Archive for the ‘video’ Category

Nikki Haley’s Stonewalling on State Hire

Wednesday, August 1st, 2012

Defending or Defensive?

I understand the Governor’s sensitivity to the question of her children, and the tendency of media to cause pain and injury particularly to Republican politicians’ families, but I don’t understand her refusal to discuss this case, which seems to be about nepotism.  What the media seems to be asking her is not about her daughter, per se, but about Haley’s own conduct.  She became rather angry at the mention of her daughter, 14, who works in the gift shop at the State House, but what bothers me in all of this is that while the media naturally behaves like sharks smelling blood at the first hint of “impropriety” among Republicans and conservatives, the reporter was not really asking about the Governor’s daughter so much as how she came to get the job in the gift shop, and whether there had been something improper in hiring her.  While I find it despicable when media attacks the families of politicians, and in fact, I don’t consider the families of politicians in supporting them, since we don’t elect the family members to serve, I tend to stay far away from discussing their families at all. I avoid particularly their minor children, but all children in general. It’s simply a ridiculous thing to do in all but the rarest of instances.  This may be one of those rare cases, because it’s not about Governor Haley’s daughter at all, but instead about Haley herself.

What the reporter questions in this video clip is nothing at all about Haley’s daughter, personally. Here’s the video, as well as the text version of the exchange(H/T Tammy Bruce):

At an impromptu press conference last week, a reporter for WSPA-TV in Spartanburg, Robert Kittle, asked Haley about her daughter working at the gift shop.

“Y’all are not allowed to talk about my children,” Haley responded.

 

Kittle pressed on, asking Haley if the story really wasn’t about nepotism – whether the governor had helped her daughter get the state job.

“None of that is true,” Haley responded. “That’s what makes me angry. Not only is this a story about my daughter, it’s a story that is based on false facts and none of that is true. Do not attack my children. Do not even talk about my children.”

Kittle then asked if the issue wasn’t about what the governor had done, not her daughter.

“I’m not going to talk about it anymore,” Haley said. “My children are off limits.”

It’s all well and good for the Governor to say to the press that her children are “off limits,” and they should be, but this story isn’t really about the Governor’s daughter inasmuch as it seems actually to be a story about Governor Haley and the insinuation of the reporter’s question is about the possible undue influence of the Governor in securing her daughter that job, roughly one-hundred feet from her own office door.  To everybody but perhaps Haley herself, this story isn’t about a kid working a summer job in a State-run gift shop, but instead about the influence of the Governor in placing her child in a job there. If we imagined for a moment that this had been her husband, rather than her minor child, the same question would stand.  Had it been her brother-in-law’s ne’er-do-well second cousin’s great aunt Imogene(any resemblance to persons living or dead is entirely coincidental,) it might raise fewer eyebrows. When it’s the first-degree relative of the chief executive of the state, whether minor child or septigenarian parent, there are going to be questions, and there should be.

Frankly, I’m astonished that the Governor of South Carolina is so ill-prepared for the question, and maybe that’s the problem:  Did it never cross her mind that there might be something improper about her daughter(OR ANY RELATIVE,) obtaining employment in a state job in a location well within the bubble of the Governor’s security detail and watchful eye?  I’m betting that many Americans would love to have that arrangement to keep an eye on their teenagers during the summer months, but most of us cannot, since many employers forbid the sort of arrangement precisely because it gives the appearance of impropriety.

I’m not one who blows his stack at the mere appearance of impropriety, since I don’t care that much about appearances, although I am keen to expose actual impropriety, but so is the mainstream media, at least when Republicans and conservatives are the ones under examination.  This is why Haley really must answer the question, because it’s not really about her daughter, and it hasn’t anything to do with her family except by virtue of her influence.

There will be those who might think I’m being unfair in singling out Haley, or that I should ignore the story because Haley is a Republican, or something of the sort, but the truth is that when this came over the transom, it was given to me by a conservative worried about the potential scandal implicit in the matter.  Yes, fine, okay, it’s not absconding with the treasury or something of that nature, but the part I find disturbing about this is how Haley used the line “my children are off limits” to close off further questioning when it is clear that her daughter isn’t the object of this story.  It’s a question of character, and this goes to the heart of the matter with respect to the sort of nepotism that characterizes corrupt government.

Let me be clear: I am not calling Nikki Haley corrupt, and indeed, without further information, it is impossible to know for certain. If I were a reporter in South Carolina, I would ask some pointed questions about the matter, and I would do so in a way as to avoid going after or even seeming to go after the Governor’s daughter:

1.) Was the position properly posted on the appropriate state website and otherwise announced in applicable media?

2.) How many applicants were considered, and were they competitively evaluated?

3.) What were the screening criteria applied to applicants?

4.) Does the state’s job application require the listing of relatives also employed by the state, as is the case in many states, including my own?

5.) Did those charged with screening the application notice the relationship, and did that person or persons apply the State’s ordinary ethical hiring practices in evaluating the matter?

You see, this isn’t a family business, in which one can hire one’s kid without repercussion.  It’s a state job, and that means that somebody along the organizational hierarchy who is charged with supervising the employee is answerable to the Governor.  How did those in all the intermediate positions handle this application?  These are questions that ought to be answered by Nikki Haley, for the sake of the credibility of her office.  This petulant “my children are off limits” business is fine so far as it goes, but where it doesn’t extend is into a matter like this.  All these same questions are applicable had the relation been a sister or brother, or anybody else of close relationship to Haley.

None who read this blog would say that the Obama daughters should be given a summer job as a tour guide in the White House, because the stench of such a thing would waft up to the rafters.  In the same way, and for all the same reasons, we shouldn’t take Haley’s indignant dismissal of the questions as evidence of a defensive mother, as she intended, so much as the reaction of a defensive politician.  Assuming the facts of the story are basically accurate, it is easy to suppose that Haley didn’t give it much thought, and might even have figured it was a good thing for her daughter to take a summer job so close at hand, but the problem is that had it been anywhere else, nobody would likely have uttered a word.

One of the things we discuss a good deal on this website is the GOP establishment, and what I can tell you is that much of what you see and experience as a corrupt political establishment begins with things as innocuous as this.  Those who truly have a servant’s heart know this, and they studiously avoid the appearance of conflicts and impropriety not merely to avoid some statutory ethics rules sink-hole, but because they earnestly believe it is wrong in all cases to gain such advantage, even for one’s minor daughter, even in a minimum wage, summer hire job, just down the hall.

The truth is likely that Haley probably didn’t give it much thought, but that may be the most troubling aspect.  Whether a child, a parent, a sibling, or a spouse, our public officials ought not permit such things to happen, because no matter how one slices it, it stinks to high heaven.  The fact that it’s one of her children is irrelevant except as a simple fact in the case, but the unambiguous part of the story is that rather than face up to it and say, “You know, I was thinking like a parent, and not as your Governor, but I’ve corrected that, and my daughter is no longer employed there,” it would likely all go away, and people would understand it.  I could understand it, and so could most of my readers.  What I can’t understand is the proclamation that her “children are off limits,”  as a means by which to obfuscate the matter in which it having been her child, as opposed to any other close relative, is not the controlling or even vaguely interesting fact in the case.  Governor Haley, we know your children, and indeed your whole family is not the Governor of South Carolina, but in seeking employment, they necessarily carry a strong advantage over others seeking the same jobs.

This isn’t about the Governor’s child at all, but entirely about the Governor and her judgment in such matters.  After all, it’s not very far, ethically speaking, from a job for a relative to a contract for a friend.  While nobody is alleging the latter, still it is interesting to see the Governor try to obfuscate the matter of the former, and I don’t understand why some Republicans think this is proper behavior, or why it’s acceptable for Governor Haley to use her children as a shield in the matter, when it’s clear that this isn’t about her kids at all.  It may be that the Governor had done nothing wrong, and that she had nothing to do with the hiring of her daughter, and nobody at the gift shop knew it was Haley’s daughter who had applied for the job, and perhaps she got the job solely on an honest, competitive basis.  At present, we don’t know, and the Governor isn’t willing to talk about it.  Should we pretend it all away because she’s a Republican?  I think not.  While I have no intention of assisting the Democrat media machine in going after Haley, I also think we need at least a simple explanation, and just the facts will do. Nobody is after her kids, and using them as a shield simply isn’t acceptable.

 

Sarah Palin Is Right: We Shouldn’t Surrender “Blue” States

Saturday, July 28th, 2012

Every Reason to Fight

At the Ted Cruz rally at The Woodlands on Friday, Governor Palin made mention of a candidate who hasn’t been getting  a great deal of national attention, but who deserves the support of conservatives and Tea Party folk everywhere.  One of the things her remarks made clear is that too often, we surrender supposed “blue” states on the basis that we should not waste our precious resources campaigning in places that have been written-off as simply too far gone.  Governor Palin is right about this, and going back even to 2008, when she wanted to spend some time in Michigan, but the McCain Campaign had decided it was not worth the effort, Governor Palin has never been one to cede anything to the left, leaving them a victory by default. In fact, this is what has made her so precious to many on our side, because it is this unrelenting fighting spirit that we have often lacked.  It’s been the habit of the GOP establishment to write-off such places, but she’s right:  We must fight for every one.  In her speech on Friday, she mentioned a candidate for Senate in the State of Maryland, a deep, deep blue state in which mathematically, no victory should ever be possible for a Republican, never mind a conservative, but maybe that’s our problem.  Perhaps we abandon the men and women like Dan  Bongino too easily, and maybe that’s why we seem to be perpetually on the defensive.

We fight over our “Red” states, and some “battleground” states, and we walk away from “blue” states because it just seems so impossible, but we must ask at some point: Is it?  Is it really impossible to deliver a message of freedom and liberty and the vast potential that is the America we love to all her people?  More, aren’t we committing a grave moral error when we abandon the people of those states as veritable Don Quixotes, damned forever to tilt at the windmills of a hopeless political imbalance in their states?  Yes, I am fortunate enough to live in a “red” state, but then again, I am actually a transplant from a “blue” state via a “battleground” state and my service in the Army.  The reason I decided together with my wife to remain in Texas two decades ago is because I looked at the increasingly hopeless prospects of the states in which I had spent my youth, and decided there could be no way I would willingly damn my young family by dragging us back there.

The problem is what Mark Levin likes to point out, likening the left to a swarm of locusts: Once they strip a place and make of it an economically barren and politically devastated wasteland, they move on to more promising areas, turning them each in their turn to the sort of disaster they had created on their previous stops.  I often meet folk who have come to Texas from other places around the country, and some of them ask me how I have adapted to Texas.  My response is always the same: “Don’t try to make Texas into the same sort of place you had left behind, but instead make yourself into a Texan.”  Many of them are taken aback at the notion, and they ask me what I mean, and I explain to them that so many come here from deep blue or battleground states, arriving here to set about the business of turning Texas into what they fled, never stopping to consider the insanity of the notion.  Why would one try to recreate here the very things one has so recently escaped?

Another problem we face is that in leaving these “blue” states to the left, not only are we abandoning some of our most stubborn brethren, who refuse to be run-off from their homes, and who fight tooth and nail for every inch of political ground, but we are also rejecting our own thesis with respect to warfare, whether real or political.  You see, one of the things we conservatives have acknowledged vis-à-vis the war on terror is that for the sake of our country’s safety, it is far better to fight the thugs and terrorists and tyrannical despots on their ground, rather than waiting for them to arrive here, on ours, because naturally, given the time, they will attack us at home. By our failure to contest ‘blue’ states, they needn’t spend any time or effort defending their own ground, because we don’t press our attack there any longer, leaving them free to go on the offensive in every red precinct in the country.

As I have explained before, our political strife in this country is a war, in fact, restrained for the moment to the sphere of politics, but the strategies employed are no different.  Governor Palin mocked Barack Obama for suggesting that Texas would be a blue state, and for the time being, that’s true, but as her words also warned, the only thing preventing that from coming true over the longer run is us.  If we permit the GOP establishment and all the Austin cronies to turn Texas to their purposes, and if we don’t begin to fight the radical left, not only in Texas, but in places like Maryland too, we are going to slowly lose.

It is stunning to think that only a generation ago, California voted for Ronald Reagan, the most conservative president of my lifetime, and perhaps the lifetimes of most Americans still living.  Conservatives don’t seem able to win in California any longer, and it is the locust-like nature of the left, combined with our own unwillingness to battle them that explains the problem.  We ceded that ground, as we have ceded New York, Illinois, Michigan, Maryland, Massachusetts and a number of others.  We’ve simply walked away.  We’ve effectively said “tough luck, we’re saving our own skins” to our conservative brethren in those states, leaving them to grasp at the last straws of their political and economic freedoms, yet we wonder why we see the left infiltrating those places that had been our great strongholds.  There had been a time not so long ago when places like Virginia or North Carolina would never have been in question.  Now?

Ladies and gentlemen, as I write this post, I am re-watching at the video of Dan Bongino, linked by Governor Palin on her Facebook page, and I want you to see this too. Here is the video, and at its end, he makes the same point:

Here is a man who is fighting like Hell for the last bit of logic and the last bit of sanity remaining in his state, and when you hear his passion, and when you see the fire in his belly, I want to ask all of you, my conservative brethren, most of us ensconced in deep red territory, how is it that we walk away from fighters like this man, abandoning them to a hopeless battle in which we had surrendered the flanks:  Is he not championing precisely the things in which we believe?   Like many of my readers, and like Gov. Palin, I’m not much inclined to give anything to the left, and I’m certainly not of a mind to leave such a man standing alone, speaking the truth in a state in which, without our help, he will never be heard over the din of the locusts.  It’s time we do something about that, and being conservatives, our country and our culture under attack on all fronts, there is no time like the present.  We shouldn’t wait for somebody else to rescue us, because if we don’t do it, none will.  If you’re in Maryland, go help get this guy elected, and if you’re not in Maryland, contribute to that effort any way you can.  Start here.  Then, let’s fight the left everywhere.  All we’re doing at present is “holding onto our positions,” but we’re not advancing the war by pressing our assault on their leviathan.  It’s time to change the formula.  It’s time to make the case.  It’s time for us to reinforce our flanks, but surge and break through at the front.  This is total war, waged for now in words and votes, but if we fail to engage on all fronts, we will lose the country.

 

Sarah Palin Rocks The Woodlands For Ted Cruz!

Saturday, July 28th, 2012

Revving The Crowd for Cruz!

On Friday, I drove the two-and-one-half hours from my home to the Ted Cruz rally at The Woodlands, just North of Houston.  The venue was Town Green Park and the speakers included a number of Tea Party leaders, like Amy Kremer, and also Senator Jim DeMint(R-SC.)  Ted Cruz gave a very encouraging, impassioned speech about what he would do if elected to the Senate, and he appropriated Barack Obama’s catch-phrase “Yes, We Can” in a little dialogue with the crowd, asking the crowd “Can we repeal Obama-care?”  On cue, the crowd responded with a thundering “YES WE CAN!”  Cruz exuded confidence, but the truth is that with early voting now ended, the real crunch is on from now until Tuesday to turn out the vote across Texas on his behalf.  In her customary form, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin made her speech to thundering applause and enthusiastic support.  It was a remarkable speech, and Palin was fiery with the energy and passion that have made her the premiere speaker in the Republican party over the last four years.  Conservatives turn out for Sarah Palin, and there’s simply no escaping that fact.

(Note to GOP establishment: You may want to rethink this plan to exclude her from the convention in Tampa next month.)

I was also heartened to see so many of my friends from TxO4P on hand, including Josh Thuma, who was so enthusiastic in Indianola, Iowa last September, so it was no surprise that at The Woodlands, he followed up in similar form, waving signs and cheering-on all of the speakers.  I saw Cynthia Dixon and Del Parker, and some other faces I recognized, so I decided that rather than spending my time trying to capture the event, I would simply join in the fun.  It was a good time for all, and Jim DeMint gave an excellent talk about needing help in the Senate, meaning he want more constitutional conservatives.  He went on to extol the virtues of Ted Cruz, introducing the candidate to great applause, and Cruz made mention of the effort to repeal Obama-care, saying he would work every day until it had been repealed, killing off the notion of replacement: “Every last word…” must be repealed, vowed Cruz.  The crowd roared in approval.

Hearing the Roar

Cruz went on to introduce Governor Palin, and the crowd’s cheering was so loud from my vantage point that I couldn’t hear the first few words of her speech.  As always, when Governor Palin speaks at such an event, she speaks as much for those gathered as to them.  This event was no different, and she focused in particular on three themes, including the wreck Obama has made and is making of the country, and the intractability of the permanent political class in the mission to restore our constitution, and naturally, how Ted Cruz will be an important player in that fight.  She mentioned that she intended to try out Chick Fil-A on her way back to the airport, and as always, Governor Palin made good on her word, later posting this on her Facebook page:

The Palins Stop at Chick Fil-A

She wore the boots  Governor Perry gave her on a previous visit to the Lone Star State, saying “at least in that one case he made a good decision,” but also gently chiding Perry for his present support of David Dewhurst in the primary against Ted Cruz.  She mocked Obama’s assertion of last week in Texas that he’s seeing “shades of purple,” implying that the state might one day go Democrat.  With the amnesty-by-executive-order that Obama has put in place, there can be little doubt that is part of his aim.  Governor Palin exhorted the crowd to not let Texas go purple or blue.  Said the Governor:

“There will be an Alaskan-sized blizzard on the Brazos before Texas turns blue for Barack.”

“Damn straight.”  (So said many in the crowd.)  She also went after the “lap-dogs in the media practicing yellow journalism,” but then she shifted her focus to the permanent political class in Washington DC that has managed to confound some of the efforts of the Tea Party patriots who sent more conservatives to the House in 2010, managing to co-opt some of them.  She was brilliantly on point as she made clear that politicians in both parties have failed to carry out their constitutional responsibilities, passing Obama-care over the objections of the American people, and failing to enact a budget in four years, but she reminded the crowd:

“There’s nothing wrong with America that a good, old-fashioned fair election can’t fix.”

She then explained that she was supporting Ted Cruz because he is a common-sense, constitutional conservative, saying “Ted Cruz represents the positive change we need.”

Sarah Palin, Ted and Heidi Cruz, Jim DeMint

You can watch the video here, courtesy of  the BarracudaBrigade:

As has been the case at events in which Gov. Palin speaks, after the conclusion of her remarks, and to the cheering of the crowd, she and Todd went off-stage and to the rope line, where she signed autographs for a long while, and as usual, the rope-line was mobbed.

I don’t have a firm grasp on how many people were in the park for the event, but I would guess there had been well over one-thousand, perhaps closer to twice that number, despite the sweltering heat.  One thing is certain: Texas really is Palin country, and all who want to support a common-sense, constitutional conservative in this election ought to follow Governor Palin’s lead.  With early voting over across the Lone Star State, what remains is election day, Tuesday, 31 July.  Let’s get out the vote and put Ted Cruz over the top!

 

 

Government Gone Wild!

Sunday, July 22nd, 2012

Bing Results

GovernmentGoneWild has put out a new video, detailing what happens if you surf over to your favorite search engine and watch what it auto-suggests when you begin to type:

“how do I qualify for”

It works, and the video is right.  What’s stunning is that in the top ten suggestions, I don’t see:

“how do I qualify for a job?”

There’s really not much I need to add here.  The video says it all, and it’s not good.  I urge you to watch this and send it to your friends and family.  You may wonder why our country is in decline, but  if you want to know one of the big reasons why our country is mortal danger, this video holds the answer. (H/T CutiePi2U on Twitter)

 

Romney’s Tax Returns Revisited

Thursday, July 19th, 2012

How Credible?

Let me begin by saying that the veracity of the people involved in “reporting” this story is suspect, and as a consequence, I am bringing the story to you on the assumption that it is probably garbage. Nevertheless, if it should turn out to have some basis in fact, it would be an electoral disaster for the GOP if disclosed in late October, for instance, and having encountered it, I would be remiss if I failed to at least mention it.  Catherine Crier, who I don’t see as a particularly credible source, was on the race-baiting moron’s show(Al Sharpton) on MSNBC.  She admitted it was sheer speculation, but I bring it to your attention precisely because this is the sort of thing about which many conservatives have worried with respect to Mitt Romney’s candidacy.  We’ve been told he’s “squeaky clean,” and that may well be the case, but the Democrats are driving at this Tax Return disclosure business relentlessly.  Crier suggests that Mitt Romney might have been one of those who took amnesty in order to stay out of legal jeopardy back in 2009, when Barack Obama put the IRS on the trail of Americans with undisclosed Swiss bank accounts.

What I found peculiar at the time was the focus on a single banking entity.  When the government does something of that sort, they’ve either been tipped-off, or they have a specific target in mind.  Of course, we are talking about Catherine Crier, appearing as a guest on Al “Tawana Brawley” Sharpton’s show on MSNBC, which is to say that it isn’t exactly iron-clad, and Crier in no way offered a source, but the theory was advanced on Slate on Tuesday and over at the ludicrous HuffingtonPost as well. HuffPo is continuing its coverage as I write this.

Here’s video of Crier on Sharpton’s circus(H/T Mediaite):


Let us imagine for a moment that all of this were true.  What would it mean to the elections?  If disclosed now, I don’t see how Romney would avoid withdrawing from the campaign.  If disclosed post-convention, this would simply cause the end of the GOP’s hopes of capturing the Presidency in 2012, and would almost certainly ruin the down-ballot prospects of retaking the Senate or strengthening in the House, with Romney going down to flaming defeat.  If disclosed after a Romney victory, it would dog him throughout his Presidency, and the Democrats would spend the entirety of his term agitating for his impeachment.  Of course, Democrats would do that in any case, but there’s no sense giving them ammunition.

As is clear, conservatives should view this allegation with the appropriate skepticism.  The source of the information is far too unreliable to be taken all that seriously, never mind at face value.  Still, it should be a concern, and it is one of the reasons that early in the primary season, I was pushing for the disclosure of Romney’s tax returns.  He ultimately provided two years, being the 2011 and 2010 returns.  The return that would reveal whether he had been one of those accepting an amnesty deal from the IRS would have been from 2009, so we do not know with certainty.

We also know the Democrats want ammunition to use against Romney, and that in part, this demand for more years of tax returns is primarily a fishing expedition, and an attempt to get him to disclose that which might hurt him.  He doesn’t need to have done anything illegal, but simply something Democrats can paint as morally questionable or hypocritical.   That would be enough to severely damage the Romney campaign.  That said, I wouldn’t be inclined to comply with the Democrats’ demands for additional disclosures, particularly if I hadn’t anything to do with the allegations Crier tried to imply.  Here is the problem, however, and it is the only nugget in all of this that would suggest there could be some actual smoke, if not fire:  Back in January, when Romney disclosed his 2010 return, it included a disclosure of a Swiss bank account.  That account was indeed with UBS, the bank that had been examined and bullied by the IRS into disclosing some 4,400 American customers. BusinessInsider is now carrying the story, and they’re pushing it further still.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is why I urged the release of Romney’s returns following his father’s example, way back in January.  If there is any connection here, Romney might well be able to conceal it a while, but I would fully expect this to become Obama’s “October surprise,” his last hole-card.  Even if it were true, Romney wouldn’t have violated any laws, because he would have accepted the amnesty to avoid legal consequences, but I must also say that if he actually has this problem, and if Obama’s campaign leaks it to the press in the closing days of the campaign, Mitt Romney will not be elected.  There will be no time to spin it, soften it, or clear up the fact that he had ultimately complied with the law.  Instead, it would be a 24×7, non-stop “Breaking: Romney is a Crook,” with the media fairly jeering on Obama’s behalf, and the Obama administration would have its second term.

This explains why the Democrats are on this fishing expedition, but then again, if it is true, the Obama campaign already has that information, and is sitting on it for the big ambush in late October.  I can understand why Governor Romney wouldn’t want to disclose his tax returns, even if he had done absolutely nothing wrong, but the problem here is that if it were true, and if such a disclosure were to occur late in the campaign, we would have no viable horse for this race, and we will see Obama destroying the country another four years.  Of course, Governor Romney doesn’t need to release his entire 2009 tax return. In my view, if he wants to answer any question, this would be it: “Did you accept amnesty under the 2009 Voluntary Disclosure Program?”  Naturally, even if he answers “no,” there are those who will play up the “denial,” but here’s the other problem:  Given the sorely lacking credibility of the sources in this story, and on the highly dubious proposition that Romney does has some “splainin’ to do” with respect to this so-far unfounded accusation, should Obama catch him out in late October, the Republican Party will burn, and I will be among those wielding torches.

When you consider all of this, you might wonder why I’d report it at all, but my reasoning is simple:  The Republican Party has exhibited a habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and with all that is at stake in this election, I’m now accustomed to being disappointed by the GOP establishment.  With all of my friends who have swallowed their pride and grudgingly gone along with Romney for the sake of defeating Obama, if Mitt blows it now over something like this, there will be literal Hell to pay.  I am in no way willing to take the word of this collection of leftist ghouls for anything, but ladies and gentlemen, trust Mitt Romney if you please, but I’ll be keeping an eye on this.  I fully recognize the Obama campaign’s desire to trap Romney with this, but I also know that if there’s anything to it, I don’t want my readers to be blind-sided in October.  If Romney can refute this, he should, because while it would never alleviate the clamor in the press, it would at least put at ease the minds of those he expects to support him in November.

 

Are You Kidding Me? “Silver Linings” Again?

Monday, July 2nd, 2012

Is This a Joke?

I watched the Huckabee Show on Fox News this Sunday, and while Scott Pruitt, and Ken Cuccunelli(Attorneys General for Oklahoma and Virginia respectively,) both acquitted themselves reasonably well, Pam Bondi, the Florida Attorney General, and Huckabee himself, looked foolish. In truth, however, Cuccinelli said some troubling things, both in this appearance and earlier on Fox and Friends. I can even permit that Huckabee was playing dumb for the sake of dragging out answers to questions to which he really knew the answers, but if I was a Floridian, I would know that my state had been cursed with the dumbest Attorney General to appear regularly on TV. After discussing with the panel the absurd logic implicit in Roberts’ decision, and after positing the notion that Roberts had bent to pressure in switching his vote, Bondi went on to state that she believed Justice Roberts was of the highest integrity. What?

I don’t understand how one can be both the sort of noodle who wilts under pressure and simultaneously maintain one’s alleged integrity. The two notions simply don’t fit in the same conceptual soup. If one is true, the other is almost certainly false. She explained that Roberts was seeking to maintain the integrity of the court, but she didn’t explain how voting in what he knew to be exactly the wrong way accomplishes that end. I believe Pam Bondi is confused about the meaning of the word “integrity.” Being on Mitt Romney’s Health-care task force, this doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in that candidate’s promises.

(Fox News hasn’t made this segment of the Huckabee show available on-line – if they do, I will post it here.)

Pam Bondi is, after all, the same AG who bent to political pressure along with her governor, appointing a special prosecutor for the Trayvon Martin case, going after George Zimmerman for murder when all the evidence in-hand really suggests a murder charge is not warranted. In truth, Bondi’s appearance on Huckabee was riddled with similar incongruities in her apparent thinking, and one wonders if she’s qualified to be Attorney General in a State the size of Florida simply on the question of her mental capacity. Being charitable, she spoke like an empty-suited politician, full of hot air, most of it without any discernible meaning, and all of it intended to serve some aim other than to discuss the outcome of this case. Does she have other cases pending she expects to be elevated to the Supreme Court, hoping to win “nice points” with the wayward Chief Justice? Your guess is as good as mine, but after listening to her spewing gobbledygook, I really wanted to turn the channel, though I wound up suffering through the segment until the bitter end.

Another disappointment in the discussion, that I think would apply across the board to all the participants is how they all claimed this had not been foreseen, and that nobody had briefed on the issue of taxes, instead focusing on the commerce clause arguments. This is simply not true, because Landmark Legal Foundation, spearheaded by the brilliant Mark Levin, spent many pages in the Landmark amicus briefs (Here and here) discussing this very matter, taking great care to show how the penalty could not fit into the definition of any of the constitutionally allowable forms of taxation Congress has the power to impose. I like Ken Cuccinelli, and I think he’s a good Attorney General, but I wonder if in this case, he wasn’t a bit asleep at the switch. The same is true of Scott Pruitt. Wake up, fellas!

As for Huckabee, for a guy who has been “working tirelessly” to kill Obama-care, I would have expected he would know the issues a good deal more thoroughly than he did. After all, he did serve as governor of Arkansas, so one would tend to expect he’d have a little more sophisticated understanding of the legal matters, but I suppose it is possible that he was playing dumb to draw out answers, but honestly, that’s not the impression I got from his statements. It made the segment all the more baffling, and doubly disappointing. I kept waiting for him to break out the guitar and sing the Obama-care Blues.

I suspect our troubles with this law are worse than we may have imagined. The more I watch, the more I notice the tendency of some to shrug their shoulders and to tell us to “get used to it.” I have noticed that there is also a tendency to to paint this as though there is some positive, and I was surprised at Ken Cuccinelli’s attempt to tell us about “silver linings” to this decision. Watch this schlock from Fox and Friends:

 

What? There is no limit in this decision. The commerce clause was not restrained. There is no majority decision in restraining the commerce clause. It’s astonishing to see this, and while I know Mark Levin holds Cuccinelli in high regard in most instances, Levin has completely debunked these alleged “silver linings,” as has been discussed here already. Here is the first few minutes of Levin’s show of Friday, 29 June, 2012, to explain why Cuccinelli is absolutely wrong about his “silver linings” thesis:

Alternative content

The evidence of what Levin is saying is plainly evident in these two amicus briefs filed with the court going all the way back to 2011, both in the Florida suit, and the Virginia suit. No two states’ Attorney Generals should have been more prepared for the tax argument than AG Bondi and Cuccinelli, but they’re pretending that this material hadn’t been covered, and was completely unforeseen. Why? What’s the coverup? This is an embarrassment. Surely, somebody bothered to point this out to these Attorneys General before they embarrassed themselves all over Fox News on Sunday.

Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t pretend to have any special insight into this case, but I can read, and I can listen. What I’m reading and hearing these days from our ostensible leaders is that we ought to just suck it up, “accentuate the positives”(while pretending there are some,) and prepare to live with it. “But be sure to vote for us in November if you’re really, really mad!” There’s no excuse for these Attorneys General not knowing the briefs in this case, inside and out, and the fact that they don’t means they’re spending too much time in front of a camera and too little time practicing law. I realize they have clerks and associates, and junior attorneys to handle some of this, but let’s not ignore that while Mark Levin has been providing them the answers right along, they’ve been oblivious to the details. Mark Levin is a hero in this, and his Landmark Legal Foundation is doing great work, despite the fact that neither the court nor the states’ AGs seem to be paying enough attention, and if you want to know the difference between the leaders we have, and the leaders we ought to have, you need look no further. Dr. Levin would decline such a role, but that merely means we need to listen to his counsel all the more closely. I suspect he would be much more generous to these Attorneys General than I have been in this posting, but only because he is much more gracious than I.

I have maintained that in all such cases, we can discern who is with us, and who is against us, or at least those who may be ambivalent to the outcome. It’s becoming clearer in the wake of this ruling, and I think we conservatives should begin to recognize that when it comes to guarding our constitution against the statist hordes, we are all alone. It’s we conservatives against them all.

Romney: “I Want to Maintain the Progressivity”

Tuesday, February 28th, 2012

Progressivity Advocate

Mitt Romney doesn’t seem able to help himself.  Every time he’s given an opportunity to distance himself from his progressive politics, he sidesteps it and goes on to reinforce the view of him as a liberal Republican.  Let’s stop kidding ourselves about all of these claims that he’s really a conservative.  He’s not.  He wasn’t a conservative when he ran to the left of Teddy Kennedy in his attempt to capture the US Senate seat in 1994, and he wasn’t a conservative when he ran center-left in his gubernatorial campaign in Massachusetts in 2002, and he wasn’t a conservative in his governance there.  There is no evidence by which to conclude this cat has changed his stripes, and I have lost patience with all of the excuse-makers who pretend that Mitt Romney is a conservative.

Watch the video here(Note-the recording volume was very low):

Whether it’s Romneycare, or his willingness to pander to leftists on the question of the “progressivity” of the income tax, Mitt Romney is no conservative, and he isn’t fit to serve as a Republican president.  Perhaps he should reconsider and run on the Democrat side, and challenge Obama for that party’s nomination, because he certainly seems better suited to it.  I don’t think we should send another big-government liberal to replace the one we have.  Rather than just changing teams, it’s as though it’s the same old team:  The party of Big Government.

It’s true that he wants to cut taxes, but his plan entails all the usual gimmicks that phase in entitlement reforms long after it will matter.  Talk about cutting the rate of growth in benefits, or delaying benefit eligibility by raising the Social Security retirement age is simply more pie-in-the-sky nonsense to which we will never be witness, because by the time it will go into effect, even if Romney won and served eight years, few of those changes will have been implemented, and in the mean time, we will see our country continue to slide into the pit of indebtedness.

We can’t afford any more big-government liberals, whether they have a “D” or an “R” next to their names, and what Romney is offering here is more tinkering around the edges that will do just a little to stimulate economic growth, but will continue to borrow at an unabridged rate, and what we will get as a result is another lost decade, and perhaps the death of the Republic.  At best, Romney promises to undertake actions and implement policies that will act to slow our decline, but that’s all he’s really offering.  I remain unimpressed, and the fact that he’s neck-and-neck with Santorum in his home state of Michigan demonstrates that many conservatives agree.  Mitt Romney is no conservative, and his unwillingness to make even the moral argument for eliminating progressivity in the income tax system says all  I need to know about what sort of president he will be.

Romney’s good for only one thing, and that’s “minding the store,” but what he won’t do is to improve its efficiency, or do anything to stave off bankruptcy.  He’ll keep things going because that’s all he knows how to do, but he lacks the passion and vision, and frankly, the philosophical clarity to lead the country away from the brink of disaster.

Occupy Wall Street’s Newest Member: Mitt Romney (Video)

Thursday, February 23rd, 2012

Mitt Occupies Arizona

This is absurd and ridiculous.  Here we have candidate Mitt Romney doing his best Barack Obama imitation, but Ron Paul won’t take the slightest swipe at him in a debate?  I’m sorry, but this sort of class-warfare rhetoric has no business in a Republican nomination fight, and to hear this from the mouth of Romney tells me all I really need to know.  He doesn’t want the 1% to get the same charitable deductions and home mortgage deductions as “middle-class” Americans?  I have a question for Governor Romney, who is unwilling to make the logical or moral argument for keeping one’s wealth:

Why not, Mitt?  Why are you ashamed of your wealth?  Why are you afraid to claim a right to your property and wealth?  Why does greater wealth imply a lesser claim to it?  This is bizarre and absurd, and it’s another reason the Republican party should never nominate this self-defeating fool. He’s already ceding the argument to Barack Obama. If he’s willing to go this far now, what will he do if he gets the nomination?  Grovel?  Will he openly apologize for his personal fortune?  Will he apologize for the fortunes of others?  This man doesn’t deserve to keep his own wealth, because he doesn’t know how to logically defend it against jackals.

H/T RightScoop:

This is despicable.  Mitt Romney should be ashamed.

 

Michigan Edu-crats Know Better Than Parents

Friday, February 17th, 2012

Face of the Nanny State

Thursday, my inbox took a long time to refresh.  Somebody sent me a video along with some background information.  The story comes from Michigan, where Debbie Squires is the Associate Director of the Michigan Elementary and Middle School Principals Association.  Apart from the ten-dollar title, Squires is another blooming edu-crat who believes that the educational establishment knows what is best for your children.  In fact, by listening closely to what she has to say, you discover that she also thinks that she and other professional educators know what is best for you.  This smarmy, arrogant testimony before the Michigan House Committee on Education evinces a deeply rooted contempt for parents, tax-payers, and also for children.

Here’s the video:

This is simply astonishing. What we have here is an admission that they believe they know better than you, know your children better than you, and should have absolute control over education, without respect to dissent, political or social minorities, or any other input.  She has said here that if you don’t like the curricula or policies of schools, your only recourse is to go to the polls and vote.  That is your public education establishment telling you that they don’t need to be responsive to parents directly, but only indirectly through the electoral process.  I have a suggestion for the people of Michigan, and for anybody else who encounters this attitude among such people: Vote for elected officials who will fire the edu-crats.

In my own life, raising my own daughter, I have run into such people.  The only proper response is really to remove your children from harm’s way, which means to get them out of the clutches of people who see you as an obstacle.  Education doesn’t belong to these professional nit-wits, and I am tired of the smarter-than-thou position they most frequently adopt as they preach from the bully pulpit parents and taxpayers have provided about their superiority in knowing how best to educate our children.  If they’re so damned good at it, why are our kids doing so poorly when measured against the rest of the industrialized world?  The attitude Ms. Nanny State expresses is far too common among those who say they are professional educators.

My wife and I were our daughter’s first teachers.  She learned how to count, and how to read, and how to spell, and do mathematics from us.  She arrived on her first day in public school more prepared and more focused on learning than her peers, because her mother and I knew the secret to education without having the benefit of even a higher education at that point in time in our lives.  We didn’t need an edu-crat to tell us.  We didn’t need a social worker to guide us.  We simply did as we had thought would be prudent in preparing our daughter to step forward.  This idea that “professional educators know best” has become a racket, and unfortunately, I think it has gained ground as too many parent have surrendered their sovereignty and their authority over the question of the content of the education their children will be delivered.  All too often, it is based on lowest common denominators of class progress, meaning that the best and brightest are held back by the least prepared or least able.

After three generations of telling parents they don’t know best, and shouldn’t be involved, the education establishment has managed to push enough parents away from the process of educating their children that they can now claim: “Well, parents aren’t involved anyway.”  It’s true.  Most parents deliver their children to the gaping maw of the public school system with the uncritical, unthinking indifference that is required for people like Ms. Squires to subsist in the system.  She’s not accustomed to having her authority challenged, but I will assert that if parents were so-inclined, they can educate their own children to a higher proficiency and to better result than any combination of teachers in the public school ever will.  After all, if I’m a decent parent, I don’t need the state or its edu-crats dictating the education of my child.  I know the needs of my child, and if I don’t, it calls into question the legitimacy of my claim to my competence as a parent.  Maybe that’s the point in all of this.

Note: Thanks to ‘Jake’ for the video, and also to ‘Tom’ who just indicated to me this story may have gotten first coverage on the Blaze, here.

Sarah Palin: “I Would Do Whatever I Could…”

Wednesday, February 15th, 2012

"I would do whatever I could"

Governor Sarah Palin appeared on Follow the Money on its first episode, and now on its last interview with host Eric Bolling. She was asked about her ability to unite people, and she was asked about the media.  She also reflected a certain level of humility with respect to her influence.  In the end, she was asked about the notion of a brokered convention.  Bolling was not to be deterred, so he pressed on and asked Governor Palin if she was chosen if she would run, and she responded in a manner that has everybody talking.

Watch for yourself:

Sarah Palin Talks “Conservative Quotient” on Fox and Friends

Wednesday, February 15th, 2012

Governor Palin appeared on Fox and Friends on Wednesday morning to discuss a variety of issues, including the Republican nominating process.  In this segment, she discussed the question of whether Mitt Romney was “conservative enough” for the party, and also explained why she thinks it is important for the candidates in the race to contrast themselves against Barack Obama. It’s an interesting segment, during which she also explains what she means by “the establishment.”

Video courtesy of FoxNews:

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.1012611&w=425&h=350&fv=location%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fvideo.foxnews.com%2Fv%2F1453595273001%2F%26core_ads_enabled%3Dtrue%26core_omniture_player_name%3Dfullpage%26core_omniture_account%3Dfoxnewsmaven%26core_player_name%3Dfullpage%26core_yume_ad_library_url%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fvideo.foxnews.com%2Fassets%2Fakamai%2Fyume_ad_library.swf%26core_yume_player_url%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fvideo.foxnews.com%2Fassets%2Fakamai%2Fyume_player_4x3.swf%26auto_play%3Dtrue%26video_id%3D1453595273001%26settings_url%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fvideo.foxnews.com%2Fassets%2Fakamai%2Fresources%2Fconf%2Fconfig.xml%3Fc%26show_autoplay_overlay%3Dtrue%26auto_play_list%3Dtrue%26show%3DNA%26cache_bust_key%3D1329320377%26autoplay%3Dfalse%26data_feed_url%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fvideo.foxnews.com%2Fv%2Ffeed%2Fvideo%2F1453595273001.js%3Ftemplate%3Dfox]

Andrea Mitchell and Mark Halperin Discuss Palin, McCain, and Brokered Convention

Wednesday, February 15th, 2012

Exciting Time For All?

This should provide some interesting discussion, as there are really a few things to note here. One is John McCain seemed to have vigorously defended Sarah Palin in his recent interview with the BBC.  To his credit, Halperin points out that McCain’s defense is justified, and that his conclusions about Palin’s effectiveness as a candidate are right on.  More, Halperin discusses the question of  Sarah Palin’s overwhelming reception by the crowd at CPAC, and how this is effective evidence of Governor Palin’s understanding of the conservative base of the party.  The other tidbit to be examined is the very brief discussion of another video clip of Sarah Palin discussing brokered conventions at CPAC, different from the other I provided Saturday.

Here’s the video:

The important quote about which the entire buzz is circling is this:

“If it ended up in a brokered convention, at the end of the day, well that would be a really exciting time for all.”

Of course, notable is how Andrea Mitchell tries to minimize her statement as a “tease,” and suggesting that McCain defended Palin only because he was “dancing with the one who you brung,” or some nonsense, but as Halperin points out aptly, this is certainly a case supported by the facts:  She energized the party more than any other McCain could have added to his ticket, and I daresay, more than McCain himself.

As I said, I’m reporting this to you because it is news, and I am personally fascinated by it, but as one commenter opined, we shouldn’t get our hopes up over this.  A brokered convention has all sorts of dangers as another comment suggested, and to go off down that trail may not serve us at all.  There’s no telling how such a thing could come out in the end, but I’ll admit this much:  It certainly does put a little more of an unknown into this whole race.

Sarah Palin “On the Record” on Obama’s Contraception Controversy

Wednesday, February 15th, 2012

Governor Palin appeared on Fox News on Tuesday evening with Greta Van Susteren to discuss the case of Obama’s contraception policy that has infuriated Catholics, and indeed, Christians of nearly every denomination, and rightly so.  She took great pains to point out that this is about an unconstitutional breach of the right of free exercise of religion as guaranteed under our First Amendment.  None who value their constitutionally guaranteed liberties should shrink from this fight.  It’s a direct assault on the right of conscience, and without this, there’s little point to our Constitution at all. If Obamacare is an attack on one’s sovereignty over one’s body and one’s wallet, then this policy of Obama’s is a direct assault on the conscience.

Supernova: The Death of a Superstar

Monday, February 13th, 2012

The First Time I Saw Her

In astrophysics, the concept is simple, and the phenomenon we witness among Earthly stars seems to mimic nature.  The largest stars in the cosmos burn bright, furiously so, consuming all their energy to maintain their volume against the gargantuan force of gravity that will inevitably destroy them, born of their vast size.  In short, the bigger the star, the faster it burns, and the quicker its light will be extinguished in a flash, usually in a few million years.  Small stars like our own Sun haven’t the mass to go out quite like this, and they never achieve supernova, so instead they become a stable engine for life to spring into existence and thrive for billions of years before expending the energy contained in their mass.  Our Earthly stars often seem to follow a similar pattern, with a stunning ignition that clears all debris from their vicinity, but the energy required to maintain their towering stature often undermines it in the end.  Too often, as we have seen with so many others, the decline for some of our pop culture stars is as sudden as their ascent.  So it has been with Whitney Houston, dead at age 48, apparently the victim of her incapacity to cope with her own early, brilliant successes.

I was a young solider when Houston erupted onto the scene, and her initial string of hits grew, but somewhere along the way, she was morphed slowly from a “nice girl” into some kind of “diva.”  This happens to a large number of stars, as the marketeers try to take them from some form of clean-cut beginnings into a bad-boy/naughty-girl cast.  I’m not really sure why, except to appeal to more people, or to create some sort of marketing narrative, but it seems always to coincide with their move from blossoming star to mega-star.  After that, it seems always a fight to maintain that pinnacle, and so outrages are common fare, but one wonders if that’s all there really is to it.  While it seems almost programmatic at times, I also note that this is when they start to benefit more wildly from their newly-minted wealth.  In one sense, it may be like the lottery winners’ syndrome, and I expect this rapid move from modest means to previously unimaginable wealth plays a role in the problem.

By the early to middle 1990′s, I had begun to separate from the pop-culture in a significant way, but just as I did, some stories about the growing tribulations of Whitney Houston’s life had surfaced.  I shook my head, as I walked away from the entire pop-culture scene, knowing what must ultimately happen to Whitney Houston.  Strictly speaking, it wasn’t inevitable, but from my increasingly cynical point of view at the time, I did not see how she would escape what I suspected would come.  It took just a little longer than I thought, and apparently, she made a number of attempts at a comeback, but to survive the drugs and the entire range of problems she was by then experiencing takes a life of near-perfection without failures and back-slides along the way.  Few have the ability to come back from all of that, or at least so it seems.

What I believe happens in most of these cases is a sort of disconnect between their new wealth and their understanding not only of how to keep it, but how they acquired it in the first place. Many young stars in that position seem to suffer from a misplaced sense of what brought them success, and they shift from trying to be successful as singers to being successful at maintaining their fame.  It doesn’t help that as soon as they “make it,” they are descended upon by a parade of parasites who all seek to skim a little money and a little fame for themselves.  People who wouldn’t give them the time of day only a short time before suddenly won’t go away, as hucksters and charlatans can’t wait to thin out their accounts.

It is in this circus atmosphere where the trouble usually begins, and as so often is the case, it revolves around booze, drugs, or both.  Once the addictions begin in earnest, they may do a number of stints in rehabilitation when they collide with the law, but in the main, they are on their way down.  All of the hangers-on already begin to sense the end, and rather than abandon ship, they make a conscious decision to “get while the getting’s good,”  and the rate of the loss of wealth accelerates.  They’re bleeding money, and they’re generally losing their ability to produce more, either from a lack of the ability to function, or the fact that they’ve harmed themselves in such a way that their former talent is reduced to a memory.  How bad must it get for a singer who smokes crack or even marijuana?  What does it do to their voice, and their capacity to hold an extended note?  More, since most of these drugs either deaden or modify one’s senses, one’s own perception of one’s performance will likely be skewed.  No longer are they as demanding of themselves as when they first ascended the ladder to success.

This leads to declining fortunes, and declining returns on their inferior efforts.  In turn, they start to lose fans, and when this happens, it delivers a crushing blow to their egos, and thus it is that they fall more deeply into the clutches of their various addictions.  Unable to meet their fans expectations any longer, they collapse, and then without intervention, it’s usually a quick trip to the bottom with the only question being how long they will linger.  They attempt comebacks, but the problem is that they’re accustomed to being treated as a star, only few treat them this way any longer.  Those in their inner-circle are often vultures, as they hide from family and friends who were close before their fame how far they have fallen.

Of course, many people in this instance immediately think of Michael Jackson, because the totality of the picture is not all so dissimilar.  In truth, it’s shockingly the same.  Of course, not all are singers as we can remember many in sports, and all forms of fame who have fallen into similar situations.  Of course, there have been a lot of singers, as I recall Elvis Pressley of a two generations before.  There was another young star who burned bright, fell and attempted comebacks, but ultimately succumbed at least in part to his addictions.  He managed to hold onto more of his wealth, but still, the general pattern applies.   You can list them, the whole long line of them, and when you do, you’ll realize how frequently this pattern repeats.

Last Pictured on Friday

It shouldn’t be inevitable, because people are not stars, in fact, but merely people, and when we elevate them to that status, it seems the go off on a course that frequently imitates the natural objects.  They burn brightly indeed, and their end is never pretty, but one sees the birth of a new star and hopes briefly that this one, perhaps, will not end up the same as the others.  Whitney Houston had been a powerful singer, and a remarkable young woman when  I first knew of her, but the poor woman who died in Los Angeles Saturday evening at the young age of 48 was no longer that woman.  Dejected, or even depressed, and addicted without the reserves of discipline she once had in her youth, she succumbed, and like so many supernovas in nature, she ended leaving only a prematurely cold body from which light would no longer shine onto our world.

I mourn her passing, as a powerful voice still singing with memories from my youth, but also as one more solemn warning to the superstars of tomorrow.  They needn’t mimic the giants of nature, as all life is a choice, and one hopes that somehow, those who loved them before fame and fortune  could set them straight early on, but they so seldom are.  As long as we have superstars, we’re likely always to have supernovae, but unlike in nature, their early passing needn’t have been inevitable, and it’s a shame.

For my part, I choose to remember Whitney Houston as she was when I first became aware of her entrance onto the music scene:

Sarah Palin in the Belly of the Beast with Chris Wallace – Video

Sunday, February 12th, 2012

In the Belly of the Beast

On Sunday, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin appeared in studio with Chris Wallace to discuss her speech, and also the primary race in the Republican party.  Wallace asked her to identify the establishment, and she did, but I found it delightful when she described being there in Washington DC as being “in the belly of the beast.”  While I am certain the Govenor probably wasn’t including FoxNews in her characterization of Washington DC, given the direction of Fox News lately, I really couldn’t agree more, even if she had.  As usual, she was not going to be pigeon-holed by media, and she turned each question back around on Wallace, who was clearly digging for the answers he wanted, rather than the ones she might give.

Here’s the interview, courtesy of FoxNews:

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.1012425&w=425&h=350&fv=location%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fvideo.foxnews.com%2Fv%2F1448576682001%2Fsarah-palin-rates-gop-field%2F%26core_ads_enabled%3Dtrue%26core_omniture_player_name%3Dfullpage%26core_omniture_account%3Dfoxnewsmaven%26core_player_name%3Dfullpage%26core_yume_ad_library_url%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fvideo.foxnews.com%2Fassets%2Fakamai%2Fyume_ad_library.swf%26core_yume_player_url%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fvideo.foxnews.com%2Fassets%2Fakamai%2Fyume_player_4x3.swf%26auto_play%3Dtrue%26video_id%3D1448576682001%26settings_url%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fvideo.foxnews.com%2Fassets%2Fakamai%2Fresources%2Fconf%2Fconfig.xml%3Fc%26show_autoplay_overlay%3Dtrue%26auto_play_list%3Dtrue%26show%3DNA%26cache_bust_key%3D1329083953%26autoplay%3Dfalse%26data_feed_url%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fvideo.foxnews.com%2Fv%2Ffeed%2Fvideo%2F1448576682001.js%3Ftemplate%3Dfox]

An excellent interview, in my estimation.  There’s a reason that she remains the grass-roots choice.  Wallace two minutes of the interview by trying to ambush her with HBO’s movie, but he finished by talking about her article about Trig.

Sarah Palin Addresses CPAC

Saturday, February 11th, 2012

Governor Palin Welcomed at CPAC

Governor Palin spoke at CPAC on Saturday, delivering the Keynote address to an overflow crowd, and  her address was enthusiastically received, but I noticed something else.  Not everybody in the room was there merely to hear her speak, as a segment of the audience serenaded her with their rendition of “Happy Birthday,” as Saturday was indeed her birthday.  There was a brief incident a few minutes into her address when some “Occupiers” who had made it into the room made a ruckus.  Never satisfied to let anything go by without negative drama, “Occupiers” created some sort of disturbance, and were immediately overpowered by the crowd, and then Sarah Palin, with “USA USA USA.”  The Occu-pests were escorted quickly from the room and Governor Palin pointed out to the crowd how easy it had been to win.

There were many highlights in this speech, far too numerous to catalog here, but I’d like to bring your attention to a few.  She discussed the fact that our country is in trouble, and that we must be united to restore it.  She warned:

“We are not red Americans, we are not blue Americans; We are red white and blue, and President Obama, We are through with you!”

The crowd roared their approval, leaping up to yet another standing ovation.  When it came to the theme of her speech, it was clearly to rev up the crowd for the election season ahead, and citing the lack of a federal budget for more than one-thousand days(actually over 1100 now,) she said of his spending priorities, simply:

“He mucked it up!”

Again the crowd applauded on its feet in collective approval.  She went on to talk about the decline of the nation at the hands of Barack Obama’s government, and of the looming disaster hanging over all our heads, for generations to come, she vowed:

“So help me, God, it is not a future we will ever accept!”

In one instance, she likened the corrupting tendencies of the permanent political class in Washington DC not to a “swamp,” but instead to a “hot tub with jacuzzi.”

Governor Palin is an astonishingly effective public speaker and politician precisely because she believes in America, and in constitutional conservatism, but more importantly, because she communicates with the raw force of simple ideas that have withstood the tests of time and crisis.

She said that once the nomination battle had concluded, she would support any of these because Obama must go.  That united the crowd that clearly suffered a divide along the lines of the various contenders, because all then stood in a rousing standing ovation.

This has been my only discomfort with the speech, because here was one  politician who clearly motivated and inspired the over-sized crowd(minus the aforementioned handful of Occu-pests, who were inspired in another way.) None of the Presidential contenders who made speeches at CPAC this week had attracted this kind of crowd, nor this kind of enthusiastic support.  This leads me to a conclusion and some of my readers may again chastise me for it,  but the question is aimed squarely at the GOP establishment, and to a certain degree, at us:  I believe we are running the wrong candidate, because among all those still in the race, none of them have roused quite this level of overwhelming support.

Governor Palin is able to inspire people because they perceive her as real, genuine, and sincere, and she connects with them in a way I haven’t seen in a politician in a long time, if ever.  To see her sidelined in 2012 is disheartening to many, and having talked to a few who were in the room, the end of her speech was a sort of let-down, because, as one asked me directly: “What are we doing?  Why isn’t she our candidate?”

Having replayed the speech two full times, and having now examined closely the reactions of the crowd, I can’t help but agree with my friend.  The establishment may not like her, but the grass-roots conservatives love her, and the GOP establishment’s attempts to diminish her is a strategy they undertake at their own peril.  Governor Palin is able to rouse audiences from their seats, and conservatives in general from complacency, and even the Occu-pests cannot resist her, the last of these drawn like moths to a flame singing their wings.   It’s not possible to ignore that while some in the media, and in the party establishments have claimed she is “irrelevant,” today’s keynote address and the response of the crowd clearly demonstrates the fallacy of that meme.

Well done indeed, Governor Palin, and Happy Birthday!

Here is the complete video, in three segments(Courtesy the Barracuda Brigade):

ACLU Nut Puts Right to the Pill Ahead of Freedom of Religion

Thursday, February 9th, 2012

Switching Contexts

Here we go.  I published an article earlier this morning, and here’s a piece of video that perfectly demonstrates my point.  This sort of nonsense must be stopped, and we must be the generation who stops it, or our country is finished.  It starts with defining the concept of “rights,” and this ACLU basket-case is a perfect case study in how the left discards actual liberties in the name of concocted ones.  Listen to what this twit says, and recognize, given what I posted earlier, what she is really doing here.  It’s vile and disgusting, and the ACLU is moving from merely Anti-American to criminally complicit in the overthrow of our constitution.

Feel free to surf on over to the ACLU blog on this, if you can stomach it.

Mr. L Strikes Again

Wednesday, February 8th, 2012

Mr. L’s Tavern continues to make entertaining and informative Video Blogs, and this time, he takes on the story I covered yesterday on the hit-piece on Sarah Palin by one of Glenn Beck’s writers, Eddie Scarry, on The Blaze site as well as the subsequent attack on Stacy Drake.  As always, Mr. L covers a variety of sub-topics, and takes on the ridiculous reporting by Scarry.  More, he takes on other attackers of Sarah Palin.  Watch the latest, and remember, he can be a bit rough:

Romney Lies – Caught on Video

Wednesday, February 8th, 2012

Here’s another web ad by somebody who truly dislikes Mitt Romney.  It’s a scathing hit-piece on Romney’s flip-floppery and the author promises more in the series. It’s a little lengthy, but the video focuses on economics, taxes, and his record as Governor of Massachusetts, which is the correct place to begin. This video makes the case strongly for why Mitt Romney simply isn’t conservative enough to lead the United States out of its current troubles.

 

Romney Caught in Lie? (Video)

Monday, February 6th, 2012

Caught Again?

Once again, at issue is Romneycare, and this time, it’s a piece of video that asks the question: “Is Mitt Romney a Liar?”

This one is going to be problematic for Romney, on the facts, and the idea that he claimed Romneycare is not like Obamacare given the interview with one of his advisers on the legislation, who also worked on Obamacare, is going to make this stick.  What is clear is that Romneycare is substantially the model for Obamacare, which raises all sorts of questions about Romney’s integrity on the issue.

Ann Coulter Finally Loses It – Video

Sunday, February 5th, 2012

Good Grief!

At least she wasn’t ranting and raving, quite. I think Ann has lost the last shred of her rapidly declining credibility.  Her littany is exhausting:

Romney is “conservative.”  Newt isn’t electable.  Obama is “personally charming.”  Tea Party is a bunch of “utter hypocrites” for supporting Newt. The “era of Rockefeller Republicans is over.”

Oh, and again: “Romney is the most conservative….”

H/T GatewayPundit

Ron Paul’s Mitt Romney Ad Is a Hoot!

Saturday, February 4th, 2012

Perfect Android Politician?

I have been watching to see if somebody would send me a link to an anti-Mitt ad run by Ron Paul, and my real focus was on televised ads.  I’m still looking for evidence(since I don’t live in any of the first five states) to suggest he ran one on television as part of a paid advertising buy.  I know he did run lots of anti-Gingrich and at least a few anti-Santorum ads in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, but I wasn’t there to see all of those ads.  Now comes this ad from early January, and I don’t know if it actually aired anywhere, or has been merely a web ad.(There are many more of the latter floating around.)  This ad aims squarely at Romney, and it is exceedingly effective.  If this ad aired anywhere, and you know about it, please let me know.  If not, it should be brought up to date(Perry is a minor player in the ad) and aired somewhere, because it’s devastating. Truly:

New Gingrich Ad Goes Viral

Friday, February 3rd, 2012

Soros-Approved?

This one is pretty rough, and while there is one point about which some will quibble, because the clip depicts Romney during his gubernatorial run, and he has since allegedly changed his position on the issue of abortion, the truth is that the remainder of the ad is extraordinarily effective, even if you discount Romney’s change on the one issue. The rest is damning enough on its own:

Governor Palin on The Factor – Video

Thursday, February 2nd, 2012

Bloviator-in-Chief Talks to Sarah Palin

After saying he didn’t intend to be condescending to the voters, but nevertheless calling most of them uninformed rubes, I couldn’t help but notice that while O’Reilly didn’t interrupt her often, his laughter in arguing with her response suggested that he did intend to condescend to her. I’ve made no secret of the fact that I find Bill O’Reilly to be less than sincere, and always quite the advocate for the GOP establishment, but I must admit he never fails to tick me off when he talks to actual conservatives.  This interview was no different. Have a look: