama and friends for being forced to do this for the good of the country -- if it occurs.
In another article from Bloomberg (see link below) the author again seemed to be trying to state both sides of the issue while setting the stage for the inevitability of nationalization:
So am I just over-sensitive to the potential subtleties in these articles? Is the media partnering with Obama in the softening of the American mind? Is nationalization of banks around the corner? Is the current economic downturn going to lead to the country embracing a change in our fundamental beliefs with open arms?
I guess we'll find out in one of our tomorrows.
Treasury's demands on banks seen as nationalization
(Bloomberg News Feed)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. government's decision to pledge billions of additional dollars with strings attached to Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. may be nationalization by another name, according to former bankers and regulators.
Faced with pressure from lawmakers, banks have shaken up management, eliminated executive bonuses and staff and canceled conventions. They'll be forced to do monthly reports on how they've boosted lending while slashing quarterly dividends to 1 cent a share for three years.
“Well, whatever you want to call it,” said Pelosi. “If we are strengthening them [banks], then the American people should get some of the upside of that strengthening. Some people call that nationalization."
Today I received the following article link in my daily round up of news that I torture myself with each morning:
Nationalization Gets a New, Serious Look
Only five days into the Obama presidency, members of the new administration and Democratic leaders in Congress are already dancing around one of the most politically delicate questions about the financial bailout: Is the president prepared to nationalize a huge swath of the nation’s banking system?
Privately, most members of the Obama economic team concede that the rapid deterioration of the country’s biggest banks, notably Bank of America and Citigroup, is bound to require far larger investments of taxpayer money, atop the more than $300 billion of taxpayer money already poured into those two financial institutions and hundreds of others, The New York Times’s David E. Sanger reports.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/nationalization-gets-a-new-serious-look/
At first read, surprisingly for a New York Times article, it seemed fairly balanced. However, as I re-read it I came away with the feeling that the author was laying the groundwork, i.e., Obama really doesn't want to nationalize the banks, but the situation is worse than he thought so he'll be forced to take this drastic step.
“I would guess that sometime in the next few weeks, President Obama and Tim Geithner,” he said, referring to the nominee for Treasury secretary, “will have to come out and say, ‘It’s much worse than we thought,’ and just bite the bullet.”
There is a suggestion that IF Obama does go down the nationalization path it may only be for a few banks and that it may only be for a short time.
The argument in favor of nationalization, even a brief nationalization of a
few months or years, is straightforward: It might be the only way to pull
America’s largest financial institutions out of the downward spiral that makes
it enormously difficult to raise the capital they need to keep operating.
It's that old slippery slope. Look at history. Once government gets involved their tentacles tighten, they don't release their prey. Using another, hopefully less plausible, comparison dictators and the like often start out as saviors. They make this little change here, that change there and the next thing the citizens of their country realize, the dictator's new government has a stranglehold on everything.
The article did present a lot of good arguments as to why the Obama administration might be trying to steer clear of going the nationalization route. It seemed to me though, that the arguments were just included so we'd understand that it must be really, really bad if Obama is forced to make the horrible decision to nationalize banks given all the negatives. It set the stage for the masses to applaud Obama and friends for being forced to do this for the good of the country -- if it occurs.
In another article from Bloomberg (see link below) the author again seemed to be trying to state both sides of the issue while setting the stage for the inevitability of nationalization:
William K. Black, former lawyer at the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco and Office of Thrift Supervision, said the Treasury could do better by assuming control of the companies and removing existing management altogether. By trying to avoid nationalizing the institutions, the government is wasting money, he said.
"It's insane to leave it in the control of the people who have every incentive to cover up the scale of the losses," said Black, a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. "You're deliberately negotiating a bad deal for the American people by not getting an appropriate return for the risk you're taking."and...
"If you took a nationalization policy, you would at least create some degree of certainty because now you know the government is going to stand behind these institutions," said Jacques, 49, who was an economist with the Treasury
Department for 14 years before becoming a finance professor at Baldwin-Wallace
College in Berea, Ohio.
And now? "It's almost like some kind of weird partial nationalization," he said.
So am I just over-sensitive to the potential subtleties in these articles? Is the media partnering with Obama in the softening of the American mind? Is nationalization of banks around the corner? Is the current economic downturn going to lead to the country embracing a change in our fundamental beliefs with open arms?
I guess we'll find out in one of our tomorrows.
Treasury's demands on banks seen as nationalization
(Bloomberg News Feed)
WASHINGTON — The U.S. government's decision to pledge billions of additional dollars with strings attached to Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. may be nationalization by another name, according to former bankers and regulators.
Faced with pressure from lawmakers, banks have shaken up management, eliminated executive bonuses and staff and canceled conventions. They'll be forced to do monthly reports on how they've boosted lending while slashing quarterly dividends to 1 cent a share for three years.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Bloomberg Article Draws Questionable Conclusions re: Republicans
In a Bloomberg article posted today by Heidi Przybyla titled Republican Battle for Party Chief Pits Leaders, Przybyla writes, "They [Republicans] also want party leaders to cooperate with President Barack Obama, according to surveys."
I found that hard to swallow, especially given the amount of energy coming from all factions of the Republican Party these days. It seems to me that the majority feel that the reason we're where we are today is because our elected "leaders" compromised on Republican values and principles.
The only survey cited in the Bloomberg article (that I could find) was from a joint NBC/Wall Street Journal survey. I followed the link Przybyla provided to the article the WSJ wrote regarding the survey.
Hmmm, it seems that according to their author, the question only referred to one, 1, ONE, specific area, the stimulus proposals.
Still curious, still wanting to make sure that Ms. Pzybyla hadn't found another broader based question, I took a look at the actual survey.
The only other question I found that vaguely related to relations between Democrats and Republicans in Congress:
Ms. Przybyla seems to have over-stated her case, at a minimum. It appears we have a case of typical media twisting and shaping of facts to fit a preconceived premise. Or maybe it's just a case of simply seeing what you want and ignoring the rest. Or possibly there's an agenda behind the writing of the article and it was deliberately misleading.
I sent a very nice email to Ms. Przybyla asking her to cite her survey sources since she uses the plural rather than singular.
I'll let you know if she responds.
In the meantime, I'd toss the Bloomberg article into the trashcan where it belongs.
Republican Battle for Party Chief Pits Leaders, Base (Update1)
Jan. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Republican leaders’ efforts to select a new national party chairman are stirring concerns among a vital constituency: Republican voters. Rank-and-file Republicans are telling their leaders they want more ethnic, gender and age diversity in a party that is dominated by white males. They also want party leaders to cooperate with President Barack Obama, according to surveys.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aN5z7TvAtZoQ&refer=us
I found that hard to swallow, especially given the amount of energy coming from all factions of the Republican Party these days. It seems to me that the majority feel that the reason we're where we are today is because our elected "leaders" compromised on Republican values and principles.
The only survey cited in the Bloomberg article (that I could find) was from a joint NBC/Wall Street Journal survey. I followed the link Przybyla provided to the article the WSJ wrote regarding the survey.
Hmmm, it seems that according to their author, the question only referred to one, 1, ONE, specific area, the stimulus proposals.
Obama, Stimulus Proposals Enjoy Broad Backing in Poll
Asked about the economic-stimulus package, now estimated to cost $850 billion over two years, ...Even Republicans and independents think GOP lawmakers should work to move the legislation forward. Asked whether Republicans in Congress should do everything to stand firm for their party's principles and oppose the legislation, or look to compromise with the Obama administration, 68% of Republicans and independents chose compromise, with 20% picking standing firm.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123196999580982953.html
Still curious, still wanting to make sure that Ms. Pzybyla hadn't found another broader based question, I took a look at the actual survey.
