Posts Tagged ‘Fox News’

The Freedom Party? Hell Yes! (Video and Poll)

Sunday, June 30th, 2013

Freedom Party?

As readers of this blog know well, many conservatives are fuming over the GOP’s sell-out on immigration, but the truth is that the betrayals have been far more numerous than this single issue.  Since taking back the House in 2011, mostly powered by Tea Party vigor, the Republican Party has been unresponsive to the concerns and legislative priorities of conservatives generally.  There’s no need to recite the litany of betrayals here, but with immigration and the budget as well as debt ceiling surrenders, the GOP hasn’t been carrying out its mandate to obstruct Barack Obama’s agenda to fundamentally transform the United States.  On FoxNews, near the close of a segment on America’s News Headquarters, Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin answered a Twitter question from Josh Painter about the possibility of breaking away from the Republican Party along with Mark Levin to form something he called provisionally the “Freedom Party:”

As a matter of full disclosure, while I haven’t met fellow Texan Josh Painter, he is indeed a friend of this blog and many of you will be familiar with his web site.  His question was not surprising, because his tweets over time indicate his own heightened disgust with the GOP establishment and the betrayals they have heaped upon the conservative base.  Governor Palin answered the question, making plain her own dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Republican Party has been ignoring the will of common sense conservatives.  Here is that response(H/T Daily Caller):

It’s clear from her response that she too is feeling betrayed by the GOP in Washington DC, and in truth, Gov. Palin has had to fight against corruption in the Republican Party through much of her political career.  It’s no coincidence that she finds favor among the conservative base that so dutifully supports the GOP often times for a lack of better options.  Should the moment arrive that conservatives finally decide to abandon the GOP, I suspect Gov. Palin would be among the first to break ranks simply because like so many of us, she does possess that independent, slightly libertarian streak that courses through most real conservatives.  A party named for its primary object makes sense to me, and apparently, to Gov. Palin too.  Whether a break-away party materializes, we must be prepared to move to support it because quite bluntly, the GOP has been unwilling to move in our direction despite the fact that when conservatives run as conservatives, they win.  Combining the intransigence of the Republican Party with its long string of abuses and betrayals of its conservative base, abandoning it may be the only rational choice conservatives may now make.

Painter’s idea of a “Freedom Party” is right up my own alley.  I have discussed this sort of thing, and the idea of a political party seeking to re-establish liberty in America is more than a little attractive to me.  For too long, we have suffered at the hands of two political parties that seem too often to be extensions of one another rather than actual opponents on an ideological or cultural field of battle.  As is clear from the title of this posting, you know my feelings on the matter, but I’d like to gauge yours with a brief poll:

 

 

 

Sarah Palin Won’t Run

Sunday, January 27th, 2013

Not Afraid to Stand

I’m accustomed to being the odd man out when it comes to political opinions, and I’ve become accustomed to taking some flak on that basis.  I’ve read a number of very good articles offering the reasons why Sarah Palin should run for President, and given her departure from Fox News, there are many who are already speculating about a 2016 Palin run for high office.  Various writers have mentioned her blue-collar appeal, her record of fighting corruption, and her ability to stand apart from her party when doing that which is right had demanded it.  As a campaigner, she’s an undeniable  phenomenon and her record of endorsements turns out to have been much better than those who claimed her endorsement wasn’t “worth snot”(as Steve Flesher reminds us,) but with all of that in mind, there’s something that has bothered me about the idea that she would run.  You see, even as I watched her deliver a barn-burner of a speech in Indianola, Iowa in the September of 2011, and again as I watched CPAC 2012 via C-Span, while each crowd broke out into chants of “Run Sarah, Run,” I looked at the humble but forthright soul standing alone before the multitudes, thinking to myself that despite her fitness regimen, she isn’t really the running type. In my mind on both occasions, the words echoed: “She won’t run.  When the time comes, she will do as she’s always done: Sarah Palin will stand.”

Politicians talk a good deal about running for this office or that, and since the election of 2012, I’ve noticed a number of politicians making some noise about running in 2016.  Running is something politicians seem to do quite well, but in evaluating Governor Palin’s record, what I’ve noticed is that she stands.  It might seem to be a trivial distinction, but I believe there’s something to be said for the difference.  She stood against corruption from her earliest days in politics until the day she left public office in 2009, but even out of office, her stance on such matters has not changed. She stood on her record of opposing corruption when she decided to stand for election in her state’s gubernatorial race.

It was Sarah Palin on a field in Iowa who raised the issue of “crony capitalism” that rattled the primary season’s entrants as they all scurried to avoid branding with that label. The corrupt President also felt the heat on the issue as the Solyndra scandal, along with others related to his phony “green jobs initiatives” were exposed.  She still warns of the corruption that seems to multiply where governmental power and money intersect, but as much as that may mean to we conservatives, having stood firmly against corruption on both sides of the political divide, she hasn’t earned so many friends in Washington.  That hasn’t deterred her,as stand she does, irrespective of her detractors, even when it has meant standing alone.

Many politicians love to talk about compassion, but when it comes to acting it out, they employ the coercion of government as the means to their allegedly compassionate ends.  Governor Palin is one of the very rare politicians who has said on numerous occasions that it is the voluntary compassion of Americans that she favors.  Thinking about the difference inherent in this notion, permit yourself to wonder at what a better world it would be if compassion in America was once again restored to the province of personal choices made by millions upon millions of individuals acting out of love, rather than coerced by statist goons at the point of a gun.

Some politicians run on notions of “compassion” that rely in the first instance upon a government boot on the necks of all Americans, irrespective of their personal travails of the moment, or the strains under which individuals find themselves in the pursuit of their daily lives.  Instead, Sarah Palin stands for a compassion that is real, and unifying, but against the fraudulent “compassion” that divides so much of our society. She speaks to the true compassion in the hearts of conservatives, a form of generosity that rings like Reagan’s message that compassion isn’t measured by the number of people languishing on government programs, but instead by the number who no longer need them.

Governor Palin stands for constitutional principles, and whatever one thinks about the wisdom of this bit or that piece of our US Constitution, her vigorous defense of it all makes her quite unlike most politicians who merely run for office.  Having been the governor of a rather unique state among the fifty, she was determined to see that the programs she worked to implement met the letter and the spirit of her state’s unique writ of governing authority.  Any politician can run for office telling voters what they want to hear, but how many are willing to stand on principle for that plain old notion of first following and adhering to their respective departments’ highest laws?  Governor Palin stood for the rule of law.

In these dark days, we have instead a lawless President who ran for office promising to work around the law. It’s one thing to make empty or devious promises while running for office, but it’s another thing entirely to stand as a guarantor of the rule of law.  Governor Palin recognizes that to undermine the supreme law of the land is to undermine its legitimacy, thereby endangering the republic it had forged, such that without this solid foundation, a people are left with no firm ground upon which to stand in their darkest hours.

One theme on which Governor Palin has stood unabashedly firm is that the Republican Party’s establishment must ultimately bend its will to the interests of the country, or find itself displaced.  It’s no secret around the country that so many in the grass-roots of Republican Party activism frequently feel betrayed, not only by the elected politicians, but also by the vast consultancy and the bureaucracy that likes things just as they are, however they may be, so long as the music continues to play and they can continue to cash their paychecks.

Together, these comprise a healthy segment of that which she has termed the “permanent political class,” because no matter who is in power, whichever party may prevail in a particular election, they never go away, or never very far, because they have their hooks set so deeply into their victim: The American people.  Her willingness to stand against the establishment of her own party, and indeed the entire sick machine that is Washington DC, has set her apart from all those others who run for office, run again, and then again, but who seldom seem to accomplish much of anything to merit their respective tenures.

In an earlier time in our republic’s history, it was common to speak of politicians “standing” for election.  These days, “running” seems all the more appropriate as most simply kick our nation’s can of troubles down the road one election cycle at a time, as they run for political cover.  When I think about “running,” the next word that enters my mind is usually “away,” and in our modern political discourse, it seems all too frequently to have been the tactic of so many politicians to run from difficult issues, instead of standing for the principles previously espoused, with damnably few exceptions.  When I think about the word “stand,” it has an entirely different meaning.  To stake out a position and defend it, against the shrill critics and the maniacal media is a much harder thing to do, and yet throughout her career in public office, that is precisely what Sarah Palin has been doing all along.

Take a stand. Make a stand. Stand your ground. I’m still standing. Stand and be counted.

These are all phrases that come to mind when I consider Sarah Palin’s record. She has stood for her faith, her family, and her country, purposes she puts first in her life every day, but if this country is to recover from the Hell that’s been and the Hell that’s coming, it’s going to take leaders who are willing to do more than merely run for office.  Mitt Romney ran.  In the minds of many, in the final debate, he ran and hid.  Contrasting this against the sort of defiance against corruption one witnesses from Governor Palin, and her continued willingness to take on her party, it’s hard to place the Sarah Palin into the context of running except as exercise. In my mind, playing over the chants of “Run Sarah, Run,” on an Iowa field, it’s never been more important to understand that what this country really needs is a leader who will stand.

Some people simply aren’t suited to the sort of running in which most politicians engage, and I’ve long held that Sarah Palin is one of those political rarities who breaks the mold of the ordinary.  I hope you’ll forgive me if indulge my own hopes for a country reborn, as through the din between my ears, I hear instead the chant of “Stand Sarah, Stand,” knowing that if she is called to stand for our republic, I, along with millions more, will cheerfully take our places standing alongside her in the battle for our nation’s future, whatever form it may take.

Follow-Up: I began this posting when I learned of the departure from Fox News, and needed only to clean it up a bit, planning to do so before being called in to the office where I spent most of the day and evening, Saturday.  As if in advance answer to this very post,  Governor Palin gave responses to a Q&A with Stephen K. Bannon, now posted for all to see over at Breitbart.  Here’s a taste, and I believe it supports my thesis:

“I was raised to never retreat and to pick battles wisely, and all in due season. When it comes to defending our republic, we haven’t begun to fight! But we delight in those who underestimate us.”

Whatever form it may ultimately take, she will stand.

Boehner Calls Conservatives “Knuckle-Draggers”

Wednesday, August 15th, 2012

Knuckle-Draggers Oppose TARP

Speaker of the House John Boehner(RINO-Ohio,) has never appreciated conservatives.  In point of fact, he’s the most anti-conservative Republican currently serving on Capitol Hill, and it’s disgusting to see this man continue to defame and denigrate conservatives and conservatism.  In an interview “On the Record” with Greta Van Susteren, Boehner reveals his true feeling about conservatives.  Watch Speaker “Born-in-a-Bar” as he explains to Greta why Paul Ryan is a “practical conservative,” but he’s not a “Knuckle-Dragger,” because he voted for TARP.   In John Boehner’s world, “practical” translates into “go-along-to-get-along.”  I guess this tells us what he thinks of all of those who opposed TARP:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAsJrWPuYiI]

Great! It’s not bad enough that the left refers to staunch conservatives in such terms, but now we know how the highest ranking Republican now serving in the Federal Government views us.  “Knuckle-dragger?”  This guy has been sabotaging conservatives since he became Speaker of the House.  I think he should caucus with the Democrats, at least for the sake of philosophical consistency.  He’s apparently moving from the fifth column over into the fourth, as he continues to spit in the faces of conservatives.

The only good news to come out of this interview was that at least Boehner didn’t cry about it.

Disgusting.  Can we please have new leadership in the House?  Some leadership?  Any leadership?  Allen West(R-FL) won his primary yesterday.  What are his plans for the next two years if he is able to win his seat in November? “Speaker West?” That has a nice ring to it.

John Boehner should go home to Ohio and stay there.  In my view, this is the kind of alleged “leadership” the Republicans do not need.  He’s not conservative, and while we’ve known that for some time, this is the first instance in some time through which Boehner has made clear his feelings on grass-roots, Tea Party conservatives.

I’m sick of seeing this jack-ass and his tough talk for conservatives while crying over changes in wind speed and direction on Capitol Hill.   Maybe Boehner can tell we “knuckle-draggers” what TARP did for the country, apart from creating a big slush fund from which the Party of Washington bailed out all its friends.  If ever there had been a cause for crying, the day this guy was elected speaker, we should have bawled like babies.

You have to admire his approach to “party unity,” don’t you?

Mitt Romney Caught Flat-Footed By Megyn Kelly

Thursday, March 15th, 2012

Oooops

Appearing on Fox News with Megyn Kelly, former Massachusetts Governor and putative GOP nomination “front-runner” Mitt Romney was caught a bit flat-footed when Megyn Kelly asked him about his support of a Federal insurance mandate. As Kelly pointed out, it’s going to be difficult for Romney to run away from this, although he’s been trying for months.  The truth, no matter how you slice it, is that Romney has previously stated that he thought the model he used in his home state for so-called “Romney-care” would be good for the entire nation. Kelly played a clip for Romney to attempt to refute, but the problem is that it’s basically irrefutable. This isn’t simply about insurance mandates, bad as they may be, but instead goes to the veracity of anything this candidate says or promises.

Take a look, H/T RightScoop:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKBte3rRrU8]

One cannot argue in support of a Federal insurance mandate in the first instance, only to disclaim it in the second instance, but claim never to have said what one has clearly said.  It would be a different matter if Mitt Romney said that he had changed his mind on this issue, and no longer supported the idea, but what he is trying to do is say that he never supported the idea at all.  Clearly, that’s simply not so.

Rather than confront the issue head-on, he tries to weasel away from what he said in the 2008 primary season, and that simply won’t do.  Some in the media wonder why Mitt Romney isn’t catching fire with conservatives, and I strongly believe you need look no further than this exchange between he and Megyn Kelly.  He could have straightened it out, and he could have admitted he removed a line from his book about taking Romneycare nationwide, but instead, he’s trying to trick conservatives into thinking he didn’t say what he said and wrote.

This is a problem, because one must ask what his motive might be.  After all, under the pressure of public opinion, most candidates will back-pedal at least a little when presented the opportunity, but Mitt’s not doing that.  The problem is, he can’t claim it’s because he’s taking a “principled stand” on the issue, otherwise he would be more forthright about it.  He’d say he’s changed his view, suck it up, and move on.  He’s not doing that either, leading one to wonder why.

I have my own thought, and it goes back a few weeks to when Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi was interviewed on the matter, and she as much as admitted she would be part of Romney’s program to take Romneycare nationwide as a replacement for Obamacare.  At present, he can still claim he never changed his mind, despite implying otherwise, but never really reversing himself. He wants to be able to go into the Fall election and promise only to replace Obamacare.  He won’t care about conservative opinion at all, at that point, because he will figure that he has them anyway. If he gets the nomination, he may have a point, because what will conservatives do? Will they stay home and permit Obama’s re-election, or as a matter of personal and familial self-defense, and in the defense of the nation, simply go pull the lever, or punch out the chad for Mitt Romney?

Romney is willing to bet it’s the latter, and his whole campaign is predicated on winning the nomination predominately in liberal locales and doing what he can in the South, but knowing that once he has the nomination, he can ignore the South almost entirely and focus on those swing states.  If this is his strategy, and it surely seems to be, then once he has the nomination in hand, what’s to prevent him from flipping back a bit on the issue of a national mandate for health insurance?  It will satisfy many Democrats after all, particularly those fatigued with Obama’s disastrous economic policies, and his gamble will be that he may pick up more around the middle than he will lose from the conservative base of the party.

I believe this may well be the reason he’s still hedging his bets on this issue.  It’s either that, or his ego won’t permit him to say he’s changed his mind, or some political strategist is telling him to capitulate on the issue will do him more damage than good.  Whatever is going on here, Romney isn’t credible simply because the facts and his own historical statements refute his current ones, but his current statements seem to contend his historical statements don’t exist.  If you can follow this, then you must see as I do that Mitt Romney is plainly lying.  I know not how others may choose to vote, but we already have one liar in the White House, and I’m not inclined to replace him with another.

Sarah Palin Talks to Fox News Weekend Live

Saturday, March 3rd, 2012

Governor Sarah Palin appeared on FoxNews on Weekend Live.  She discussed the field of contenders, and whether she would get out and campaign for the GOP nominee if that happened to be Mitt Romney.  They talked briefly about the HBO fiction called Game Change, and her PAC’s response to it with a video.   Then she was asked about whether she would accept a GOP nominee’s offer of the Vice Presidential spot on the ticket, and she threw a name into the hat for consideration as the GOP’s Vice Presidential nominee that many of you will find quite interesting.

Watch the video:

What’s Happening to Fox News?

Sunday, February 12th, 2012

Who's Pulling the Levers?

Many of you have complained of late about a noticeable shift in Fox News, not only in its coverage of various political events, but also in its staffing. More and more, they are adding to their paid Fox News contributors with people who are in some way linked to the radical left. People have wondered aloud what could be driving this shift, and while we probably won’t ever know it with certainty, I’d like to call to your attention what could be the basis for a quid pro quo that would offer at least one explanation for it.  In the months leading up to the revelations about the phone-hacking scandal at New of the World, another Murdoch news outlet in the UK, we saw the first signals of a change on Fox News, and of course, there have been rumblings of potential investigations and prosecutions here by our own Department of Justice.  If Murdoch and Ailes have anything to fear from these scandals here in the US, then it wouldn’t be inconceivable that the corrupt Department of Justice under Eric Holder and Barack Obama could use it as the potential stick to lash Fox News into political compliance.

One of my favorite talkshow hosts, Tammy Bruce, likes to talk about how her listener-supported show and site are advertising-free, and that one of the benefits is that she doesn’t have to put up with the demand of what she calls “Gestapos” who would tell her what kind of content she must or must not have in order to continue her show.  It’s rather harder for somebody to take from you the independence of thought on which your success is based if they have no leverage to do so.  In that scenario, you’re not worried any longer about advertisers threatening to yank their support.  Of course, you could theoretically annoy all of your listeners but that’s not likely if their support was built as much on the character of your ideas as on your personal style and presentation of them, because not many people radically transform their beliefs over night.

The reason I make mention of this is because as a large commercial outlet that makes it money from advertising, and as a corporation operating primarily in the United States, Fox News is subject to all of the laws that the federal government might apply to it.  As a subsidiary of NewsCorp, Fox News is subject to political tampering not only by threats of legal action against it directly, but also by virtue of legal threats against the parent company.  This would mean that whomever held the prosecutorial sword would be able to exert some influence simply by rattling it a bit.  In this case, we’re talking about the most politicized Department of Justice since, well, ever…  I have no doubt that the crowd of Chicago thugs in the White House would happily apply pressure to derive the kind of coverage they seek from Fox News.  The question then becomes: Are Murdoch and Ailes worried enough about potential legal matters to be man-handled in such a manner?

Obviously, I don’t have the answer to that question, but what I do know is this:  Within Obama’s first year as President, pressure of some sort, whether commercial, legal, political, or otherwise seems to have been brought on Fox News and Fox Business.  I say this because two things have now happened of which you and I are uncomfortably aware:  The lineups at Fox have been changed dramatically, including now the dropping of Glenn Beck, Eric Bolling, and Andrew Napolitano from the line-ups on the two networks.  Arguably, these are the three most conservative or libertarian hosts on either of the networks with the possible exception of John Stossel, but his is only a weekly show.  It would be hard to claim, for instance, that Beck was removed as a business decision, because his was still the highest-rated news show on cable in that time-slot when he parted company from Fox News.  Beck has effectively said that there was some sort of pressure involved.  Soros has been waging a public war on Fox News through Media Matters for America, and other shill outfits, but if he could somehow get an “in” at the network, he might be in a better position to change it.

At the same time as this all began, we saw that a number of contributors were brought to Fox News who reflected a much more left-leaning bias, including Jehmu Greene, and Sally Kohn, among others.  Greene is a preposterous leftist whose rage is at times barely-restrained as she hurls her defenses of leftists around.  Kohn is inexcusable, because she worked for the Soros-funded Center for Community Change.  These are just two of a growing number of leftist trolls, just one step from Occupiers, now being picked up by Fox News as they ditch people like Andrew Napolitano?  I’m afraid that given all of this, I have to conclude that something is happening, and I doubt it’s a business decision so much as one born of some sort of behind-the-scenes politics.  The left wouldn’t want Fox News to go away if they thought they could convert it to their side, and slowly but surely, this seems to be the direction of the the network.  While all of this remains supposition, I can’t help but worry a bit about  it because so many center-left people have thought that Fox News was a “conservative” network, but in truth it was merely balanced with a slightly right-wing dialogue that would be more amenable to the establishment wing of the GOP.

With conservative and libertarian elements slowly being removed, and rabid lefties being slid into place, one must wonder what is going on, and with all the saber-rattling over at the Obama-Holder DoJ, I think we may have reason to worry. If the leftists have found a way to effectively exert control over Fox News, there’s a real danger that we conservatives may have lost the only television outlet of mildly center-right news we’ve ever had.  Many have wondered about the open Romney-pushing going on at that network, and most have assumed it originates with establishment Republicans, but given some of the recent pronouncements of George Soros, one might think again.