Governor Palin is right, and I’m inclined to act on the principle that there is nothing to be gained by compromise with the GOP establishment. I am to the point where I’d rather have an open leftist elected to office than to see one more of these despicable, snake-in-the-grass RINOs who act like Democrats when they get to Washington DC anyway. Here’s Governor Palin from Hannity on FNC last night:
Posts Tagged ‘Sarah Palin’
Governor Palin appeared on Hannity on Thursday night to discuss the Duck Dynasty situation on A&E. Clip courtesy of Sarahnettoo on Youtube:
I’m not among the millions who regularly watch Duck Dynasty on A&E network, but I am among the many millions who will avoid the network in my future viewing choices. The network’s #1 smash hit is headed by patriarch Phil Robertson. Robertson was asked during an interview for GQ magazine about morality. He cited the Bible, and when asked to explain or expound upon his stance on homosexuality, he explained in graphic, somewhat crude language why he couldn’t understand the desires of homosexuals. The network then suspended him. What’s now clear is that A&E has managed to incite a backlash against the network, and it’s obvious that the network is responding to political rather than market-based concerns. In the free market, a network wouldn’t suspend the star of its top-rated show for simply stating his religious beliefs. No, this case isn’t about the intolerance of Phil Robertson, but the intractable, unflinching orthodoxy of the rabid left. The intolerance is all theirs, but there exists a dirty little secret: They’re only willing to shut down conservatives, Christians, and capitalists, while they cringe in fear of Muslims, feminists, leftist groups, and the homosexual lobby. There’s an important lesson in all of this for conservatives generally, but Christians particularly: They don’t fear you, and you’ve given them no reason to think otherwise.
Consider the lead-in to Drew Magary’s GQ article:
“How in the world did a family of squirrel-eating, Bible-thumping, catchphrase-spouting duck hunters become the biggest TV stars in America? And what will they do now that they have 14 million fervent disciples?”
Could a news outlet or magazine make such a remark about any group if they happened to be other than Christian? This lead-in typifies the mindset not merely of those in leadership at A&E, but of the entire media establishment. “Bible-thumping?” Who does Magary think he is? Bill O’Reilly? This should set the tone for you quite aptly. With a lead-in like that, you can guess that it won’t be long before the GQ writer seeks to create a controversy. The term “Bible-Thumper” has become so widely used in the media that Christians are now adopting it to describe themselves as a way of scorning the elites who look down their noses at Christians generally.
Before pointing this out, Magary mocks Robertson this way:
“Even though he’s in the far corner of the room, Phil dominates the house. There are times when he doesn’t look you in the eye while he’s speaking—he looks just off to the side of you, as if Jesus were standing nearby, holding a stack of cue cards. Everyone else in the room just stares at his phone, or at the TV, or holds side conversations as Phil preaches.”
As disgusted as Christians, conservatives, and Duck Dynasty fans may be with A&E’s treatment of Robertson, let’s consider this jewel of mockery by Magary on behalf of GQ magazine. This isn’t merely an attack on Robertson, but on every Christian who is guided by faith. Magary’s scornful, scowling article shows Robertson in the very light that his magazine’s readers have come to expect. Later in the article, however, Magary provides the Robertson quote that will rile the left endlessly:
“For the sake of the Gospel, it was worth it,” Phil tells me. “All you have to do is look at any society where there is no Jesus. I’ll give you four: Nazis, no Jesus. Look at their record. Uh, Shintos? They started this thing in Pearl Harbor. Any Jesus among them? None. Communists? None. Islamists? Zero. That’s eighty years of ideologies that have popped up where no Jesus was allowed among those four groups. Just look at the records as far as murder goes among those four groups.”
All of this was far too much for the leftists at A&E. They’re a politically correct outlet, and Robertson’s off-show remarks are far too insensitive in their view, and attacked their general philosophical slant. If only he were a Muslim…
Fans aren’t happy with this suspension either, and the backlash is growing, as a new Facebook page that has already garnered nearly seven-hundred-thousand likes, and there are other pages on the social networking site having similar results. While there can be no expectation of “free speech” on a network one doesn’t own, this sort of cultural brow-beating is standard fare in leftist circles. In his contract, there may be language prohibiting him from making such statements publicly, in which case he is bound by the terms of the contract, but here’s the real problem for A&E: While they are free to suspend him if his contract allows it, they are also bound to bear the consequences in the marketplace. If the market recoils against them, and if they find even more people joining the fray of public discourse against them, it’s all their problem. If the move gains the network market-share, then it’s all their benefit.
With that said, let’s consider what had been Robertson’s “infraction,” according to A&E. Robertson dared to state publicly in an interview that he held as sins those things set forth in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. Indeed, he then explained his own orientation. From the Chicago Tribune:
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he told reporter Drew Magary. “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
Now that the homosexual lobby is descending upon Robertson, one might wonder why leftist groups and others sympathetic to the homosexual lobby have all the courage in the world to take on Christians at every turn, but never seem to muster the same courage when dealing with Muslims. If, rather than a show titled “Duck Dynasty,” and being a Christian man named Phil Robertson, this had instead been a show named “Kamel Kingdom,” centered around a Wahhabist family headed by a man named Muhammed Atta on the Arabian peninsula, the whining cowards at the A&E network wouldn’t have dared to suspend the patriarch. Not a chance. Christians are easy targets, after all. They’ve become accustomed to being culturally attacked, and desensitized to being harangued publicly for their views. They do not fight back, generally speaking. Muslims are another story. In fact, A&E may have actually blocked the mention of Jesus on Duck Dynasty in order to avoid offending Muslims. Watch this video with Phil Robertson:
There’s a lesson in all of this for those who happen to pay attention: Christians may temporarily blow up your phone lines, but they won’t blow up your building, and executives at the A&E network know that too well. They can stand to tolerate a few days of melted phone lines, but once the issue fades in prominence, they’ll go on as before. The leftist media culture is rife with bullies who are willing to pick on faithful Christians, but won’t say the first word in opposition to radical Islam, or even acknowledge its existence, lest they find themselves the target of a fatwa. I’m not suggesting that Christians should strap suicide vests on their bodies and run into the A&E Network’s headquarters, but I think this helps to demonstrate that Christians, who mistakenly turn the other cheek until they’re beaten into submission. Christians don’t fight back. They have been taught that only the “meek” shall inherit the Earth, not understanding the real meaning of Matthew 5:5. It was an admonition to submit to God. It was not a demand to lay supinely in acceptance of any torment in the offing from all comers.
Christians and conservatives must begin to understand the affliction that they too readily bear. Consisting in part of the radical left’s tireless war against American culture, this is a real campaign being fought daily. The left, radical Islam, the associated and cohort groups all bear ill will against traditional Christian values, and American ideals and traditions in general, either to subvert them or erase them from our nation. A&E’s fault in all of this lies in the fact that they are more afraid of people who do not regularly watch their network than of those who routinely tune to see Phil Robertson and his family. A&E is more interested in portraying the Robertson clan as backwoods bayou bumpkins than in showing a God-fearing family that accepts the teachings of their Bible. They don’t want to offend Muslims, homosexuals, or anyone else in the process, unless they happen to be capitalists, Christians, and/or conservatives, in which case it is not merely acceptable but entirely intentional. Christians and conservatives must begin to make their voices heard in unison, because it’s their culture that is under fire. The time for cheek-turning should have passed, and it’s high time conservative leaders step forward to say as much.
Thankfully, some already have. (Sarah Palin here, Ted Cruz here, and Bobby Jindal here.) Now it’s your turn. As the rabid left seeks to turn the GQ Robertson interview into the 2013 version of Rush Limbaugh’s Sandra Fluke remarks, conveniently taking the focus away from Obama-care, it’s time for conservatives, particularly Christians, to understand all of these things as a coordinated attack against them. While A&E is a shameless trollop acting on behalf of the general leftist ideology, they are performing a service to Barack Obama that money could scarcely buy. Obama-care’s massive failures are sliding from the headlines, and this changing of the subject over a TV show will permit them to carry on. The truth for conservatives in general and Christians in particular is that the left doesn’t fear you. They see you as having been de-fanged by your own ethos, and they use your most generous virtues against you. It’s time to see them for the monsters they are, speak out at will, and make all of your purchasing decisions accordingly. It’s time for them to fear your market power if they will fear nothing else. It’s time for them to fear you at the polls if they will see no other threat from your number. It’s long past the time for all real Americans to roar and I don’t care if the statist left sneers at that description. The time for silence on all fronts is over. They need to fear the continuance of their Jihad against us.
Editors Note: The truth about A&E and its show is that it was never intended to capture the audience it now enjoys, but was instead meant as a vehicle by which to mock Christians and conservatives. Once it backfired and became a wildly successful show, they had to find a way to bury it culturally. For what other possible reason would they place beeps and bleeps in the audio track to cover profanity that never occurred, as per Robertson’s testimony in the video above? They wanted to reinforce a stereotype.
Update: As of this hour, the boycott A&E page on Facebook now has over 1.1 Million likes.
In Washington DC on Sunday, an unknown number of veterans(we’ll never get an honest estimate out of DC officials) together with Governor Sarah Palin, Senators Ted Cruz(R-TX) and Mike Lee(R-UT) gathered to visit the World War II memorial, the Lincoln Memorial, and later, the vets marched to the White House and the Capitol, depositing and discarding a pile of “Barry-cades” at the White House. According to a report on Shark-tank.net, Palin and her contingent were greeted by riot police who were there to attempt to shut down the event. Gov. Palin reportedly thanked the officers for their service before joining in the barricade removal and continuation of the event. Senators Cruz and Lee joined her in making remarks to open the event. Here’s video posted on youtube:
A clip repeating a small segment of Sarah Palin’s remarks with Senator Cruz’s remarks:
A clip of Greta Van Susternen talking with Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee at the event:
Not surprisingly, this group of leaders show up for the important things. Other so-called leaders were nowhere to be seen. Certainly, President Obama wasn’t around, and Marine 1 was seen leaving the White House during the extended event that included veterans carrying and depositing sections of “Barry-cades” at the White House, notably, one double-amputee on a Segway who loaded a section of the barricade and carted it with him.