The actual Wall Street Survey question:
(ASK ONLY OF RESPONDENTS WHO SAY INDEPENDENT, REPUBLICAN, OTHER, OR NOT SURE IN Q.F4a.)
F4b. In thinking about the economic stimulus legislation, which of these statements comes closer to your point of view about what the Republicans in Congress should do over the course of the next several months:
Statement A: Republicans in Congress should do everything to stand firm for their party's economic positions and oppose legislation proposed by the Obama administration even if it means there may be stalemate on some elements of the legislation.
Statement B: Republicans in Congress should look to compromise with the Obama administration to ensure that legislation is passed and to avoid stalemate even if it means compromising on some of their party's economic positions.
[334]
Statement A: Should stand firm....... 20
Statement B: Should compromise... 68
Depends (VOL) ................................ 5
Not sure............................................ 7
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/WSJ_Poll_011409.pdf
The only other question I found that vaguely related to relations between Democrats and Republicans in Congress:
15. Looking ahead, do you feel that in 2009 the country will find the Democrats and Republicans in Congress in a period of unity by working together and reaching consensus, or will it be a period of division where the parties hold fast to their positions and show little willingness to compromise? [208]
1/09** 12/08 12/04
Period of unity/working together ................................ 48 52 27
Period of division/little willingness to compromise.... 45 42 65
Depends (VOL)......................................................... 4 3 4
Not sure..................................................................... 3 3 4
** Asked of one-half the respondents (FORM B).
Ms. Przybyla seems to have over-stated her case, at a minimum. It appears we have a case of typical media twisting and shaping of facts to fit a preconceived premise. Or maybe it's just a case of simply seeing what you want and ignoring the rest. Or possibly there's an agenda behind the writing of the article and it was deliberately misleading.
I sent a very nice email to Ms. Przybyla asking her to cite her survey sources since she uses the plural rather than singular.
I'll let you know if she responds.
In the meantime, I'd toss the Bloomberg article into the trashcan where it belongs.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Leon Panetta's Daughter a problem in confirmation?
Thus far it seems that no matter what is turned up about Obama's cabinet picks, they're going to sail through the confirmation hearings with only mini-waves of dissent. I've been working on compiling a listing of all the things being discovered about BHO's choices. I couldn't wait on this one... if we were looking at a Bush appointee, this would be enough to kill it and would be front page headlines. Hat tip to P.U.M.A., and to Political Warfare...
Linda Panetta- Anti-Us Agitator, Leon Panetta- CIA Director Nominee… Is there anything wrong with this picture?
By PUMA Pundit
January 18, 2009
While I don’t think it is reasonable to expect Leon to control his grown daughter’s actions, I question the wisdom in appointing as the head of the CIA a man who:
1) Has no intelligence background (although we’ve been informed he is a consumer of intelligence )
2) Has a daughter who is actively lecturing about the negative “implications of US foreign policy and the realities of war.” and who hangs out with enemies of the United States.
Compañera Panetta, with Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega
If the adult daughter of a CIA Director-designate hangs out with sworn enemies of the United States, it's a matter for the United States Senate to probe aggressively. And so the Senate really has to ask some very pointed questions about Linda Panetta, daughter of President-Elect Obama's pick to lead the CIA, and her ties to Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega and Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.
http://jmw.typepad.com/political_warfare/2009/01/daughter-of-next-cia-director-pals-with-chavez-and-ortega.html
Linda Panetta- Anti-Us Agitator, Leon Panetta- CIA Director Nominee… Is there anything wrong with this picture?
By PUMA Pundit
January 18, 2009
While I don’t think it is reasonable to expect Leon to control his grown daughter’s actions, I question the wisdom in appointing as the head of the CIA a man who:
1) Has no intelligence background (although we’ve been informed he is a consumer of intelligence )
2) Has a daughter who is actively lecturing about the negative “implications of US foreign policy and the realities of war.” and who hangs out with enemies of the United States.
Compañera Panetta, with Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega
If the adult daughter of a CIA Director-designate hangs out with sworn enemies of the United States, it's a matter for the United States Senate to probe aggressively. And so the Senate really has to ask some very pointed questions about Linda Panetta, daughter of President-Elect Obama's pick to lead the CIA, and her ties to Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega and Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.
http://jmw.typepad.com/political_warfare/2009/01/daughter-of-next-cia-director-pals-with-chavez-and-ortega.html
Ripped Wright Returns... to adulation
The much-ripped Reverend Wright returned to Washington this past weekend and it was all about the love... He didn't damn our country, he kept it all about The One... oh, and God, of course.
According to Wright it seems now that Obama is to assume the office, America is once again a land of possibilities (sorry immigrants), a land that will be saved (sorry all of you who spent this weekend worshipping) and a land where all of a sudden self-reliance is the way to go (uh, sorry about that pilgrims... and all of you out there who pulled yourself up by your own bootstraps). It was all peaches and cream.
I would bet the Rev. Wright was crowing internally as he stepped back into his "rightful" pulpit... straight from his life of luxury... the un-repentant son coming back to preach of things non-controversial (to some) while the media spotlight still shines on him and the chosen candidate has taken the White House.
I wonder what the right Reverend Wright thinks about the fact that Obama and family haven't been going to church these past few months? Even if BHO didn't go because of his concern for church members, you'd think he would have set up a regular prayer session or private church session at his home. I bet the ministers would line up for the opportunity to pray with the President-elect and family once a week.
Ya think maybe some of the pundits were correct when they said Obama chose Wright's church because it was a good political move? Ya think maybe it bit him on the behind and almost cost him the election? Or do you think in hind-sight that the Wright issue brought out so much white-guilt that it helped him to win? I don't really want to rehash the past, so don't feel obligated to comment... we got what we got and while it's important to learn from our mistakes, I don't think this set of circumstances could ever happen again in a million years. I was just musing in type.
Big Turnout For Obama's Former Pastor
By Michelle Boorstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 19, 2009;
Page A09
A year after then-candidate Barack Obama distanced himself from his controversial longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright thrilled thousands of churchgoers yesterday morning in Washington, giving a sermon holding up Obama as a spiritual symbol of possibility.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/18/AR2009011801725.html?hpid=sec-religion
According to Wright it seems now that Obama is to assume the office, America is once again a land of possibilities (sorry immigrants), a land that will be saved (sorry all of you who spent this weekend worshipping) and a land where all of a sudden self-reliance is the way to go (uh, sorry about that pilgrims... and all of you out there who pulled yourself up by your own bootstraps). It was all peaches and cream.
Wright went back and forth from Obama to a passage from the Gospel of John about people who overcome sickness and challenges. "No more seeing ourselves through the eyes of people who don't look like us!" he said. "How does God see us?"
In the impassioned oratory for which he is known, Wright said Obama was able, "as the Lord stepped into his story," to envision himself doing anything -- heading the Harvard Law Review, taking a U.S. Senate seat, even winning the presidency.
I would bet the Rev. Wright was crowing internally as he stepped back into his "rightful" pulpit... straight from his life of luxury... the un-repentant son coming back to preach of things non-controversial (to some) while the media spotlight still shines on him and the chosen candidate has taken the White House.
I wonder what the right Reverend Wright thinks about the fact that Obama and family haven't been going to church these past few months? Even if BHO didn't go because of his concern for church members, you'd think he would have set up a regular prayer session or private church session at his home. I bet the ministers would line up for the opportunity to pray with the President-elect and family once a week.
Ya think maybe some of the pundits were correct when they said Obama chose Wright's church because it was a good political move? Ya think maybe it bit him on the behind and almost cost him the election? Or do you think in hind-sight that the Wright issue brought out so much white-guilt that it helped him to win? I don't really want to rehash the past, so don't feel obligated to comment... we got what we got and while it's important to learn from our mistakes, I don't think this set of circumstances could ever happen again in a million years. I was just musing in type.
Big Turnout For Obama's Former Pastor
By Michelle Boorstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 19, 2009;
Page A09
A year after then-candidate Barack Obama distanced himself from his controversial longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright thrilled thousands of churchgoers yesterday morning in Washington, giving a sermon holding up Obama as a spiritual symbol of possibility.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/18/AR2009011801725.html?hpid=sec-religion
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Can facts change minds?
I have long wondered whether facts could change the mind of a die-hard liberal, or conservative for that matter. I read an article in the CS Monitor earlier today by Jonathan Zimmerman which brought the question to mind again.
He referenced a study by Drew Westen from Emory University (but didn't provide a link). I did a search and found a couple of studies by Westen on the subject (releases included below). I also found that Westen had released a book in 2007, “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation”.
In making the search I ended up on a much broader road than I'd intended. It led me to articles on why Obama attracted the minds of the masses. It took me on side paths on how the media influences the public.
It took me all over the place, but I ultimately found an answer of sorts. It was the answer I expected.
The answer is usually no, emotions overrule factual evidence by a huge margin.
As conservatives, we typically work with facts and try to convince others with rational arguments. We decry the fact that we don't seem to be able to change the minds of our left-learning friends with logic.
Facts definitely don't seem to sway the opinion of Bush-haters and Palin-haters!
One thing that I did find comforting in reading the study and the Zimmerman article, is that some minds can be changed. If I read my numbers correctly, about 15% read, study and make judgements based on facts (on the left and right!). Zimmerman says he occasionally changes a mind here and there. I've heard callers on Sean Hannity and other talk shows say they tuned in and ultimately changed their minds.
As I read articles and studies, I realized that the question asked by Westen and Zimmerman was secondary to a much bigger question we as conservatives need to answer. How do we even get the facts to liberals to change the small percentage of minds that could possibly be changed?
How many of your liberal friends would ever listen to Rush Limbaugh? watch Fox News? subscribe to a conservative magazine?
If they simply listen to the mainstream media, how are they going to hear the facts that might change their minds? If all they read is the Daily Kos or Huffington Post, how can we reach them?
For every blog a conservative turns out there's at least one being churned out by a left-leaning blogger.
Conservatives don't own many, if any, large mainstream media outlets. Even Fox News, which is routinely lambasted by the left, has a regular station with loads of liberal shows.
We have very few ways to really reach out and touch the minds of "progressives".
They think we're wrong, we think they're wrong.
I don't know the answer. How do you change someone's mind if you can't use facts? Even if facts DID work, we still have to address the question of how to get them in front of large groups of the population, Independents, Conservatives and Dems.
We can appeal on an emotional level, assuming we can infiltrate the media! But what's sexy about doing what's right? About being responsible?
How do you get conservatives to "stoop" to using emotions? It just isn't in the overall makeup of most on the right to try and package principles in a pretty package. Right is right and wrong is wrong.
Yes, I know you thought I'd come up with something profound by the time you wandered through this article! Hate to disappoint.
If anything, I suppose my "profound" suggestion would be that we keep on plugging along. We keep writing, we keep putting out the fact and we find ways to get a whole lot better at getting our side into the media.
We are making inroads via the Internet. More and more websites and blogs are popping up that promote conservative views. Twitter is becoming "the" conservative place to be thanks in large part to www.TopConservativesOnTwitter.com. More and more conservative bloggers are partnering. Emails are flying and conservative social networks are flourishing.
My final suggestion? Go forth and conquer the media before it's too late.
---
Do opinion pieces ever change your opinion?
Given the fixity of our partisan beliefs, it's a rare occurrence. Yet history shows that reason and rhetoric can win converts.
by Jonathan Zimmerman
Right on, Professor Zimmerman! Keep up the great work!
Wrong again, Professor Zimmerman! Get a real job!
Welcome to the wacky and wonderful world of op-ed writing. For the past decade, I've published two opinion pieces a month in newspapers around the country. Thanks to the magic of the Internet, meanwhile, I've received thousands of e-mail responses from my readers. And here's what I've learned: Opinion pieces rarely change opinions.
---
2005 - Emotions, Not Facts, Form Basis of Political Opinion
An Emory University study has found that when it comes to forming opinions and making judgments on hot political issues, most people don't let facts get in the way of their decision-making. The research, led by Emory psychology professor Drew Westen, tested whether people make decisions based on emotional bias or fact, and emotions won by a landslide.
"In high-stakes, emotionally charged political situations, people respond to ambiguity not by consulting the data but by consulting their emotional preferences, prejudices and predilections," Westen says. "The data suggests that perhaps the only way for any of us to make reasoned judgments about political matters is to identify and admit our own biases, maintain constant vigilance to detect and counteract them, and be particularly vigilant and circumspect when we find that ''voting our conscience' just happens to coincide with voting along party lines."
The research involved five studies that covered American political crises during the past six years. Westen looked at how people judged the issues based on both the relevant facts (cognitive constraints) and also how the subjects felt about the issues and the people involved, such as Presidents Clinton and Bush (emotional constraints).
In all five, cognitive and emotional constraints contributed in predicted ways to people's judgments. However, competing emotional pulls (such as toward the two parties, human rights and the military) accounted for much of the variance in seemingly "cold" cognitive judgments. Examples include whether or not Clinton should have been impeached, or whether the evidence produced by a soldier charged with abuses at Abu Ghraib prison crossed the threshold for allowing his lawyers to interrogate senior civilian officials.
Although about 15 percent of respondents were found to have primarily considered evidence and fact when forming their opinions, researchers could correctly predict 80 percent of the time how a person would view an issue based on their opinions of the Bush administration, the Republican or Democratic parties, the military and human-rights groups.
"If a person is paying attention enough to think about something, he or she usually has some motivational or emotional interest in it. In this sense, every act of cognition is simultaneously an act of emotion regulation. The more ambiguous the data, and the more emotionally significant the outcome, the more one can expect emotion regulation to trump information processing," Westen says.
----
2004 Political Forecasting Looks at Minds of Voters
Instead of relying on factors such as history, polling and approval ratings to forecast voter behavior, Emory psychologist Drew Westen developed a political forecasting model that looks at the role of emotions in how people make decisions about political issues and candidates.
http://www.emory.edu/news/Releases/westen1080334326.html
---
2006 - Emory study lights up the political brain
When it comes to forming opinions and making judgments on hot political issues, partisans of both parties don't let facts get in the way of their decision-making, according to a new Emory University study. The research sheds light on why staunch Democrats and Republicans can hear the same information, but walk away with opposite conclusions.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/euhs-esl012406.php
---
Drew Westen Opinion piece in CNN:
Commentary: Obama thinks like a professor, inspires like a preacher
A single factor never produces a complex event like the historic election of Barack Obama. But when the final post-mortem on the election of 2008 is someday written, it will no doubt include at least three.
First, John McCain started with three strikes against him. Those strikes happen to be the three strongest predictors that enter into the equations used by political scientists to predict who will win an election: an unpopular incumbent president (in this case, the most unpopular in the history of polling), an economic downturn (in this case an understatement), and an unpopular war.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/westen.winning/index.html
(Westen wrote a piece for the Huffington Post also, I decided not to give them any more publicity ;-)
He referenced a study by Drew Westen from Emory University (but didn't provide a link). I did a search and found a couple of studies by Westen on the subject (releases included below). I also found that Westen had released a book in 2007, “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation”.
In making the search I ended up on a much broader road than I'd intended. It led me to articles on why Obama attracted the minds of the masses. It took me on side paths on how the media influences the public.
It took me all over the place, but I ultimately found an answer of sorts. It was the answer I expected.
The answer is usually no, emotions overrule factual evidence by a huge margin.
As conservatives, we typically work with facts and try to convince others with rational arguments. We decry the fact that we don't seem to be able to change the minds of our left-learning friends with logic.
Facts definitely don't seem to sway the opinion of Bush-haters and Palin-haters!
One thing that I did find comforting in reading the study and the Zimmerman article, is that some minds can be changed. If I read my numbers correctly, about 15% read, study and make judgements based on facts (on the left and right!). Zimmerman says he occasionally changes a mind here and there. I've heard callers on Sean Hannity and other talk shows say they tuned in and ultimately changed their minds.
As I read articles and studies, I realized that the question asked by Westen and Zimmerman was secondary to a much bigger question we as conservatives need to answer. How do we even get the facts to liberals to change the small percentage of minds that could possibly be changed?
How many of your liberal friends would ever listen to Rush Limbaugh? watch Fox News? subscribe to a conservative magazine?
If they simply listen to the mainstream media, how are they going to hear the facts that might change their minds? If all they read is the Daily Kos or Huffington Post, how can we reach them?
For every blog a conservative turns out there's at least one being churned out by a left-leaning blogger.
Conservatives don't own many, if any, large mainstream media outlets. Even Fox News, which is routinely lambasted by the left, has a regular station with loads of liberal shows.
We have very few ways to really reach out and touch the minds of "progressives".
They think we're wrong, we think they're wrong.
I don't know the answer. How do you change someone's mind if you can't use facts? Even if facts DID work, we still have to address the question of how to get them in front of large groups of the population, Independents, Conservatives and Dems.
We can appeal on an emotional level, assuming we can infiltrate the media! But what's sexy about doing what's right? About being responsible?
How do you get conservatives to "stoop" to using emotions? It just isn't in the overall makeup of most on the right to try and package principles in a pretty package. Right is right and wrong is wrong.
Yes, I know you thought I'd come up with something profound by the time you wandered through this article! Hate to disappoint.
If anything, I suppose my "profound" suggestion would be that we keep on plugging along. We keep writing, we keep putting out the fact and we find ways to get a whole lot better at getting our side into the media.
We are making inroads via the Internet. More and more websites and blogs are popping up that promote conservative views. Twitter is becoming "the" conservative place to be thanks in large part to www.TopConservativesOnTwitter.com. More and more conservative bloggers are partnering. Emails are flying and conservative social networks are flourishing.
My final suggestion? Go forth and conquer the media before it's too late.
---
Do opinion pieces ever change your opinion?
Given the fixity of our partisan beliefs, it's a rare occurrence. Yet history shows that reason and rhetoric can win converts.
by Jonathan Zimmerman
Right on, Professor Zimmerman! Keep up the great work!
Wrong again, Professor Zimmerman! Get a real job!
Welcome to the wacky and wonderful world of op-ed writing. For the past decade, I've published two opinion pieces a month in newspapers around the country. Thanks to the magic of the Internet, meanwhile, I've received thousands of e-mail responses from my readers. And here's what I've learned: Opinion pieces rarely change opinions.
---
2005 - Emotions, Not Facts, Form Basis of Political Opinion
An Emory University study has found that when it comes to forming opinions and making judgments on hot political issues, most people don't let facts get in the way of their decision-making. The research, led by Emory psychology professor Drew Westen, tested whether people make decisions based on emotional bias or fact, and emotions won by a landslide.
"In high-stakes, emotionally charged political situations, people respond to ambiguity not by consulting the data but by consulting their emotional preferences, prejudices and predilections," Westen says. "The data suggests that perhaps the only way for any of us to make reasoned judgments about political matters is to identify and admit our own biases, maintain constant vigilance to detect and counteract them, and be particularly vigilant and circumspect when we find that ''voting our conscience' just happens to coincide with voting along party lines."
The research involved five studies that covered American political crises during the past six years. Westen looked at how people judged the issues based on both the relevant facts (cognitive constraints) and also how the subjects felt about the issues and the people involved, such as Presidents Clinton and Bush (emotional constraints).
In all five, cognitive and emotional constraints contributed in predicted ways to people's judgments. However, competing emotional pulls (such as toward the two parties, human rights and the military) accounted for much of the variance in seemingly "cold" cognitive judgments. Examples include whether or not Clinton should have been impeached, or whether the evidence produced by a soldier charged with abuses at Abu Ghraib prison crossed the threshold for allowing his lawyers to interrogate senior civilian officials.
Although about 15 percent of respondents were found to have primarily considered evidence and fact when forming their opinions, researchers could correctly predict 80 percent of the time how a person would view an issue based on their opinions of the Bush administration, the Republican or Democratic parties, the military and human-rights groups.
"If a person is paying attention enough to think about something, he or she usually has some motivational or emotional interest in it. In this sense, every act of cognition is simultaneously an act of emotion regulation. The more ambiguous the data, and the more emotionally significant the outcome, the more one can expect emotion regulation to trump information processing," Westen says.
----
2004 Political Forecasting Looks at Minds of Voters
Instead of relying on factors such as history, polling and approval ratings to forecast voter behavior, Emory psychologist Drew Westen developed a political forecasting model that looks at the role of emotions in how people make decisions about political issues and candidates.
http://www.emory.edu/news/Releases/westen1080334326.html
---
2006 - Emory study lights up the political brain
When it comes to forming opinions and making judgments on hot political issues, partisans of both parties don't let facts get in the way of their decision-making, according to a new Emory University study. The research sheds light on why staunch Democrats and Republicans can hear the same information, but walk away with opposite conclusions.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-01/euhs-esl012406.php
---
Drew Westen Opinion piece in CNN:
Commentary: Obama thinks like a professor, inspires like a preacher
A single factor never produces a complex event like the historic election of Barack Obama. But when the final post-mortem on the election of 2008 is someday written, it will no doubt include at least three.
First, John McCain started with three strikes against him. Those strikes happen to be the three strongest predictors that enter into the equations used by political scientists to predict who will win an election: an unpopular incumbent president (in this case, the most unpopular in the history of polling), an economic downturn (in this case an understatement), and an unpopular war.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/westen.winning/index.html
(Westen wrote a piece for the Huffington Post also, I decided not to give them any more publicity ;-)
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Eye-opening Video on "Progressives" Agenda!
Hat tip to @HighPlainsBlogger (HPB)!
In sharing this video on Twitter, HPB said to grab a stiff drink. Was he ever right on that one! This video is from back in March of last year and their campaign efforts have ended, but the thought process behind this initiative is flat out mind boggling.
I don't know that I've ever seen the behind-the-scenes maneuvering laid out so clearly and openly. After watching this, I went wandering around the Internet looking at "progressive" sites, something I've avoided doing. Yes, I get bits and pieces, but I'm not one to read the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post. I get enough of the liberal agenda from the mainstream media (and the nasty comments left on my blogs ;-)
In the video below the presenter is very professional and matter-of-fact. Not so with any other site or commentary I found.
Grab yourself your tonic of choice and listen to this carefully. It's worth watching twice.
If the video doesn't work, click here to view.
In sharing this video on Twitter, HPB said to grab a stiff drink. Was he ever right on that one! This video is from back in March of last year and their campaign efforts have ended, but the thought process behind this initiative is flat out mind boggling.
I don't know that I've ever seen the behind-the-scenes maneuvering laid out so clearly and openly. After watching this, I went wandering around the Internet looking at "progressive" sites, something I've avoided doing. Yes, I get bits and pieces, but I'm not one to read the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post. I get enough of the liberal agenda from the mainstream media (and the nasty comments left on my blogs ;-)
In the video below the presenter is very professional and matter-of-fact. Not so with any other site or commentary I found.
Grab yourself your tonic of choice and listen to this carefully. It's worth watching twice.
If the video doesn't work, click here to view.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Rebuttal to Negative Palin Opinion Column, Anchorage Daily News
Typically, a negative column was written about Sarah Palin without facts to back up the assertions. Vince Beltrami does a very able job of setting the record straight, and chastising Dan Fagan. Well worth a read!
Fagan seems to think spite can take the place of research
By VINCE BELTRAMI
Published: January 10th, 2009 12:34 AM
I know Dan Fagan's column is supposed to be "opinion," but his column last Sunday lambasting Governor Palin is truly pathetic. Fagan assumes since the governor made a statement about daughter Bristol's fiance Levi Johnston, regarding his pursuit of a high school diploma and simultaneous enrollment in an apprenticeship program, that the governor somehow may have inappropriately influenced Johnston's enrollment in said apprenticeship, absent any actual and self-admitted proof for his allegations.
http://www.adn.com/opinion/compass/story/648735.html
Fagan seems to think spite can take the place of research
By VINCE BELTRAMI
Published: January 10th, 2009 12:34 AM
I know Dan Fagan's column is supposed to be "opinion," but his column last Sunday lambasting Governor Palin is truly pathetic. Fagan assumes since the governor made a statement about daughter Bristol's fiance Levi Johnston, regarding his pursuit of a high school diploma and simultaneous enrollment in an apprenticeship program, that the governor somehow may have inappropriately influenced Johnston's enrollment in said apprenticeship, absent any actual and self-admitted proof for his allegations.
http://www.adn.com/opinion/compass/story/648735.html
Yep, they all received the 'Talking Points'
In my last blog (Boooorrrrriiinnngggg) I talked about the regurgitation of the same old, same old from the media in their attacks on Sarah Palin. I'm definitely not the first to write or talk about the talking points that everyone in the mainstream media and friends must receive. Many of us are intelligent enough to pick up on it when the media, the progressives, the libs, the left, whatever you want to call 'em, start spitting out the same thoughts over and over.
I flipped on the TV this morning as I was putting on my socks and shoes to walk on the treadmill and lo and behold, I heard the current lib mantra come from the mouth of yet another pundit!
I didn't catch the speaker's last name, her first name was Julie, and she was on Fox and Friends this AM talking about Sarah's latest interview. Julie's ending shot? Sarah needs to go away for two years and reinvent herself.
Gosh, isn't that what Robert Schlesinger, U.S. News, said in HIS blog? Gosh, isn't that what they're all saying on that side of the media aisle these days?
Memo to "progressives" --- Sarah isn't going away.
She burst onto the scene like a breath of fresh air (heard that one before? see I can repeat stuff, too ;-). Seriously, she is what most of us want our politicians to be... real. We want people who know how we live, who are in touch with our needs. We want people who stick to their principles. We want politicians with a backbone who will stand up for what is right.
Usually, by the time we hear someone's name in the media, or they make it to elected office on the state or national level, they're not the person we elected. They've learned to play the games, to compromise. They've learned the art of justifying their actions for the greater good or whatever blarney they feed themselves. They've learned how to placate just the right number of people to stay in office another term "because they haven't finished what they were elected to do for the people" or some such drivel.
Every time a liberal attacks Sarah, another large group joins in to defend her. A new website pops up, a new conservative activist is energized. Every bit of garbage that is thrown at her rebounds like a boomerang onto the faces of those doing the tossing.
They just can't help themselves, can they? I said in my last blog, if they really wanted her to go away they'd stop talking about her. Truth be told, they can't stop themselves from talking about her. Neither can we!
I flipped on the TV this morning as I was putting on my socks and shoes to walk on the treadmill and lo and behold, I heard the current lib mantra come from the mouth of yet another pundit!
I didn't catch the speaker's last name, her first name was Julie, and she was on Fox and Friends this AM talking about Sarah's latest interview. Julie's ending shot? Sarah needs to go away for two years and reinvent herself.
Gosh, isn't that what Robert Schlesinger, U.S. News, said in HIS blog? Gosh, isn't that what they're all saying on that side of the media aisle these days?
Memo to "progressives" --- Sarah isn't going away.
She burst onto the scene like a breath of fresh air (heard that one before? see I can repeat stuff, too ;-). Seriously, she is what most of us want our politicians to be... real. We want people who know how we live, who are in touch with our needs. We want people who stick to their principles. We want politicians with a backbone who will stand up for what is right.
Usually, by the time we hear someone's name in the media, or they make it to elected office on the state or national level, they're not the person we elected. They've learned to play the games, to compromise. They've learned the art of justifying their actions for the greater good or whatever blarney they feed themselves. They've learned how to placate just the right number of people to stay in office another term "because they haven't finished what they were elected to do for the people" or some such drivel.
Every time a liberal attacks Sarah, another large group joins in to defend her. A new website pops up, a new conservative activist is energized. Every bit of garbage that is thrown at her rebounds like a boomerang onto the faces of those doing the tossing.
They just can't help themselves, can they? I said in my last blog, if they really wanted her to go away they'd stop talking about her. Truth be told, they can't stop themselves from talking about her. Neither can we!
Friday, January 9, 2009
Booorrrinnnngggg....
If these media types are going to continue to go after Sarah Palin, they at least need to be original. "The Drone Report" blog should be going after this one! The so-called "progressives" get their talking points and then regurgitate. I have seen some of these same comments, maybe worded just a tiny, tiny bit, in the media so many times it's getting booorrrriiiiinnnngggg...
Same comments, different left-learning "news" media.
One good thing about the continued attacks - it shows that those who are attacking understand just how much of a draw Sarah has across the country! If she didn't have star power they'd ignore her. They're scared of her magnetism, intelligence and plain old goodness. She's real. She doesn't play games and they don't know how to deal with it (other than to continue to try and trash her).
If they truly wanted her to go away, they wouldn't waste any ink on her. Instead they continue the baseless attacks which just makes her a stronger candidate and has more of us looking at her. And liking her!
Read this drivel on U.S. News if you must:
Sarah Palin Needs to Go Away Before She Does Even More Harm to Herself
January 09, 2009 12:06 PM ET
By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
For her own good, Sarah Palin needs to go away.
To be clear: As a liberal and as a commentator, I love it every time Palin pops up again. She's great copy and great fun (not necessarily intentionally in either case). But if she really does want a political future beyond hero-of-the-GOP base, she needs to take a timeout.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/01/09/sarah-palin-needs-to-go-away-before-she-does-even-more-harm-to-herself.html#Comments
Same comments, different left-learning "news" media.
One good thing about the continued attacks - it shows that those who are attacking understand just how much of a draw Sarah has across the country! If she didn't have star power they'd ignore her. They're scared of her magnetism, intelligence and plain old goodness. She's real. She doesn't play games and they don't know how to deal with it (other than to continue to try and trash her).
If they truly wanted her to go away, they wouldn't waste any ink on her. Instead they continue the baseless attacks which just makes her a stronger candidate and has more of us looking at her. And liking her!
Read this drivel on U.S. News if you must
Sarah Palin Needs to Go Away Before She Does Even More Harm to Herself
January 09, 2009 12:06 PM ET
By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
For her own good, Sarah Palin needs to go away.
To be clear: As a liberal and as a commentator, I love it every time Palin pops up again. She's great copy and great fun (not necessarily intentionally in either case). But if she really does want a political future beyond hero-of-the-GOP base, she needs to take a timeout.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/01/09/sarah-palin-needs-to-go-away-before-she-does-even-more-harm-to-herself.html#Comments
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Update on Bizarro Fairness Doctrine
Hat tip to BKPundit (Twitter & freerepublic.com)!
GOP Legislators Vow to Fight Reinstitution of Fairness Doctrine with Introduction of Broadcaster Freedom Act
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.: 'We are not going to allow this rule to be reenacted either by the FCC, by the Obama administration or by Congress.'
In the midst of economic troubles and much anticipation of a new administration about to enter the White House, the potential return of the Fairness Doctrine hasn’t gotten much attention. But on the eve of President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration, Republican members of Congress haven’t forgotten. GOP Sens. Jim DeMint, S.C. and James Inhofe, Okla., along with two of their House colleagues, Reps. Mike Pence, Ind. and Greg Walden, Ore., introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act at a press conference in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 7.
http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090107194709.aspx
(another thanks to BKPundit 'cause I'm now signed up for updates from Business & Media!)
GOP Legislators Vow to Fight Reinstitution of Fairness Doctrine with Introduction of Broadcaster Freedom Act
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.: 'We are not going to allow this rule to be reenacted either by the FCC, by the Obama administration or by Congress.'
In the midst of economic troubles and much anticipation of a new administration about to enter the White House, the potential return of the Fairness Doctrine hasn’t gotten much attention. But on the eve of President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration, Republican members of Congress haven’t forgotten. GOP Sens. Jim DeMint, S.C. and James Inhofe, Okla., along with two of their House colleagues, Reps. Mike Pence, Ind. and Greg Walden, Ore., introduced the Broadcaster Freedom Act at a press conference in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 7.
http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090107194709.aspx
(another thanks to BKPundit 'cause I'm now signed up for updates from Business & Media!)
Saturday, December 13, 2008
More trouble for Obama on the horizon? Rangel tees up...
Rangel Hits Obama Closer to Home
It certainly didn't take long for scandal to rear its ugly head in the new era of Democratic control. Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich saw to that, and in spectacular fashion.
But while most attention is fixed on the Blagojevich scandal -- coming as it does in President-elect Barack Obama's home state and replete as it is with enough tape-recorded talk of peddling a Senate seat, shaking down contributors and blackmailing journalists to make even FBI agents blush -- it may not be the most troublesome one for the new president.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122902161394098863.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
---
I do believe we're in for a roller coaster ride - at least until sometime after Jan. 20th when Obama gets his machine fully in place so the leaks and problems are shushed up.
The media closed their eyes to anything negative about Obama. They're starting to see through that euphoric shield they erected and it's not looking pretty.
It certainly didn't take long for scandal to rear its ugly head in the new era of Democratic control. Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich saw to that, and in spectacular fashion.
But while most attention is fixed on the Blagojevich scandal -- coming as it does in President-elect Barack Obama's home state and replete as it is with enough tape-recorded talk of peddling a Senate seat, shaking down contributors and blackmailing journalists to make even FBI agents blush -- it may not be the most troublesome one for the new president.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122902161394098863.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
---
I do believe we're in for a roller coaster ride - at least until sometime after Jan. 20th when Obama gets his machine fully in place so the leaks and problems are shushed up.
The media closed their eyes to anything negative about Obama. They're starting to see through that euphoric shield they erected and it's not looking pretty.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Levi's goes over the line into selling kid sex...
Hat tip to Pundit & Pundette blog for this one!
I don't normally delve into commercials, television, etc., on this blog. However, this one steamed me. It's borderline kiddie porn and at best it's selling sex using KIDS. What lame brain at LEVI thought that this wouldn't cause angst with parents? Or were they counting on the uproar to bring attention to their product so the kids would rebel and want to buy it? Are they trying to pit parent against child? You know parents are going to have fits about this commercial and that means the kids are going to love it. But what's the message aside from the "cool" factor for kids? Don't we have enough problems with dirty old perverts without feeding them this kind of garbage?
The way I feel now as an adult about this commercial is not the way I'd feel as a teenager... I remember those years all too well. I'd be clamoring for the stupid jeans and would have gotten away with it 'cause my parents wouldn't have seen the commercial . If they had they'd have burned all the Levi's in the house.
This one doesn't skirt the line, it goes way over the line. As parents we're trying to teach our children to be responsible and to teach values. I believe it's time to turn of the television. For good.
Levi's has a contact form here. You can select "advertising" from the menu.
Here's the link to NBC so you can contact them: http://www.nbc.com/Footer/Contact_Us/. I'm not sure that there's an appropriate topic on the page, but I'm sure if enough people comment they'll get the message. If I'm remembering correctly, this is the same station that wouldn't play one of John McCain's ads because it was too controversial... the ad was played on all other stations.
I don't normally delve into commercials, television, etc., on this blog. However, this one steamed me. It's borderline kiddie porn and at best it's selling sex using KIDS. What lame brain at LEVI thought that this wouldn't cause angst with parents? Or were they counting on the uproar to bring attention to their product so the kids would rebel and want to buy it? Are they trying to pit parent against child? You know parents are going to have fits about this commercial and that means the kids are going to love it. But what's the message aside from the "cool" factor for kids? Don't we have enough problems with dirty old perverts without feeding them this kind of garbage?
The way I feel now as an adult about this commercial is not the way I'd feel as a teenager... I remember those years all too well
This one doesn't skirt the line, it goes way over the line. As parents we're trying to teach our children to be responsible and to teach values. I believe it's time to turn of the television. For good.
Levi's has a contact form here. You can select "advertising" from the menu.
Here's the link to NBC so you can contact them: http://www.nbc.com/Footer/Contact_Us/. I'm not sure that there's an appropriate topic on the page, but I'm sure if enough people comment they'll get the message. If I'm remembering correctly, this is the same station that wouldn't play one of John McCain's ads because it was too controversial... the ad was played on all other stations.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Where's Joe?
I just watched part of a video tribute to Joe which was rather nice. It made me wonder what he was doing now that all the hype has passed. I wonder if he's still going to sue? Anyone out there keeping up with Joe the Plumber? He's a nice lookin' guy, bet he had gobs of women contacting him!
Can you imagine how his life changed? One day he's a regular old guy hanging out with his kids, working and trying to get ahead. One simple question and wham, his life is crazy.
Now it's done, gone, finished and his life might? maybe? possibly? go back to normal?
I know there was a big push to have him run for Congress. He may have had his fill of government. At least he's gone through the fire and won't be like most novice candidates who have no idea how nasty the game will get!
Can you imagine how his life changed? One day he's a regular old guy hanging out with his kids, working and trying to get ahead. One simple question and wham, his life is crazy.
Now it's done, gone, finished and his life might? maybe? possibly? go back to normal?
I know there was a big push to have him run for Congress. He may have had his fill of government. At least he's gone through the fire and won't be like most novice candidates who have no idea how nasty the game will get!
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Sumbuddy else Obama don't know nuttin' about...
OK, so his auntie, the one he wrote so lovingly about in his book, has been living in a slum completely unbeknownst to the great ONE. Even though she attended his 2005 swearing in ceremony... and called him to let him know she was in Boston.
Mr. Millionaire Obama didn't know he needed to share the wealth with his auntie, who also happens to be here illegally... yep, she's an illegal alien. I know you'll get a kick out of readying the story I'm linking to below. Can you tell this reporter didn't want to be writing anything negative about The Obama? The "leak" raises questions? Imagine what would be happening if the media found out McCain had a relative living in a slum... who was an illegal to boot. Obama's campaign is going to try and get past this one by talking about it as a nasty, last minute attack. Typical. Rather than deal with the issue they go on the attack. Unfortunately, many gullible voters seem to be willing to swallow those kind of deflections.
Obama aunt leak raises questions
By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN 11/1/08 12:42 PM EDT
Obama last heard from Zeituni Onyango, who attended his swearing-in ceremony to the U.S. Senate in 2005, two years ago.
HENDERSON, Nev. — Barack Obama did not know a relative was living in the United States illegally for the past nearly four years prior to today's Associated Press report, "but obviously believes that any and all appropriate laws be followed," the campaign said Saturday in a statement.
The Democratic nominee last heard from Zeituni Onyango, who attended his swearing-in ceremony to the U.S. Senate in 2005 and is a half-sister of Obama's late father, two years ago, when she called to say she was in Boston, the campaign said. Campaign officials said they did not assist her in getting a tourist visa and had not known that she was living in America.
News of Onyango's legal status, which the AP confirmed through sources, including a federal law enforcement official, provided an unwelcome diversion for the Obama campaign during its final push toward Election Day and stoked suspicions among supporters of a political motive behind the timing of the leak.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15161.html
Mr. Millionaire Obama didn't know he needed to share the wealth with his auntie, who also happens to be here illegally... yep, she's an illegal alien. I know you'll get a kick out of readying the story I'm linking to below. Can you tell this reporter didn't want to be writing anything negative about The Obama? The "leak" raises questions? Imagine what would be happening if the media found out McCain had a relative living in a slum... who was an illegal to boot. Obama's campaign is going to try and get past this one by talking about it as a nasty, last minute attack. Typical. Rather than deal with the issue they go on the attack. Unfortunately, many gullible voters seem to be willing to swallow those kind of deflections.
Obama aunt leak raises questions
By CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN 11/1/08 12:42 PM EDT
Obama last heard from Zeituni Onyango, who attended his swearing-in ceremony to the U.S. Senate in 2005, two years ago.
HENDERSON, Nev. — Barack Obama did not know a relative was living in the United States illegally for the past nearly four years prior to today's Associated Press report, "but obviously believes that any and all appropriate laws be followed," the campaign said Saturday in a statement.
The Democratic nominee last heard from Zeituni Onyango, who attended his swearing-in ceremony to the U.S. Senate in 2005 and is a half-sister of Obama's late father, two years ago, when she called to say she was in Boston, the campaign said. Campaign officials said they did not assist her in getting a tourist visa and had not known that she was living in America.
News of Onyango's legal status, which the AP confirmed through sources, including a federal law enforcement official, provided an unwelcome diversion for the Obama campaign during its final push toward Election Day and stoked suspicions among supporters of a political motive behind the timing of the leak.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15161.html
Friday, October 31, 2008
Re: Press shut down
"A Right Wing Conservative" asked what Obama would do to us on the blogosphere... I've already been wondering how long we'll have the luxury of using Blogger since the owner of Blogger is Google and the owner of Google is a staunch Obama supporter.
I know I get a bit paranoid at times with all this (at least I HOPE I'm being a bit paranoid), but when you see Obama in action and hear what he's telling us he's going to do, one has to worry about freedom of speech (among other things).
A lot of Dems / Liberals have been pushing the so-called "Fairness" Doctrine already. Bet that's one that comes up fairly quickly if we have Dems in control of all government bodies.
How long will it be before dissent or disagreement with Obama's policies becomes a national security risk and we all have to zip our mouths and quell our nimble fingers from typing on our keyboards?
"Lipstick Republican" pointed out something I missed --- "The shutdown began last week with the Obama campaign refusal to honor an interview appointment after Biden was asked something other than the usual softball questions. No major outcry over that, so this week they're going a little further. Which reporter gets muzzled next?"
We all know they're now "Hidin' Biden" to keep him from making any gaffes. I did see him today giving a scripted talk. I heard that Obama hasn't given an press availabilities for over a month, except the last time Biden gaffed and he was forced to talk candidly to the press.
I think the press is being patently stupid, no make that REALLY STUPID, by supporting someone who's going to turn on them before it's all said and done.
I know I get a bit paranoid at times with all this (at least I HOPE I'm being a bit paranoid), but when you see Obama in action and hear what he's telling us he's going to do, one has to worry about freedom of speech (among other things).
A lot of Dems / Liberals have been pushing the so-called "Fairness" Doctrine already. Bet that's one that comes up fairly quickly if we have Dems in control of all government bodies.
How long will it be before dissent or disagreement with Obama's policies becomes a national security risk and we all have to zip our mouths and quell our nimble fingers from typing on our keyboards?
"Lipstick Republican" pointed out something I missed --- "The shutdown began last week with the Obama campaign refusal to honor an interview appointment after Biden was asked something other than the usual softball questions. No major outcry over that, so this week they're going a little further. Which reporter gets muzzled next?"
We all know they're now "Hidin' Biden" to keep him from making any gaffes. I did see him today giving a scripted talk. I heard that Obama hasn't given an press availabilities for over a month, except the last time Biden gaffed and he was forced to talk candidly to the press.
I think the press is being patently stupid, no make that REALLY STUPID, by supporting someone who's going to turn on them before it's all said and done.
Monday, October 20, 2008
First they came for Joe the Plummer...
First they came for Joe the Plummer, but I remained silent... because I wanted Barack Obama to win...
We may have to revise the oft quoted and modified poem (posted below).
They came for Joe the Plummer and they're still going after him. "They" being Barack Obama, Joe Biden, the Democratic Party, the Liberals and the Media. They can't dispute what Obama said, they can't dispute the connection Joe has had and the impact of the conversation, thus they tear him down.
We all need to understand as conservatives that they will someday come for us if we don't speak out, speak loud and get our friends out to vote on or before November 4th.
They went after Sarah Palin and have been somewhat successful with the easily swayed.
Don't you think, know, that if the Democrats have the White House, the Congress and the Supreme Court that the so-called "Fairness" Doctrine will be enacted? Don't you realize that if they can bring this machine into play in this force now, when they only have semi-power, that we are in for real problems if they have total control?
They will come for us someday.
If we don't stand for something we'll fall for anything as the saying goes. There are a lot of people who are falling for Obama and for his message of government solving all problems, taking care of your ills and, as Obama said, redistributing the wealth.
We think our country is a strong democracy and we'll always be strong. I contend that we may be in the midst of an overthrow and half the country is opening their arms and embracing it simply because they want someone to take care of them.
I hope I'm being silly and fanciful. Maybe I am. But what if I'm not? Why take a chance?
Many of my friends talk about how bad it's going to be if Obama gets into office. They think that in four years the country will be so fed up with his policies that the Republicans will sweep back into office. I think Obama is smarter than that. I think he'll be in there for eight years if he wins and that by the end of those eight years we won't recognize our country, and possibly our world given their fascination with the American "One".
---
"First they came…" is a poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
We may have to revise the oft quoted and modified poem (posted below).
They came for Joe the Plummer and they're still going after him. "They" being Barack Obama, Joe Biden, the Democratic Party, the Liberals and the Media. They can't dispute what Obama said, they can't dispute the connection Joe has had and the impact of the conversation, thus they tear him down.
We all need to understand as conservatives that they will someday come for us if we don't speak out, speak loud and get our friends out to vote on or before November 4th.
They went after Sarah Palin and have been somewhat successful with the easily swayed.
Don't you think, know, that if the Democrats have the White House, the Congress and the Supreme Court that the so-called "Fairness" Doctrine will be enacted? Don't you realize that if they can bring this machine into play in this force now, when they only have semi-power, that we are in for real problems if they have total control?
They will come for us someday.
If we don't stand for something we'll fall for anything as the saying goes. There are a lot of people who are falling for Obama and for his message of government solving all problems, taking care of your ills and, as Obama said, redistributing the wealth.
We think our country is a strong democracy and we'll always be strong. I contend that we may be in the midst of an overthrow and half the country is opening their arms and embracing it simply because they want someone to take care of them.
I hope I'm being silly and fanciful. Maybe I am. But what if I'm not? Why take a chance?
Many of my friends talk about how bad it's going to be if Obama gets into office. They think that in four years the country will be so fed up with his policies that the Republicans will sweep back into office. I think Obama is smarter than that. I think he'll be in there for eight years if he wins and that by the end of those eight years we won't recognize our country, and possibly our world given their fascination with the American "One".
---
"First they came…" is a poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Campaign Updates
Some recent news I thought you might like to read posted below (from Republican Candidates). Love the endorsements that are coming in! I find it interesting that the press is making such a big deal out of Colin Powell yet they've ignored the other four Secretary of States who've endorsed John McCain, they've ignored all the retired Admirals, Generals, and others who've endorsed him. I understand that Colin Powell is "hot" news because he's a Republican in name (only), but I don't think they'd have had him on Meet the Press for the length of time they did yesterday if he'd been endorsing John McCain. He'd have been a short blurb, ho hum.
Five Days of the Obama ACORN Connection: Day 1 - Deep Roots
Today, McCain-Palin 2008 campaign spokesman Ben Porritt released the following statement: "While serving as the director of Project Vote, Barack Obama formed the roots of his political career alongside ACORN, which is currently under investigation in thirteen states for election fraud and is also under investigation by the FBI...
Las Vegas Review-Journal Endorses John McCain
"If the United States is to emerge from this downturn in a position to ensure its citizens have the opportunities enjoyed by previous generations, we must get a handle on out-of-control federal spending -- and that is nowhere reflected in the policies advocated by the Democratic candidate....
Mexican-American actress Katie Barberi Endorses John McCain
"The American people need a strong leader who has the experience and the judgment to be the next President of the United States, and that man is John McCain." -- Katie Barberi
The McCain-Palin campaign today announced the endorsement of Mexican-American actress Katie Barberi...
John McCain On "Fox News Sunday"
"Redistribution of the wealth, I don't believe in it. I believe in wealth-creation by Joe the Plumber." -- John McCain
John McCain
Fox News' "Fox News Sunday"
October 19, 2008
John McCain: "I started turning it around the other night when we challenged Senator Obama's words. He is the most eloquent person I've ever known in politics. But he said he would on offshore drilling, he would, quote, 'consider it,' when he made several other statements that were clearly equivocation....
The Columbus Dispatch Endorses John McCain
"McCain's Democratic opponent, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, is a rousing motivational speaker, but his experience and achievements -- eight years in the Illinois Legislature and less than four in the U.S. Senate -- do not stand comparison with McCain's. A resume containing so little evidence of leadership and accomplishment leaves in question Obama's ability to handle the most responsible and difficult job in the world...
The Dallas Morning News Endorses John McCain
"Mr. McCain has shown the bipartisan leadership Americans want. For example, the Republican maverick has worked with Democrats on campaign finance laws, immigration reform and climate change. When party infighting brought the Senate to a standstill on judicial nominations...
"Another View: McCain The Stronger Candidate" (Philadelphia Inquirer)
"No one is better prepared than John McCain to serve as commander in chief and lead the country as it seeks successful outcomes in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and to work with Pakistan to help kill or capture the perpetrators of 9/11. McCain's actions as a POW in Vietnam were heroic. In Congress, he has become intimately familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the Pentagon. The Arizona senator has stood up to generals...
Five Days of the Obama ACORN Connection: Day 1 - Deep Roots
Today, McCain-Palin 2008 campaign spokesman Ben Porritt released the following statement: "While serving as the director of Project Vote, Barack Obama formed the roots of his political career alongside ACORN, which is currently under investigation in thirteen states for election fraud and is also under investigation by the FBI...
Las Vegas Review-Journal Endorses John McCain
"If the United States is to emerge from this downturn in a position to ensure its citizens have the opportunities enjoyed by previous generations, we must get a handle on out-of-control federal spending -- and that is nowhere reflected in the policies advocated by the Democratic candidate....
Mexican-American actress Katie Barberi Endorses John McCain
"The American people need a strong leader who has the experience and the judgment to be the next President of the United States, and that man is John McCain." -- Katie Barberi
The McCain-Palin campaign today announced the endorsement of Mexican-American actress Katie Barberi...
John McCain On "Fox News Sunday"
"Redistribution of the wealth, I don't believe in it. I believe in wealth-creation by Joe the Plumber." -- John McCain
John McCain
Fox News' "Fox News Sunday"
October 19, 2008
John McCain: "I started turning it around the other night when we challenged Senator Obama's words. He is the most eloquent person I've ever known in politics. But he said he would on offshore drilling, he would, quote, 'consider it,' when he made several other statements that were clearly equivocation....
The Columbus Dispatch Endorses John McCain
"McCain's Democratic opponent, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, is a rousing motivational speaker, but his experience and achievements -- eight years in the Illinois Legislature and less than four in the U.S. Senate -- do not stand comparison with McCain's. A resume containing so little evidence of leadership and accomplishment leaves in question Obama's ability to handle the most responsible and difficult job in the world...
The Dallas Morning News Endorses John McCain
"Mr. McCain has shown the bipartisan leadership Americans want. For example, the Republican maverick has worked with Democrats on campaign finance laws, immigration reform and climate change. When party infighting brought the Senate to a standstill on judicial nominations...
"Another View: McCain The Stronger Candidate" (Philadelphia Inquirer)
"No one is better prepared than John McCain to serve as commander in chief and lead the country as it seeks successful outcomes in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and to work with Pakistan to help kill or capture the perpetrators of 9/11. McCain's actions as a POW in Vietnam were heroic. In Congress, he has become intimately familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the Pentagon. The Arizona senator has stood up to generals...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