These are the men and women our President and Harry Reid choose to dismiss. These are the people who are “radicals,” “extremists,” and “zealots” in the estimation of the Washington DC elitists. The simple truth is that men and women who have given their service honorably and often at great(or ultimate) personal cost to this country should never be barricaded from memorials. Never in any previous shutdown have these memorials been barricaded, and the truth is that it costs more money to barricade them than to have left them open. This spectacle was brought to you by none other than Barack Obama, along with his cronies and henchmen, all attempting to bring unnecessary pain to the American people.
Naturally, it wasn’t over there. Vets carried barricade section up to the White House, and riot police soon filled the area, along with mounted police. There were alleged to have been a few minor scuffles, with protesters chanting everything from “Obama must go” to “Shame on you.” Here’s a video clip:
As police v. protester “clashes” go, this one was pretty mild, thankfully, and you could hear in this and similar video clips the veterans urging one another to remain “cool” and to otherwise prevent the situation from getting out of hand. These are America’s vets, mobilized, honorable, and patriotic. Meanwhile, the DC elite bring out the riot police to try to close down an event that should never have been necessary but for the President’s insistence on closing down memorials that have never been closed before.
I would like to thank all my honorable brothers and sisters, young and old, who showed up for this event. I also think we owe significant thanks to Governor Palin, along with Senators Cruz and Lee, for running interference and making it more difficult for the riot police to attempt to sweep this up and bury it. The media did its level best to either ignore or mock the event. The truth is that American veterans and patriots rallied on Sunday in defense of our liberties and against a tyrant, and whether the mainstream media covered it or not, you should know of their efforts. This must be the beginning of taking our country back.
Monday evening, on Sean Hannity’s show, Governor Sarah Palin took on the issue of the government shutdown, explained that the partial shutdown of the government is a necessary result of our broken budgetary process, but that it’s certainly no Armageddon. She had a special aside just for Barack Obama(video courtesy SarahNet):
It seems like a day doesn’t elapse without catching a glimpse of Karl Rove and his whiteboards on FoxNews. From the sounds of things, you might come to think he’s in charge of something at the GOP. Unfortunately, while he holds no official office, he’s always working on behalf of his patrons in the party, and he serves the interests of the surrender-monkey wing of the Republican party. Steve Schmidt, the architect of McCain’s loss in 2008, is another example of the sort of consultant with which DC Republicans seem to surround themselves. Schmidt is still bitter over his 2008 defeat, and he blames much of it on Sarah Palin. The truth is that she was the only good thing about the ticket, and exit-polling demonstrated quite clearly at the time that McCain would have done far worse without her on the ticket. It was Schmidt’s bright idea to have McCain suspend his campaign, and that was precisely the root of the collapse in McCain’s support. Looking to blame his own strategic failings on somebody – anybody – Schmidt is still on the Palin-hater bandwagon because to regain any credibility in his profession, he must shift blame to somebody else. These consultants are one of the biggest problems grass-roots conservatives face because they tend to turn candidates against their base, and wonder why they lose.
In an epic rant for Politico, McCain adviser and professional boot-licker Steve Schmidt claimed to feel “deep regret” for helping to fuel the creation of a “freak show” wing of the GOP. By “freak show” wing, he means you and I. He means real conservatives. He is referencing those who rose under the general label of “Tea Party.” Most of all, in singling out somebody that personifies what he termed “asininity,” he means Sarah Palin. Said Schmidt:
“For the last couple of years, we’ve had this wing of the party running roughshod over the rest of the party. Tossing out terms like RINO saying we’re going to purge, you know, the moderates out of the party,” Schmidt said. “We’ve lost five U.S. Senate seats over the last two election cycles. And fundamentally we need Republicans, whether they’re running for president, whether they’re in the leadership of the Congress, to stand up against a lot of this asininity.”
“You finally you saw it with Ted Cruz. Maybe he was the one that who’s got a bridge too far,” Schmidt said. “Maybe we’ll start seeing our elected leaders stop being intimidated by this nonsense, have the nerve, have the guts to stand up and … to fight to take conservatism’s good name back from the freak show that’s been running wild for four years and that I have deep regret in my part, certainly, in initiating.”
Psssst. Hey Steve! We should purge you from the party, since there seems to be no other way to have you shut up and go away. Massive failure doesn’t seem to convince you. Frankly, the reason Republicans lose elections is because they listen to jerks like Schmidt who view actual conservatives as the problem. You see, Schmidt doesn’t recognize actual conservatism, but instead views “conservatism” as a label to be shifted onto his clients who in no way match the meaning of the term. If one wishes to see this at work, consider only the Bush campaigns of 2000 and 2004. Here, you had Rove positioning Bush as a “compassionate conservative,” when it was evident(or should have been) that Bush wasn’t conservative, and that he would wreck actual conservatism by the false association. In 2006, when Republicans lost the Congress, it was on the basis of this bastardized notion of conservatism. The Republicans lost control of Congress because under Bush, they were spending just like big-spending Democrats. It had been consultants like Schmidt and Rove who led the GOP to that and subsequent defeats.
If you want to know what constitutes a real freak-show in the Republican party, it is the unparalleled spectacle of hucksters in the consultancy class attempting to pass off moderates as conservatives. It is the inglorious pinnacle of asininity to pretend now that John McCain is conservative, and even more galling to pretend that his policy positions represent conservative principles, and yet con-men like Schmidt labor endlessly to carry out that fraud. When McCain was up for re-election in 2010, you may remember that the McCain camp had no problem soliciting the help of Sarah Palin, but now they betray her with this nonsense about “freak show” and alleged “asininity.” McCain might have been beat in the 2010 primaries without her, but does that fact earn even the smallest bit of respect from a hateful little troll like Schmidt? No. You see, in his book, it’s all about him. Admitting that Sarah Palin did more to boost either McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, or his 2010 Senatorial re-election campaign would be to admit that Schmidt is entirely useless, never mind the candidate in question.
The fact of the matter is that Schmidt and those in the consultancy class like Rove, who infamously once claimed that Palin’s endorsement wasn’t “worth snot” don’t have any credibility. For all their alleged gifts and talents as political analysts, advisers, and consultants, they don’t seem to have produced results to scale of their fame. Bush barely managed to prevail over Al Gore in 2000, relying on the electoral college, and in 2004, what should have been a walk-over victory was uncomfortably close against John Kerry, a man who should never be let near the oval office. Worse, under the guidance of Rove, in 2006, Republicans lost the Congress, permitting Barack Obama to have both Houses in 2009. We wouldn’t even be talking about Obama-care had the Republicans not joined Democrats in spending like drunks in support of the George W. Bush spending priorities, which had been massive.
It was the participation of Republicans like McCain in the Amnesty kerfuffle of 2007 that helped keep the Republicans in the wilderness too, another great idea from the consultancy wing of the party. How did that work out for us? Democrats kept control of Congress, and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid made sure we’d have Obama-care so we could learn what was in it. We’re learning, and the real lesson we conservatives must take is that these professional beltway consultants and advisers are leading us off a cliff.
There’s no way around it. If we listen to the likes of Schmidt or Rove, we’re taking advice from people who don’t have our interests at heart. They’re profiteers on the political process, and they ply their trade by linguistic manipulations. It’s no surprising that they work hardest to protect their own images, and will stab anybody in the back in order to preserve their own reputations. In the end, they’re only accountable inasmuch as their political patrons are held accountable. They aren’t elected, and they never pay the price for shafting the American people. They are insulated from our direct anger as voters, and they always seem to move on to new patrons if their existing ones fall out of favor with voters. As long as they’re setting the direction of the Republican party, one shouldn’t expect that the GOP will be friendly to actual conservatives. They don’t care about our principles, as they pursue profit and power at our expense. If the last decade has taught us anything, it should be that it is we who are forced to pay for their failures. Noticing that fact will brand you as part of a “freak show.”
A report came to light on Tuesday morning from Breitbart.com detailing the maneuvers being used by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to fully fund Obama-care. John Cornyn(R-TX) serves as minority whip, and in that capacity, he is helping McConnell in an effort to undermine the efforts of Ted Cruz(R-TX). This instance demonstrates perfectly the sort of back-stabbing that goes on in Republican leadership in Washington DC. While Cruz fights to stop the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obama-care, his colleague and fellow Republican from Texas is working against him. In 2014, when Cornyn comes up for re-election in the Lone Star state, I will support nearly any primary challenger. Texans can’t afford six more years of fake conservatism. Cornyn also supports the immigration reform bill, and on other issues important to conservatives, he’s been either invisible or in opposition. Cornyn is no conservative, and it’s time we Texans brought him home. We mustn’t let the Vichy Republicans run the GOP any longer, because they undermine the work of real conservatives, who are actively working to forestall the disaster that is Obama-care.
When one observes such behavior from a self-proclaimed conservative like Cornyn, it’s easy to understand why conservatism continues to take a beating. We permit people like Cornyn to represent us, but the truth is that he’s another Washington elitist who has no regard for his fellow Texans. In fact, during his tenure in the Senate, Cornyn has worked against conservatives on a number of issues, and his attitude has reflected a certain contempt for grass-roots conservatives. Meanwhile, Cruz is fighting. We conservatives like those who will fight for our principles, and in this case, while McConnell and Cornyn follow the advice of Karl Rove, Cruz is out front along with Mike Lee(R-UT) fighting to stop a national catastrophe.
At stake is the future of the country. If Obama-care is permitted to be fully implemented, we will have in place one more massive entitlement program that will bankrupt the country. It’s already driving businesses to curtail hours, and to avoid hiring full-time employees. It will have tax consequences that are far outside the bounds of what most Americans had expected, and it will crush economic activity in general. It’s already happening, even before the program has been fully implemented. If we don’t find a way to slay this dragon, we will lose the country.
I would urge my readers, particularly my fellow Texans, to call their senators and demand that Obama-care be de-funded. At this late date, it is the last thing that can be done short of full repeal. Disclosed yesterday, a Pew Research poll shows that the “blame” for any government shutdown will go equally to Republicans and Democrats, so there’s no need to fear any of this. If anything, this should buttress arguments of conservatives who assert that fighting this law is a winning issue for Republicans. In 1995, during that infamous shutdown, Republicans were overwhelmingly blamed, however it should also be noted that they gained two seats in the Senate in 1996., losing two in the House, but hanging onto their majority for the first time in more than one-half century.
As Sarah Palin explained in an op-ed on Sunday, Cruz is “over the target” on Obama-care, and it should be a matter of “bombs-away.” The American people don’t want this law, and Democrat talking points aside, it is as weak a proposition as ever. People are seeing their insurance premiums skyrocket, they’re watching their physicians retire out of exasperation, and they’re losing their jobs, or seeing their hours cut. Even the unions aren’t very happy, because Obama-care is a job-destroyer.
The tricksters of the GOP establishment are trying to sabotage the efforts of Ted Cruz and Mike Lee. Mitch McConnell is the sorriest example of a Republican leader we’ve had in the Senate for some time, and now he’s playing parliamentary games in order to prevent Cruz from succeeding while still giving Republicans a chance to make a symbolic vote against Obama-care. It’s time we put an end to this nonsense. McConnell and his sidekick Cornyn are attempting to pull the wool over our eyes. These “Vichy Republicans” are the bane of conservatism, and given what Obama-care will do to the country, surely of all Americans. Call your senators. Call every Senator. De-funding Obama-care isn’t a game. It’s life or death for millions of Americans, their jobs, and the country at large.
Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121
If you are a Texan, you can call this rattlesnake and let him know we’ve got his number: John Cornyn (202) 224-2934 If you want to take a crack at Vichy Republican Leader McConnell, here’s his number: (202) 224-2541
I take some knocks from a few of the haughty sorts of Republican who believe the conservative base of the GOP mustn’t be trusted with leadership. In their view, riffraff like me are simply “too extreme” (read: consistent) to be taken seriously. Their shills head out onto to television to offer the best thinking of the establishment’s intelligentsia, but despite their theorizing, and their whiteboards, they simply don’t understand why the average conservative can’t see things their way. One of the things that causes some eye-rolling amongst the “elites” in my own locality is to mention my ongoing, unwavering support of Sarah Palin. In their view, she epitomizes the sort of conservatism they abhor: Honest, plain-spoken, and trustworthy fighters who tend not to bite their tongues. In this context, as the eyes roll, I hear in response: “Oh, that makes perfect sense.” On Greta’s show on FoxNews last night, Governor Palin displayed these simple virtues that make GOP establishment hacks roll their eyes. On full display was a white envelope, covered in the names of scandals surrounding Barack Obama. In open mockery of Karl “Tokyo” Rove, she called it her “redneck whiteboard.” Here’s the video:
One can only imagine how this went over within the confines of the Republican establishment’s inner circle. Gov. Palin’s plain-spoken truth on the matter is why despite the eye-rolling of the Republican elite, the conservative base of the party supports the former Alaska governor. Her message is much too rare in GOP circles, and while the establishment in Washington DC helps to delay and obfuscate on Barack Obama’s behalf, the truth out in fly-over country is that the American people want the answers on all those issues listed on Palin’s “redneck whiteboard,” and despite the assistance of certain Republicans in helping to cover them, eventually, we’re going to have at the truth. One might run out the clock on this administration, but one cannot run out the clock on the truth. Governor Palin rightly points out that the 2008 McCain campaign failed to make an issue of any of the negative material swirling around Barack Obama, ultimately forbidding her from raising questions about his personal history on the campaign trail. How can anybody be expected to win when they’re fighting with one hand tied? Governor Palin is right: It’s time to deal with these scandals, and Barack Obama should be ashamed for pretending they are all phony, when it’s clear there is so much more to these matters.
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:
What should serve as a clear warning-shot to the GOP establishment will likely go unheeded, but it’s time for Republican voters to consider re-enfranchising themselves by ditching the Republican Party. In a posting on Facebook, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin had some strong words for the bankrupt, insider Republican establishment in Washington DC over their betrayal of their voters – indeed most Americans – on the issue of immigration. It should come as no particular surprise that as the Beltway Republicans continue to stiff their voters, Governor Palin is again among the few voices willing to stand and be counted in opposition. She isn’t willing to abandon the country’s future to the intransigence of Washington politicians, be they Democrats or Republicans. Demonstrating her commitment to our country, Gov. Palin wasted no time in boiling the issue down to its vital essence:
“Please take a look at the article linked below to understand how the amnesty bill the Senate passed yesterday is a sad betrayal of working class Americans of every ethnicity who will see their wages lowered and their upward mobility lowered too. And yet we still do not have a secured border. This Senate-approved amnesty bill rewards lawbreakers and won’t solve any problems – as the CBO report notes that millions of more illegal immigrants will continue to flood the U.S. in coming years.”
This critique of the bill sums up the shortcomings of the legislation as well as the attitude of the GOP establishment in Washington DC.
“Great job, GOP establishment. You’ve just abandoned the Reagan Democrats with this amnesty bill, and we needed them to “enlarge that tent” of which you so often speak. It’s depressing to consider that the House of Representatives is threatening to pass some version of this nonsensical bill in the coming weeks.”
Here, Palin alludes to the fact that whatever the House may pass, what comes out of conference is likely to resemble the Senate bill as I explained Friday morning.
“Once again, I’ll point out the obvious to you: it was the loss of working class voters in swing states that cost us the 2012 election, not the Hispanic vote. Legal immigrants respect the rule of law and can see how self-centered a politician must be to fill this amnesty bill with favors, earmarks, and crony capitalists’ pork, and call it good. You disrespect Hispanics with your assumption that they desire ignoring the rule of law.”
Again, cutting through the fluff of the DC consultancy class that has claimed that all Republican shortfalls in electoral success revolve around a lack of support from Hispanic voters, Palin explains the true nature of the problem the GOP is enduring, and she notes the implication of this approach that should be insulting to every American, but particularly Hispanics. She then delivered a stark warning to the GOP establishment in a fairly unambiguous way:
“Folks like me are barely hanging on to our enlistment papers in any political party – and it’s precisely because flip-flopping political actions like amnesty force us to ask how much more bull from both the elephants in the Republican Party and the jackasses in the Democrat Party we have to swallow before these political machines totally abandon the average commonsense hardworking American. Now we turn to watch the House. If they bless this new “bi-partisan” hyper-partisan devastating plan for amnesty, we’ll know that both private political parties have finally turned their backs on us. It will then be time to show our parties’ hierarchies what we think of being members of either one of these out-of-touch, arrogant, and dysfunctional political machines.”
Indeed, this has been the lament of this website for a long, long time, as recently as this morning. Many of us have long ago walked away from the GOP, though we may support some candidates, and others have simply abandoned the sinking ship to its captains and the admiralty of the GOP that has run it aground. Governor Palin is correct: If we don’t turn out backs on this party in light of what it has done on this and so many other issues, it will be our own fault when the country collapses.
She concluded with a link to this piece on Breitbart, and it’s critical that one understands how thoroughly destructive the whole immigration bill will be to Americans, particularly American workers. Sarah Palin is one of the only voices with sufficient power to make this argument to the American people, so that they can know in advance what the Congress will have done should the House enact some phony immigration reform bill that will be replaced in conference with the Senate’s amnesty bill. Thankfully, Sarah Palin gets it, and she sees clearly the betrayal that is coming. It’s up to us to lend support to her voice and stand with her in opposition to this bill. It’s our country and its future that hangs in the balance.
Writing a Breitbart-exclusive op-ed, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin sounded-off on Sunday evening over the ridiculous “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” bill pending in the US Senate, and in so doing, she stepped out to join other rare leaders on the conservative side of the debate. Just a few big-name conservatives have been vocal in their opposition to this bill, but this piece by Governor Palin seems to lay down a marker for others in the GOP to consider. The conservatives who have been doggedly fighting against this immigration bill for all its mortal failings have been heartened to see the freshman Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, stepping up to fight against a terribly abusive and nonsensical bill. With this most direct entry into the fray, Gov. Palin has made clear her continuing ability to lead from the outside, and it is most invigorating to grass roots conservatives that she has chosen this dark moment to speak up and do battle with the DC-Beltway, permanent political class that is trying to foist this bill upon the American people.
As is her habit, she wasted no time with pleasantries and minced no words:
“Just like they did with Obamacare, some in Congress intend to “Pelosi” the amnesty bill. They’ll pass it in order to find out what’s in it. And just like the unpopular, unaffordable Obamacare disaster, this pandering, rewarding-the-rule-breakers, still-no-border-security, special-interests-ridden, 24-lb disaster of a bill is not supported by informed Americans.”
This opening salvo sets the tone for the entire piece, because while like so many of us, Gov. Palin believes in legal immigration because she understands that we are a nation built by immigrants who faced tremendous challenges to conquer a continent, she also reveres the rule of law and understands quite well what happens when government becomes an agent of anarchy. In that vein, she wrote:
“I am an ardent supporter of legal immigration. I’m proud that our country is so desirable that it has been a melting pot making a diverse people united as the most exceptional nation on earth for over two centuries. But I join every American with an ounce of common sense insisting that any discussion about immigration must center on a secure border. The amnesty bill before the Senate is completely toothless on border security. “
Lamenting the many holes in the legislation now pending, including the amendments offered thus far, she took the time to single-out one of the bill’s key proponents, Senator Marco Rubio(R-FL). Earlier Sunday, she posted on Facebook and via Twitter an article revealing Rubio’s hypocrisy on the subject, and it is here that one gets a sense that the “Mama Grizzly” is just getting warmed-up:
“It’s beyond disingenuous for anyone to claim that a vote for this bill is a vote for security. Look no further than the fact that Senator Rubio and amnesty supporters nixed Senator Thune’s amendment that required the feds to finally build part of a needed security fence before moving forward on the status of illegal immigrants who’ve already broken the law to be here. And if shooting down the border fence wasn’t proof enough, they blew another chance by killing Senator Paul’s “Trust But Verify” amendment which required the completion of a fence in five years and required Congress to vote on whether the border is actually secure before furthering any immigration measures. And then they blew it yet again, nixing Senator Cornyn’s “Results” amendment, which also required border enforcement standards. Now the Senate’s pro-amnesty crowd is offering a fig leaf to security via the Corker-Hoeven Amendment, but this is really nothing more than empty promises. It’s amnesty right now and border security… eh, well, someday.”
This is more than fair in the sense of a well-deserved rebuke, and it also illustrates some of the games being played by the DC crowd. There really wasn’t any reason for Republicans to vote for cloture, permitting this bill to come to the floor for debate in the first place, but now that we’re stuck with this process, we ought to know who is doing what. She takes careful measure of the bill, stating simply:
“There are plenty of other commonsense solutions, but this bill isn’t about fixing problems; it’s about amnesty at all costs.”
In this allegation, there can be no doubt. So intent are these Senators to pass amnesty “at all costs” that they are willing to wheel and deal, but you should know as I have reported and she has identified again, part of this bill is nothing but a load of pork to be fed to the permanent political class who will trade their votes for goodies, including the bipartisan cabal of Senators from her own state:
“Just like they did for Obamacare, the permanent political class is sugaring this bill with one goody after another to entice certain senators to vote for it. Look no further than page 983 of the bill, which contains a special visa exemption for foreign seafood workers in the 49th state despite huge unemployment numbers in the American workforce. This is obviously a hidden favor designed to buy the votes of Alaska Senators Murkowski and Begich.”
One thing among many to be admired about Sarah Palin is her insistence on pointing out the con-artists in her own party. Few politicians will do such a thing, but she’s been doing so since she was the mayor of Wasilla, AK. It’s heartening to see her continue this fight, even as one realizes with sadness the fact that when it comes to corruption, there’s no end in sight, but Gov. Palin offers us many reasons for hope, and she implores the grass-roots to rise up against this horrible bill:
“It’s time for concerned Americans to flood our legislators’ phone lines with the input they need to hear from We the People. Join the mama grizzlies who are rearing up tirelessly to swat away false claims that amnesty is a good thing. Michelle Malkin rightly said the issue is not secure the border first, it’s “secure the border. Period.””
Amen. In the end, she reminds politicians of that which we must not forget, win, lose or draw on this particular issue:
“And 2014 is just around the corner.”
So it is, and we’ll be there too. You betcha!
I readily admit that what makes me less-inclined to be a part of the Republican Party is that all too often, I believe that institution abandons reason for the sake of politics. Too often, I find that these avenues of departure occur on issues in which it seems to me that the party is more interested in getting votes by superficial causes than by doing the harder worker of reasoning with would-be supporters. I tend to have some very libertarian ideas in such fields as economics, in which I believe the best answer is remove government as an influence, for better or worse(as it’s almost always the latter,) from every economic consideration. In this context, it’s easy to understand why I have some significant sympathies with libertarians, because I believe the freedom to choose in a market, rightly or wrongly, and the opportunity from those choices to profit or lose, is as fundamental to human progress as any virtue that has ever existed in human history. Some libertarians over-extend this argument and the best example of this over-extended idea is the fixation some libertarians seem to have with easy immigration and open borders, ignoring all the problems accompanying such ideas, to the extent that the contradictions explicit in their proposals seem to be invisible to them.
I believe in rational self-interest, a notion perhaps best explained by author and philosopher Ayn Rand, and I am hardly alone in my favorable impression of her ideas on that subject. Many libertarians and advocates of reason will reference her works on the subject because of the power of her logic to persuade. The problem arises, however, when some advocates of a free market go so far afield in their wide-eyed insistence that markets and people be perfectly free that they abandon reason in its material implementations. Immigration is one such issue, and to shed some light on where I think the disconnect occurs or how the problems become invisible to advocates, I’d prefer to address this in the sense of a study in the rational self-interest with which libertarians are generally concerned. I noted today that one writer who I read from time to time had decided to attack Sarah Palin, and specifically, among all the more laughable claims, he seemed most displeased with her stance on the immigration reform bill. Wrote Reason Editor Nick Gillespie over at TheDailyBeast:
Palin herself has sneered at immigration reform, dismissing pending Senate legislation as “a pandering, rewarding-the-rule-breakers, still-no-border-security, special-interest-written amnesty bill.”
Far be it from me to let Mr. Gillespie in on a guarded state secret, but “a pandering, rewarding-the-rule-breakers, still-no-border-security, special-interest-written amnesty bill” is the most precisely accurate description of the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” or “Gang-of-Eight” bill I’ve yet read. This legislation is being pushed as the way to save the Republican Party, by ostensibly enticing more Hispanics to vote for GOP candidates, therefore meeting the precise definition of pandering. The bill ultimately lets people cut in line, despite having broken our laws. It fails to secure the borders as has been promised since 1986. It was created in a devil’s brew of deal-making between the unions and the Chamber of Commerce, for Heaven’s sake. In all respects, it is precisely as Gov. Palin described it. In today’s article, Gillespie goes on to take numerous cheap-shots at Palin, but given the issues of the day, and Gillespie’s distinctly libertarian views, particularly on immigration, I couldn’t resist the opportunity to address this issue. Gillespie is a forceful advocate for libertarian positions, and is particularly adamant in his views on open borders and liberal immigration policies. His article today seemed as though it needed an FEC disclaimer because it read like a campaign advertisement for Rand Paul and also Justin Amash, two Republicans with decidedly libertarian viewpoints.
Nick Gillespie would tell you that he is an opponent of collectivism. I too am an opponent of collectivism, but as Rand properly noted, I recognize that there are certain facets of human interaction for which government is the only rational answer. We know governments simply cannot allocate wealth as efficiently or as honestly as a free market, so that government’s sole role in the field ought to be reduced to that of a referee. That’s why we have a court system complete with all the possible avenues of civil redress and relief. We know also that the notion of a collectivized defense is probably the only rational way in which to protect one’s nation against foreign attackers, since we likewise recognize that while we may mean no harm to others, we can’t count on that as a driving motive behind the policies of other nations. In short, we know that there are legitimate roles for government, but that much as our founders would have explained it, those roles are definite and limited.
After all, a nation is but a collection of persons, bound by the geographic description of a region, and each of those persons is entitled to a natural right of self-defense, and property, along with a general pursuit of happiness. Together, they have an aggregated right to those same ends, so that it is only natural that they should decide the boundaries of their nation, and how they will be enforced. A nation-state is exclusionary by design, the very object of its creation as an institution being the limiting of who may enter, and under what conditions. National boundaries exist to create a delineation, so that a person may know that as he moves from one nation to the next, one is bound by the laws of the jurisdiction to which one has entered.
Libertarians will scream at me here, arguing that every person on the planet ought to be as free(or more so) than had been the residents of the United States. While I agree in principle, what I know about the world tells me this can never be the case. There are no Utopias to be found here. Not even Rand’s Galt’s Gulch can be made on Earth, because there will always and forever be people who choose the shortcuts, the paths of least resistance, and the desire to dominate their fellow man. We may not like it, and we may wish we could create some sort of Heaven on Earth, but it will never be, whether proposed by the statists or the libertarians.
This being the case, any organization of people uniting to build a country and creating its laws to guarantee the rights of its residents ought to carefully guard that nation. It must be guarded against invasion and attack, and its quality of life must be guarded to the benefit of those paying for all of this protection. The libertarian mindset is that we must extend our liberties to all humanity through a permissive immigration policy while improving free trade across borders. In this way, they surmise, it is possible to elevate many people’s lives, both immigrant and native-born, simply permitting them to come and partake of the same liberty current residents enjoy. Lovely though it may sound, however, this is at odds with all human experience on the subject, and offers no real hope to those actually deserving to enter.
The object of any nation’s immigration policy ought to be simple, and it’s a construct much like the justification for a national defense: How does a given immigrant’s entry comport with the collectivized interests of the nation at large? If this is the standard, and it should be, then we would permit many more immigrants from Asia and Europe, and many fewer from Central and South America. You see, it is right to ask of immigrants: “What do you bring to the party?” The sort of indiscriminate open-borders notions held by many libertarians would destroy the very thing they had hoped to extend to millions more humans. It is this central contradiction, this hole in their reasoning, that damns their ideas on the subject as the child-like tantrums of a dream made of rainbows and unicorns interrupted by the intercession of reality. There’s nothing wrong with such dreams, but once one wakes up to confront reality, it’s time to reconsider.
How much evidence does one need to demonstrate that not every person entering the United States shares in those visions of Utopia? If a nation does not control its borders, how is it to discern among the many entrees, or who among them will contribute to or detract from the quality and standard of living in the country? I live in Texas, a border state that has seen its share of tragedies born of those who made it into this country without proper vetting. Scarcely a day goes by without a story in the press about some illegal immigrant who has inflicted untold suffering on our residents. The clear point in all of this is that we have every manner of rational self-interest as individuals, but also aggregated as a nation, to ensure to the degree possible that those who come to our shores will be contributors rather than burdens.
I well understand the trials and tribulations of legal immigrants, inasmuch as my own spouse is an immigrant to this nation. She has worked continuously for twenty-two of the twenty-three years she has resided in the US, making her a net taxpayer by a wide margin and providing little in the way of burdens upon the public, by way of her use of the roads and bridges of our state for which she is also taxed. She creates economic activity by virtue of the expenditures of her earnings, and in point of fact, has worked two jobs for most of the last decade. In addition, she works the farm, and has raised a child who is well on her way to likewise becoming a productive American. I understand immigration, because particularly, my mother’s family was one of poor, hard-working immigrants who toiled endlessly to scratch their way to something approximating economic stability. Some immigrants come here precisely for the economic opportunities, with a firmly-held work ethic and a love for their adoptive country, but this does not nearly describe all of them.
Sadly, in too many cases, immigrants who come to the United States not to partake of our liberty and our relative prosperity by contributing to it, but instead by finding ways to skim and scam from it. How many now come expressly for welfare benefits? How many come to engage in drug or human trafficking? How many come solely for the attractions of a society ripe for the pillaging? Surely, the latter do not wish to “come out of the shadows” in any event. When my wife filed all of her immigration paperwork, one of the things I had to file was a statement of financial responsibility, stating that I would not permit her to become a burden on the government. I always wondered how it could be that so many recent immigrants could apply for and gain access to welfare-state benefits with laws on the books that would seem, on the surface, to make that illegal. The answer should have been obvious to me: Children.
The children born to immigrants are citizens under current US law. This citizenship entitles them to all the benefits available as part of our welfare systems. Health-care, food-stamps, and all the other provisions of the welfare-state are available to the American-born children of recent immigrants. Are we going to provide Section 8 housing for the children but force Ma and Pa to live on the streets? Are we going to provide food assistance to the kids while insisting that Mom and Dad do without? Simply put, if the benefits sufficient to feed a number of children are dispensed on the basis of their needs alone, it will be sufficient food to also care for the parents if they’re smart shoppers. In this way, the alleged barrier to welfare benefits for immigrants is bypassed or mooted.
I don’t blame immigrants for seeking out and taking advantage of benefits we offer. I simply believe we should not offer them, but I wouldn’t limit that proscription only to immigrants. Our vast welfare state is an enormous magnet, and one that permits some very unsavory characters to make their way to the US both illegally, and legally, as we have seen in the case of the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston. The truth is that a liberal welfare state is wholly incompatible with a liberal immigration policy, as the experience of post-war Europe has demonstrated. This is because those immigrants will tend to change the culture and the polity of their new country at a rate faster than the subject culture can tolerate, particularly when drawn in all the faster by liberal welfare-state offerings.
I also note that for all their wistful pondering over the benefits of an open border, such advocates seem to be all one-way in their thinking. Why is it that this spreading of liberty must occur solely through immigration to this country? Why aren’t the libertarians emigrating, so zealously desirous to see all men free, that they must be willing to take their message to countries like Venezuela and Mexico? Surely, if only they can convince the governments of these third-world nation-states, they could prevail upon the leaders in those stricken countries to simply make their residents free. No? No takers? I suspect not many libertarians are ready to pack their bags for that journey, and with good reason: They wouldn’t stand a chance in Hell.
What gave the United States its edge in development and prosperity was not immigration, as Jeb Bush would have you believe. Instead, it was a set of ideals and beliefs taken nearly to their logical conclusion that had set the stage for the American explosion. It was not the immigrants alone, because the industrial revolution had commenced well before the great waves of immigrants at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries. The growth of American prosperity had progressed with the extension of freedom. Those early 20th century immigrants were indoctrinated rapidly in American history and culture, and they quickly blended into the great melting pot, further driving the growth of prosperity. Still, they brought with them some bad things too, including pieces of a polity that preferred collectivism, and it was out of this forge that the progressive era was born.
Most of the ideas of the progressive era were really European ideas. Margaret Sanger’s eugenics were well-received in Europe, and one wonders if with his fixation on the fertility of immigrants, Jeb Bush may be a fan. He certainly is in the progressive mold, after all. The point to understand, however, is that when the waves of European immigrants came to the United States, they had an immediate effect on the politics of the nation, both by force of their numbers, and by virtue of their political beliefs, then imported with them to their new home. This will be true of any immigrants in any age, but now, we face a threat of socialism. Some form of statism is dominant in virtually every nation from which we receive immigrants, and yet we do not hesitate even long enough to ask what cultural norms, beliefs, practices, and politics they will bring with them. This is a tragic error.
If the United States is or had been the greatest and freest nation on the planet, then it had owed to the foundation laid by our earliest immigrants, our founders and framers. To the degree its polity has changed, it owes in some large measure to the influx of immigrants. My question to libertarians is whether they believe it is possible to import so many souls born to tyranny and despotism without changing the nation for the worse. The one hopeful sign is that immigrants are, after all, the people who fled, whether for political or economic reasons, but if the greater number is for the latter, we cannot say with any surety how well they will reinforce the ideals that had built this country. Some years, perhaps decades hence, when some dozens of millions of new immigrants will have converted this country to just another third-world Republic, will the libertarians who insist now on open borders and liberal immigration policies likewise insist that native-born Americans be permitted to flee? If so, to where?
The United States of America has grown and prospered because for the most part, until the last half century, we had taken great care most of the time as to who could come and claim their bona fides as Americans, and under which conditions they could do so. The immigration bill now in process takes no such care, in fact discarding many provisions that might have helped in preventing our eventual collapse under the weight of an immigrant-heavy welfare-state. It’s time for libertarians to wake up, shake off the unicorns and rainbows of their perfect dreams, and realize that there is more at stake than some tortured notion of ideological consistency, of which I am generally myself a big fan. Sometimes, the plane on which one must remain consistent is a good deal more obvious, and this case is one of those: The United States, in order to remain a country into which any would willingly immigrate must remain a country of freedom and opportunity, but if we don’t first protect the culture that had created that freedom and opportunity, those virtues will rapidly diminish and die. Two decades hence, living in a Venezuela-like paradigm, lost in the wild places between totalitarianism and anarchy, it will be of slim consolation to the libertarian, open-borders advocate when he sees finally his dreams going up in flames around him.
Time to wake up, Nick.
At Saturday’s session of the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference in Washington DC, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin made some remarks, and among those that prompted the media to go berserk, she said of the potential of US involvement in that conflict that we “should let Allah sort it out.” I actually saw one site on which she was referred to as an “isolationist” for this view, but such claims are laughable given her in-depth understanding of international trade and national security. I saw another site suggesting that she didn’t know what she was talking about, or wasn’t qualified to comment. Either way, it seemed more likely that the sites and authors in question had more trouble with who said it, or how it was said, because I believe the vast majority of Americans probably side with Governor Palin on this issue. Apart from the fact that most Americans haven’t the patience for another middle-eastern military engagement with indistinct goals and a muddled mission, there are some very practical reasons why she is right about all of this. Mostly, it comes down to the fact that it’s a no-win situation for us, because while the horrors of what is going on in Syria is tragic in human terms, nothing the US can do will effect an end to the suffering, instead only adding to it with our own losses.
The reports this past week that the Assad government had crossed Obama’s “red line” on chemical weapons seem not to be as certain or as specific as our engagement should require. There are reports that Sarin nerve gas had been used, and that more than one-hundred had been killed in this manner. If true, it’s an egregious and brutal use of some very insidious weaponry, but it must also be said that if killing one-hundred or more civilians by this manner is a trigger for war, why did it take so long for us to engage Saddam Hussein? In the early years of the Clinton administration, Hussein used precisely this sort of weapon on his own civilians in Southern Iraq.
Advocates of intervention in Syria claim that what we should do is enact a “no fly zone” over that country. They insist that this is as far as we need go, but there are a few problems with this thinking. Russia has recently delivered more advanced surface-to-air missile capability to Syria, meaning that our aircraft would be subject to shoot-down in a much more threatening fashion. Is all of this really worth losing our airmen and our aircraft? I don’t see a rational justification. If this were about defending the United States, our men and women will go to the ends of the Earth in pursuit of our defense, but I know few who think we ought to spend their lives frivolously or as a matter of charity, particularly in a place where we have no particular interests or friends.
The fact is that the so-called “rebels” are simply al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda-backed fighters much like those who took down Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Nobody misses Gaddafi, but as the events at Benghazi last September demonstrate, the volatile nature of an environment only loosely-controlled by provisional governments but dominated on the ground by foreign fighters is not the sort of outcome for which Americans should be fighting.
Bashir Assad is a brutal dictator, but those “rebels” who face him are not much better. We have seen this scenario play out before, and we’re witnessing its aftermath in Libya and Egypt. The attack on our facilities at Benghazi was born of a similar situation, inasmuch as after we provided air cover for the “rebels” in that country, they immediately shifted gears and wanted us out as they began to build their Islamic Republic. In this sense, we have no friends at all, by any definition, so that it’s impossible to understand why we would put Americans’ lives at risk to assist any of them. In this context, it is easy to understand Governor Palin’s sentiment. We don’t have any friends there, no real national security interests, and therefore, no justification for jumping in.
At the same time, the Russians are heavily invested in Syria and the Assad regime. Iran is pledging forces to his defense. Should we really consider placing our already over-stretched forces at risk for this? Do we risk a wider war in the region if some Russian technical advisers are killed in a raid on a surface-to-air missile site? More, if al-Qaeda-connected groups were to take over Syria as they have done in Libya, what will that mean for Israel that must live under the constant threat of Syria. Which is worse for that island of liberty: A neighbor that is predictably antagonistic and dangerous, or a volatile tempest filled with elements that feel no restraint born of relations to Russia or any other major power? I’m not inclined to guess as to how the Israelis might feel about the matter, but I suspect that an al-Qaeda-driven neighborhood is not the most pleasant prospect the Israelis could imagine.
There is one final consideration in all of this, and it goes to the absolutely detestable leadership we’ve had over the last few years: Americans can hardly trust a foreign policy that has squandered opportunities and lives in the manner that has been the hallmark of the Obama administration. Do we wish to subsidize a foreign policy that is concocted by the likes of Samantha Power? Do we wish to see the United States entangled in yet another quagmire in that region in which we have far too few friends given our more than two decades of exertions? How much treasure has been spent, and how much of our blood has been spilled in the pursuit of policies with only vague platitudes about creating or supporting “democracy?” In which pest-hole has that so far succeeded?
When critics of her remarks launch into their narrow-minded tirades against her alleged lack of foreign policy knowledge, or her supposed “isolationist” views, I can’t help but remember that these same critics would attack Governor Palin whatever her position had been. Instead, her remarks serve as a flashpoint not for their true policy objections, but instead for their unabashed, unremitting hatred of Sarah Palin, the person. When one carefully evaluates the facts on the ground in Syria, the hopelessness of the situation becomes evident, and the foolishness of any American engagement there becomes clear. In Syria, we have no friends, but only enemies, who hate us as much or more than they hate one another. Were we to intercede on behalf of the so-called “rebels,” were they to prevail, we would soon find ourselves under the gun to get out. Most Americans are well beyond fatigued by this procedure, as it has been the trend in all our engagements throughout the Muslim world in the last two decades, so that unless the United States or its interests come under direct threat of some sort from actors in the region, our answer should be as Governor Palin wryly noted: “Let Allah sort it out.”
Governor Palin spoke to the Faith and Freedom Coalition on Saturday in Washington DC. She had a few words on “fertility,” among other topics. Here’s the video, complete with introduction(H/T:Les Grossman):[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMR1GTDVlXk]
What continues to astonish me with all she said in this speech is how the media lines up to attack her. The UK Daily Mail couldn’t wait to run a headline about her “controversial claim” that Syria “should be left for Allah to work out.”
Frankly, that’s only controversial to a slimy, servile leftist press that is itching to get into Syria, and I believe that such an action is neither in our best national security interests nor in the best interests of our uniformed services that are already stretched far too thinly across the globe. Combat as charity must end. This model of intervention as a way to spread our wealth to countries whose residents almost uniformly hate us must stop. Only a bunch of globalist dimwits could find Governor Palin’s remarks on the matter controversial.
The Bushies will hate this speech on that count, but also on her brief mention of “fertility,” as a small jab at Jeb’s foot-in-mouth episode of Friday. Her willingness to take on the immigration reform bill and the Gang-of-Eight who authored it place her in direct opposition to the DC establishment that cannot wait for more instant Americans to use as grease lubricating the treads of advancing big government.
Many of you are Twitter members, but some of you are not, and those who aren’t may not know or even quite realize what all the fuss is about. On Saturday, all the country’s media elites and most-favored-politicians gathered for another iteration of the White House Correspondents Dinner, headlined by none other than Barack Hussein Obama, as is traditional for these events. While the DC elite gathered to laugh and clink glasses, telling bad jokes, the country is burning, and the sad diminution of the nation continues apace, thanks in large measure to the gang of anointed geniuses assembled for the event. Chris Christie was there, and all the fawning celebrities, and it was simply a wondrous display of how in Washington DC, no matter how awful things may be in the rest of the country, and without respect to the endless deprivations outside of their “boomtown,” the show must go on, and in keeping with the tradition of the Obama White House, the party never ends. Then it happened. She happened. Without warning, across the airwaves and through their Twitter feeds, arrived a message that left the tuxedo-clad drooling-class aghast and in shock:
One would have thought that Sarah Palin had thrown a stink-bomb into the room. In a flurry of tweets from the geniuses assembled, and from the throng of leftists on Twitter who saw an opportunity to hurl f-bombs and b-words at Sarah Palin, the shock and awe of the simple statement seemed to leave the whole world atwitter. Yes, in the minutes and hours that followed, the entirety of the Twitter-verse erupted into mass commentary. There were cat-calls of “hypocrisy” from the left, and nasty “Caribou Barbie” and “Trixie Klondike” remarks from the chattering-class, but there was also a fantastic array of Palin-supporters who took delight in the comments, and many an average soul out here in flyover country who remarked that it was nice that somebody, somewhere “got it.” Here’s a favorite:
Whatever you may think of the tweet’s context, timing, or substance, what must we conclude from its reach and impact? After all, many of the critics of the remark spent most of their one-hundred-forty characters explaining in some form that Sarah Palin is “irrelevant.” If that were so, and she means nothing whatever to the powers that be, or to the zombies of the left, why is it that each and every time she Tweets the first little thing, they descend upon her like the inexorable march of the undead on a feeding frenzy? In point of fact, if she were nearly so “irrelevant” as they seem to contend, she would receive none of these responses, positive or negative. There wouldn’t be tens of thousands of tweets and re-tweets in support of her message, and there surely wouldn’t be the degree or extent of the negative backlash against her. Simply put, however, I think it’s safe to say that some of the negative responses from the chattering class were an expression of envy, constituting a desperate attempt to find relevancy of their own.
For those who wonder about the real power of Sarah Palin, it is evinced by the uproar that invariably follows her remarks on Twitter. For those confused by all of the uproar, having believed the media meme that Sarah Palin is irrelevant, this must come as a complete surprise. How could anybody so “irrelevant” garner this reaction by what is an otherwise pretty standard bit of Twitter commentary? Was it her use of the term “Assclowns?” Seems fitting, given her target. After all, had one of us tweeted this remark, it would likely fall into the vast chasm of Twitter history never to be seen or read again, but it is the fact that she tweeted it, and that she dared comment on the drooling glitterati at the White House Correspondents Dinner that made it into a Twitter event. Say what you will about Sarah Palin, but don’t believe the spin: “Irrelevant” is not a word that applies, and the ongoing pursuit by the walking dead on Twitter proves it.
Meanwhile, fans, supporters, and average common-sense Americans are laughing in sheer delight, and at this moment, the re-tweeting of her remark continues unabated.
A new SarahPAC video launched as a call to political action for conservatives and independents. The video includes a number of highlights of her recent CPAC speech, and is another confirmation that despite the wishes of the lamestream media, Governor Palin isn’t going away as she gears-up for the 2014 fight. As the video explains, there are many important elections in 2014, and conservatives cannot afford to take a wait-and-see approach. If the Democrats succeed in taking over the House, Obama’s last two years will be a virtual slaughter. More, there is still an opportunity to take the Senate, and to strengthen it with real conservatives, perhaps sending some of the RINO legion home. It’s clear from this video that Governor Palin will remain a force for change in the Republican party, and many grass-roots conservatives hope she will succeed. H/T Tony Lee at Breitbart, citing the video in his article:[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjPZl18_pio]
After a string of speakers this week who hope one day to be President of the United States, Sarah Palin spoke to a packed house as she explained her vision of the future, and also what conservatives must do to regain electoral success. She was introduced by Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who had been the keynote speaker. Of all the rhetoric to come out of CPAC 2013, it will be this speech that is remembered. Governor Palin reminded conservatives that it is their principles they must abide, and not the political winds of the day, but she also cautioned conservatives to speak to a broader audience, instead of merely preaching to the choir. She also pointed out that rather than abandoning their principles, conservatives should abandon the consultancy that has led the party to so many defeats. As has always been the case, Governor Palin energized the crowd. At a time when conservatives are still reeling from Obama’s re-election, her speech laid out the only rational course conservatives can take in order to rebuild the country. Here’s the video:
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.
If you’ve ever wondered about the motive driving the anti-Palin left, sufferers of Palin Derangement Syndrome(PDS,) or other venom-laden spittle disguised as reporting, wonder no longer. Willing to twist or omit facts, relying instead upon the absolute gullibility of their audiences, their intention is to propagandize by virtue of one-thousand easily discredited cuts, knowing that their less-than-curious audiences will buy almost anything without question or critical analysis. In most cases, the manner in which a supporter of Sarah Palin will defend against such garbage is to first attack the fraudulent author’s propaganda, presenting the facts that negate the false charges leveled by the propagandist involved. The problem is that these people are so despicable that they don’t care if they’re caught lying by the sane world, as they know their Low Information Audiences won’t ever discover the truth. I’m going to do it somewhat differently, because I want you to experience the shock value of knowing the real story before reading the propaganda. For once, you ought to know what it must be like to be Sarah Palin, or anybody else who is attacked in this manner, because having lived reality, it must be shocking to see facts about oneself twisted into such devious propaganda.
Let’s consider a story that had appeared in the Anchorage Daily News, way back in October of 2008, as Sarah Palin was busy campaigning for the office of Vice President with Presidential candidate John McCain. During the previous summer, before Palin had been chosen as McCain’s running mate, an investigation by authorities had concluded with a recommendation by Lt. Gen. Craig Campbell, the state’s military and veterans affairs commissioner that an all-volunteer militia led by Brig. General Thomas Westall, created to assist the Nation Guard, ought to be disarmed of state-owned and provided weapons over potential liability issues for the state. This investigation had stemmed from a complaint filed by a member, Larry Wood, because he felt the militia commander might be issuing arbitrary orders and dismissals to members, he himself having been dismissed for unclear cause by his own account. In short, this was a situation in which responsible Alaska State officials were heading off any potential liability situation for the state. This sort of action is undertaken by any responsible state official who is concerned with making policies and taking decisions consistent with their official mandates. It had been concluded by investigators that the militia had insufficient policies and procedures, such that its control and direction had come into question. The article in the ADN had been: Defense Commander Resigns After Complaints.
If you’re at all like me, you look at the facts of the story, and conclude that the State of Alaska had been concerned there could be some sort of monkey-business going on with the force, known as the 49th Military Police Brigade since 2004, and the state rightly did not wish to take on liability for a force that had not such proper procedures and policies in place to deal with personnel matters, or much of anything. Nobody was criminally sanctioned, or in any way prosecuted, but the state simply decided that they could not permit this force to be armed in its name any longer. That’s not so unusual, and bluntly, no public official wants a poorly-organized force armed with State authority to carry on much of anything in an official capacity. Who could blame either Lt. General Campbell, or Governor Sarah Palin for taking what can only be categorized as perfectly natural and responsible actions? Well, there is somebody, and predictably, that somebody is a professional propagandist of the organized left.
Now that you’ve read through the originating story, and are at least familiar with the facts of the case, I now wish to present to you the fantastic tale of Palin anti-gun hypocrisy cobbled together by certified PDS sufferer Sarah Jones, of Politicususa. If ever you have wondered what it is like to be Sarah Palin, imagine if you will what one must feel when reading the following nonsensical, inane and distorted headline, knowing what you already do:
The first thing that should grab you is that the story changed title, becoming more dishonest, thereby venting more rage in Sarah Palin’s direction. Examing the URL of the story tells the tale. Notice that the author changed the label of the disarmed group from “Defense Force” to “Civil Militia” in order to cause readers to wonder if Palin had disarmed ordinary citizens. Titles have been:
- Tea Party Darling Sarah Palin Disarmed Alaska State Defense Force
- The Right Calls Obama a Dictator, but Sarah Palin Disarmed the Alaska Civil Militia
Given the nature of the website in question, we might well expect the next mutation of the title to be:
- Palin Takes Guns from Alaska Schoolhouse Defense League While Right Wing Racist NRA Klansmen Cheer
Don’t laugh. I expect that title to appear at any time. Part and parcel of that site’s schtick is to paint all conservatives, but particularly Sarah Palin, with the broadly damning brushes of racism, “extremism,” violence and hypocrisy. These are pathologically broken individuals, based on the content of their stories, but fortunately, only what must be considered a “Low Information Voter” could possibly believe the nonsense authored there.
The second thing one ought to notice is that the story cites the Anchorage Daily News story, but never provides a link to it anywhere in the text of the story, instead requiring readers to accept the premise and the facts as outlined in the Sarah Jones piece. The problem is that the Jones piece constructs an entirely fictitious narrative, positioning Governor Sarah Palin “disarming the militia,” against Sarah Palin the citizen, who is an advocate for gun rights and a longtime gun owner as well as lifetime member of the NRA, a fact they shamelessly mock. The object is to discredit Governor Palin by presenting her as a hypocrite, an accusation that can stand only if you believe the dishonest narrative presented by the Jones hit-piece. Since Jones provides no links to source materials, it’s easy to conclude that she had hoped she could simply create a believable impression and that her audience of dullard leftists would lap it up like kittens at a milk-bowl.
“All you need to do in order to represent second amendment “freedom” is pose with guns and put cross hairs on your opponents. You can disarm the militia in your state without DESTROYING THE CONSTITUTION so long as you have an “R” after your name. Also, posing while leaning on the flag in short shorts helps (warning: do not try this as a Democrat or you will be branded a hater of the troops and an enemy of freedom).”
Naturally, the posting features an image of Governor Palin with a gun, and the comments section is full of those self-same dullards posting their continued vile attacks against Sarah Palin, based on their hatred created by previous propaganda precisely of the sort that includes the very dishonest article on which they are commenting. Don’t bother trying to post a response pointing out the dishonesty, or the lack of an actual link to the story, because it will be moderated out of existence, and the parade of dullards will be prevented from ever learning the truth is that Jones has fashioned a whopper disguised as a news story based on contrived narratives and a more than four-year-old routine news story appearing without controversy on the ADN site. By the way, you can fully expect some of the dullards to make their way to this site to castigate me, as well as you. I also expect that at some point, Jones may get wind of this exposure, and she may then edit her story to include the missing link(to the ADN story – no, not her bio,) but I’ve captured the page as was for posterity. Naturally, I’m far from alone in noting the insanity of Politicususa, as the discussion among these Freepers has witnessed.
Neither does it enter the Palin-hating minds that while carrying out what is intended to be a propaganda piece about Sarah Palin’s mythical hypocrisy on guns, it might be a good idea to at least pretend they wouldn’t hate her if she had taken one position or the other according to their fantasies. Sadly, they at once bash her for being an alleged “gun-grabber” while also bashing her for being a “gun nut,” if you follow the gist of their bizarre tale. This reveals the other truth about this twisted crew of leftist lie-volcanoes: There exists no circumstance in which they would not criticize Governor Palin, irrespective of her position on an issue, or the actions she had taken. No, they will hate her equally, every time, without fail. Some decades from now, when Sarah Palin leaves the stage for good as must we all, these whack-jobs or their brain-addled philosophical offspring will be there to dump on her. It’s the way they roll, and it’s merely evidence of another notion I’ve accepted as a truism for quite a long while: Liberalism and sanity are mutually exclusive frames of mind.
Now, returning to my thesis, imagine you’re Governor Palin, more than four years after the fact, running into this absurd rearrangement and invention of alleged “facts” about you. What are we to conclude? I realize Governor Palin is an extraordinary woman, with amazing strength and resilience even in the face of this kind of garbage, but to realize that people actually concoct such junk, from the pits of the irrational hatred they bear in their souls, it must be disconcerting at the least to know that some who hate you do so with such fervor that they cannot permit even a glimpse of the truth about you to be known. This particular Jones article was pointed out to me by a Facebook friend, in whose time-line it had mysteriously appeared, under the innocuous heading: “News about Sarah Palin.” I’m not in the habit of polluting my brain with the sort of garbage that is produced daily by the cadre of leftist PDS-ers, never mind the bile-raising zoo at Politicususa, where decent people go only to see how the animals live, but I think it’s time for the rest of us to once again pick up some slack in opposition to it. What such stories reveal about Sarah Palin is absolutely nothing, save only her incredible endurance, but what it reveals about the drones of the left is a pathological hatred of reality so intense that they feel driven to create their own.
Liberalism is a psychological disorder after all.
Sarah Steelman, the candidate for Senate in Missouri who was defeated in a multi-candidate election in the primaries had some a few words to say about the NRSC(National Republican Senatorial Committee) and the failures in recapturing the Senate in 2012. She points out accurately that the the only Senate pick-up by Republicans was Deb Fischer, a candidate backed and endorsed by Sarah Palin. Steelman herself a candidate for Senate in 2012, had Palin’s backing in the primary, finishing behind Todd Akin who went on to blow any chance of winning by making a widely reported remark about “legitimate rape.” Akin should have exited the race at that point, because whatever his meaning, he was going to be shouted down by the left and propagandized to the hilt. Steelman chose to focus on John Cornyn and the NRSC in this segment because of the tendency by the NRSC to back people who are a good fit for the Republican country club sort that populates the Senate. She also had an aside for Governor Romney. View the video below, H/T Sarahnettoo:
We’ve known for some time that US foreign policy has become the instrument by which America has been ceding its interests around the globe, but what the response of President Obama and his State Department to attacks on US personnel in Libya reveals is a sickness that pervades this administration from top to bottom. We have seen administrations in the past that have failed to put America’s interests first in our global relations, but it is clear from the record that Obama’s foreign policy consists of a single maxim: “America Last.” This nightmarish projection of the dreams of Obama’s father onto American foreign policy is not merely wrong-headed, or ill-conceived, but instead plainly and virulently anti-American. At every turn, Obama and his minions place the interests, the safety, and the security of the American people dead last, and the media scurries to cover it up. Examining what’s happened in Libya and around the Middle East, it is impossible to conclude that the results were accidental. The events we’re witnessing are the direct result of a policy that puts America last, at home, and around the world, and Barack Obama is that policy’s author.
On September 11th, 2012, American consulates and embassies came under attack by radical, militant Islamists. In Benghazi, our ambassador to the nation of Libya, Chris Stevens was murdered, his life poached by murderous thugs who were bent on attacking Americans on the eleventh anniversary of the attacks of 9/11/2001. Outside the consulate, the chant “Take a picture, Obama, we are all Osama,” could be heard, and while Americans were under attack, the first assumption the State Department made about the motives of the attackers was that it had been a backlash against an anti-Islamic film aimed at exposing the crimes of Islam against the Coptic Christians of Egypt.
This is not merely naive, but foolish. In what is clearly a coordinated effort to attack US possessions and personnel, our ambassador was beaten and killed, dying of “severe asphyxia.” Meanwhile, Barack Obama does nothing, but as bad as that is, I am astonished by Hillary Clinton’s naive remarks in a statement released in the aftermath of the attacks:
“How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction? This question reflects just how complicated and, at times, how confounding the world can be.”
These are the words of the Secretary of State of the United States of America? A few things come immediately to mind: When many responsible Americans, myself among them, warned that the so-called “Arab Spring” was a farce, we were mocked as “reactionary” and “conspiracy theorists.” When we looked on in horror as Senator McCain(R-AZ) went to Libya, and actively supported the imposition of a no fly zone in Libya, many were horrified because all the signs were present that we had climbed into bed with al Qaeda and affiliate organizations. Secretary Clinton’s advancement of the “Arab Spring” and “Democracy Movement” notions of the Obama administration are simply deplorable, and this question posed as a rhetorical device by Clinton simply serve to demonstrate the point that she should resign in disgrace.
Naturally, in her long and rambling statement, she expressed appropriate grief at out losses in Libya, but then she began the excuse-making on behalf of Libya:
“But we must be clear-eyed, even in our grief. This was an attack by a small and savage group – not the people or Government of Libya. Everywhere Chris and his team went in Libya, in a country scarred by war and tyranny, they were hailed as friends and partners. And when the attack came yesterday, Libyans stood and fought to defend our post.”
This is disgraceful. It is true that Libyan security teams moved our consular staff, but what Mrs. Clinton doesn’t state here is that it was these very Libyans who told the militants where they had moved our people, essentially giving them up. Meanwhile, as of this writing, there are al Qaeda flags flying over at least two US facilities in the Middle East, and other facilities are now under attack, including Yemen, and al-Jazeera is propagandizing as flags are burned in Tunisia. The consulate in Berlin has been evacuated because of a suspicious package. Iraqi militants are threatening, and new attacks have been launched on US facilities in Cairo, Egypt. The Examiner is now reporting that Ambassador Stevens was raped before he was murdered.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama is too busy to attend security and intelligence briefings, since he can’t miss a fund-raiser anywhere. I find it simply mind-numbing that our consular staff in Libya is left to issue a statement or that Hillary Clinton is issuing statements, while Barack Obama appears long enough to say a few words, takes no questions, and walks away. “The buck stops here” apparently doesn’t apply to President Obama, but I have some questions:
- Why wasn’t a coordinated attack of some sort on the 11th of September anticipated by the Obama administration?
- Why wasn’t security augmented before the attacks?
- When Ayman al-Zawahiri issued a statement a urging Muslims to rise up and attack Americans around the world, why didn’t this administration react to the danger?
- Why hasn’t President Obama attended all the security and intelligence briefings?
- Why is this President still playing patty-cakes with the Muslim Brotherhood in the West Wing of the White House?
Rather than seeking answers to these questions, the American press has largely gone into a protective mode, giving aid and comfort to President Obama, instead going after Mitt Romney by pretending there had been some gaffe by virtue of his statements on this matter. The truth of the matter is that these had been some of the finest moments of what has been a mostly lackluster campaign by Team Romney.
Ladies and gentlemen, the United States is once again under attack, and as the acts of war against us accumulate at consulates and embassies around the globe, we need a President who is willing to take on the threats arrayed against us. Governor Sarah Palin made a strong statement on Wednesday, rebuking the intolerably useless under-reaction of the Obama administration. It’s clear that Barack Obama isn’t going to stand up for America, her interests, or even her citizens serving abroad. There’s something fundamentally broken with Barack Obama’s worldview that would permit him to continue on his current course in light of all that has happened. We have a man in the White House who is seeking to damage the country, and through his inaction in the face of mayhem and murder is abetting the enemies of America. Barack Obama should heed now his own advice to Hosni Mubarak. Speaking of Egypt, Obama said: “[the transition] must be meaningful, it must be peaceful and it must begin now.”
Amen. Go home, Mr. Obama…and take Mrs. Clinton with you.
If you’re not aware of Morton Blackwell’s letter to RNC delegates, I suggest strongly that you read it here. As the controversy continues, there was on Monday night a so-called “compromise” floated that would strike Rule 15, the objectionable rule that would permit the party to dominate the State parties, but hidden behind all of this was the unchanged rule 12, that would permit the Party to change the rules at will. In other words, they were willing to pull back the most obviously objectionable rule now, but maintain the rule that is a complete abomination in the long run. This sort of trick is precisely the kind of thing we have come to expect from Democrats, and from the Obama administration. As usual, Michelle Malkin is doing great work on keeping us updated on the state of all of this, but I must tell you that your input is required. Read Mr. Blackwell’s letter. Act accordingly. (RAISE HELL!)
If the GOP establishment has its way, our voices will be muffled and silenced.
“We have to remember that this election is not just about replacing the party in power. It’s about who and what we replace it with. Grassroots conservatives know this. Without the energy and wisdom of the grassroots, the GOP would not have had the historic 2010 electoral victories. That’s why the controversial rule change being debated at the RNC convention right now is so very disappointing. It’s a direct attack on grassroots activists by the GOP establishment, and it must be rejected. Please follow the link to Michelle Malkin’s article about this.”
As I reported, the Republican establishment seems to be obsessed with dominating the grass roots, and this calls into question the future of the Republican Party. Rule 12 is Mitt Romney’s insurance policy against a primary challenge in 2016 if he moves too far to the left. What leverage will the grass roots have if he were to appoint another Harriet Miers or to go along with some sort of modified Obama-care? None. It’s also the Bush Clan’s insurance policy if Romney fails in 2012. Any way you look at this, it’s all about controlling the party from the smoke-filled rooms of political consultancy in Washington DC, leaving you in the dark as they feed you manure. The GOP establishment prefers mushrooms. It’s our job to force them into the light.
Update(8/28/2012 6:45am): Apparently, not satisfied with having tried to rig this, the establishment tried another dirty trick. They sent details of the alleged compromise over rule 15/16 to the Hearst papers (via the Houston Chronicle,) but omitted the discussion of rule 12. This was done to trick people into believing that the controversy was over, but it isn’t over. As long as rule 12 remains, the truth is that they will retain the ability to change the rules at any time.
Update(8/28/2012 7:15am):The truly unseemly part of this is the Chronicle’s attempt to refer to only “the Texas delegation” and “the Ron Paul delegates.” There is much more involved in this than a few wild-eyed Ron Paul supporters. Washington (state) is supporting the minority report opposed to rule 12 also, and the possibility of an all-out floor fight continues. This is simply astonishing. They are hoping by associating this solely with Ron Paul supporters, you’ll shrug it off and walk away. The fact is that rule 12 is a problem whomever you support, now or in the future, in 2016, and in perpetuity.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan selected George H.W. Bush as his running mate. The electorate yawned. In 1988, George H.W. Bush selected Dan Quayle as his running mate. Again, the electorate was unmoved. In 2000, when George W. Bush selected Dick Cheney as his running mate, there was some discussion about the importance of Cheney, but most shrugged and went on. In 1996, and again in 2008, but also now in 2012, everybody was really excited about the running mate selections. In 1996, Bob Dole’s pick of Jack Kemp was going to rescue the Kansas Senator’s campaign. In 2008, John McCain wisely chose a woman who had the ability to move the base, though his own staff seemed to sabotage him. This bit of historical truth should be considered carefully as the Republican party faithful prepare to descend on Tampa for their Presidential nominating convention. In 2012, Mitt Romney has chosen Paul Ryan in an attempt to ignite the base, but I’d like you to consider the nature of the picks and their relative importance to their respective campaigns, and what they confess to the electorate about their candidates: Only when the party’s nominee is a weak candidate does the Vice Presidential pick matter much at all.
The elder Bush could have won having picked Mickey Mouse when running against Michael Dukakis in 1988, and Ronald Reagan could have picked Caspar Milquetoast in 1980(and in fact, some say he did.) The salient point to take away from the excitement about the Vice Presidential pick by Mitt Romney isn’t that he chose Paul Ryan, so much as it is the fact that it matters who he picked. Think about it: Vice Presidential picks only matter when the Presidential candidate is desperately weak. It’s why Biden doesn’t matter. What this entire episode should tell you is what most conservatives will have known already: Just as in 2008, we have a weak presidential candidate, and the importance of the Vice Presidential pick has grown only by way of compensation.
Consider the pressure brought to bear on Sarah Palin in 2008. She had the unenviable chore of trying to excite a base that was mostly disgusted with John McCain. The truth of the matter is that without Gov. Palin on the ticket, McCain would have lost by larger margins. His own campaign’s staff, primarily Steve Schmidt, concocted a notion to suspend the campaign to deal with the financial crisis. This action sank McCain, but Palin, being the fighter and champion of all things America refused to yield and almost rescued McCain from his own staff. Almost. The problem is that Sarah Palin shouldn’t have mattered so much. The only reason she did is because McCain himself was such a terrible candidate. There will be those who become angered with me for stating it this bluntly, but if Sarah Palin mattered so much, it meant also that McCain himself mattered too little.
Observe the hysteria of Saturday morning after it went out via the Romney-app that Paul Ryan would be the pick. Consider that there had been such an application for smart-phones at all. What does this tell you about the relative importance of the Romney VP pick? It was crucial. It’s Romney’s last big push to bring resistant conservatives along, and this matters. It doesn’t matter, however, because it’s a good choice or bad choice, but only because the fact that it matters at all reflects the weakness of the top of the ticket. I would ask my conservative and Republican friends, preparing to head to Tampa, Florida in body or spirit for the RNC convention: If the VP pick matters this much, isn’t there still time to pick a new ticket? The truth is that there is time, but the problem is that few will think outside of the box Romney has constructed for them. Most will accept this Vice Presidential pick with unthinking adulation, but we conservatives really must elevate our game if we are going to rescue the country.
The importance of the VP selection in some elections signifies a sort of confession, not only by the campaign, but also by the electorate, about their general assessment of the candidate in question. Mitt Romney’s VP pick matters only because there are so many lingering, long-held doubts about Romney himself. The same was true of McCain in 2008, and we shouldn’t expect a different result. When you consider the Republican presidential nominees of the last thirty-two years, the only time a Vice Presidential pick mattered to any great degree had been instances when the party’s nominee was desperately weak vis-à-vis the competition. In each of those cases, Republicans lost the election. In 2000, when Cheney had mattered more than a little, and Lieberman had mattered also, it was predictable that we would see a campaign fought out between two inferior candidates, with the victor being the candidate whose VP pick mattered least. Advantage Bush.
This should give conservatives and Republicans a moment of pause. History’s formula is clear: If the VP pick matters, it is only because the Presidential nominee is weak, and weak nominees generally beget defeat. Jack Kemp was a great guy, and Sarah Palin really is a phenomenon, and Paul Ryan seems to be a decent politician, so this isn’t really about them, as the bottom of their respective tickets. It’s about the top of the ticket, and the problem is the same in all three cases. When there comes to be this much focus on who the Vice Presidential candidate will be, it is as good as a confession by the campaign and also by the electorate on the weakness of the top of the ticket. Republicans may go to Tampa with their heads in the clouds if they like, buoyed by the selection of Paul Ryan, but if you’re serious about winning, you’ll take the time to confess at least to yourself what all of this chatter of the importance of the VP pick really means. It isn’t good.
Governor Palin appeared on Fox with Eric Bolling to talk about the Ted Cruz victory, as well as other matters. Bolling asked her about a remark by lobbyist and former Senator Bob Bennett(R-UT) who had said that the “Tea Party wave is receding.” Gov. Palin responded: “Bless his heart, he’s a little out of touch… Bolling also asked Governor Palin about the convention, and she said “I just want to help,” but that “sometimes, helping means you step aside,” apparently meaning that Governor Palin won’t be part of the convention as a speaker, at least as it stands. Here’s the video, courtesy of the Barracuda Brigade: