Posts Tagged ‘Alaska’
Good article appearing on RedState. My only beef is the claim that Obama is full of “ethanol,” when we all ought to know Obama is actually full of methane (I’m guessing Horowitz was just being polite).
Obama’s Oil Drilling Subterfuge
We’ve been here before.
Posted by Daniel Horowitz (Profile)
Monday, May 16th at 7:48AM EDT
Many liberals in the media are expressing shock over Obama’s apparent willingness to increase oil production. We all know that he is full of …, I mean ethanol, and they do too.
Those of you who were befuddled at the news that Obama will ‘expand drilling’ in Alaska are not missing anything. Obama has pulled this political chicanery a number of times. Whenever a specific proposal that he so adamantly opposes becomes too popular to ignore, he announces his support for it by promising to implement inconsequential reforms. To that end, he declared during his Saturday radio address that he is “directing the Department of Interior to conduct annual lease sales in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve, while respecting sensitive areas, and to speed up the evaluation of oil and gas resources in the mid and south Atlantic”.
So we are to believe that the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and ANWR, all of which are impounded from drilling leases by the administration, are more sensitive than Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve? Caribou, baby, Caribou in ANWR; drill, baby, drill in ANPR? Think again.
Here is the report from The Hill:
President Obama announced Saturday the government would hold annual onshore lease sales in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve; extend the life of leases in the Gulf of Mexico and in some areas off the coast of Alaska for one year; speed up ongoing Interior Department testing in the mid- and south-Atlantic to gauge the level of resources; and establish an interagency task force to coordinate permitting for offshore drilling in Alaska.
The White House is making the policy shifts after taking intense criticism from Republicans in recent weeks over energy policy as gas prices have topped $4 per gallon in some parts of the country.Many of the proposals are incremental expansions of existing policies and had been set in motion prior to Saturday’s announcement. It’s also unclear by how much the plan will increase domestic oil production. (emphasis added)
Once again, Obama is attempting to diffuse disquiet over his anti-energy policies by embracing the opposition through inconsequential and empty promises. He attempted this stratagem earlier this year when he announced wholesale regulatory reform in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. Amidst growing pressure to roll back job killing regulations, Obama announced a momentous effort to “study” onerous regulations. Needless to say, the regulations in the federal register have only grown since his vapid announcement. In fact, he is attempting to regulate every facet of our economy; from the broadband providers to oil refineries, without congressional approval. Nonetheless, he is still studying the problem.
Obama used the same ploy in his State of the Union Address by embracing popular policies, such as a corporate tax cuts and tort reform. We haven’t heard about them since the address and probably never will.
His promise to reform land lease permits and to allow drilling in Alaska is another attempt at subterfuge for the purpose of tamping down the outrage toward his job-killing, anti-growth policies. After all, didn’t the administration oppose all three GOP bills that would implement some of these very changes just last week? House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) released the following statement on Obama’s radio address:
“In the last week, House Republicans passed three bipartisan bills that will create 1.2 million jobs, triple American offshore oil production and generate $840 million in revenue – real action to produce real American energy. It’s ironic that while the White House and Congressional Democrats strongly criticized these efforts, President Obama is now taking tiny baby steps in our direction. The President is finally admitting what Republicans have known all along – that increasing the supply of American energy will help lower prices and create jobs. One weekend address announcing minor policy tinkering, while positive, does not erase the Administration’s long job-destroying record of locking-up America’s energy resources.”
As Drudge observed yesterday, Obama made the exact same pledge over a year ago, immediately preceding his inexorable and unprecedented moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Sadly, the New York Times was credulous enough to believe it and carried water for Obama by headlining a story at that time titled, “Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling for First Time.” That didn’t exactly work out according to plan.
As such, don’t be fooled by this foxhole conversion. His speech does not reflect a newfound obsequious to the will of the American people; he will never abdicate his radical ideology so easily. Moreover, his political appointees at the Department of Energy and Department of Interior will wait for the inevitable lawsuits from environmental legal defense groups to scuttle the plans. That is what the administration did when they blocked Shel Oil from drilling in the Arctic Ocean. The environmentalists are already chomping at the bit. And as is the case with every other proposal, he will encumber any meaningful drilling policies with endless environmental impact studies. It’s akin to Obama’s promises of securing the border, even as his minions at the Department of Homeland Security instruct ICE agents not to apprehend non-criminal aliens. Talk is cheap, Mr. President, and in your case, it is worthless.
Call your members of congress and request that they support H.R. 1777, which would implement comprehensive pro-energy reforms, such as opening ANWR for drilling, streamlining the permit and leasing process, and lawsuit reform (summary and commentary here). Let’s unmask Obama’s fallacious attempt at being pro-energy and make him take a stand against real energy production legislation!
Very good historical presentation of Barack Obama’s blatant dishonesty and lack of any kind of integrity.
If you actually want the domestic drilling that will reduce both short- and long-term oil prices, elect a real conservative for president. One thing is certain: you will NEVER get any kind of relief from Barack Hussein Obama.
We’ve seen it all over the place.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, the mainstream media had what Bernie Goldberg described as a “A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media.” And he backed it up with cold hard facts.
For the last two years, we have had one crude, dishonest and even vile dismissal of the conservative tea party movement. With the most vivid example in my memory being CNN anchor Anderson Cooper saying, “It’s hard to talk when you’re tea-bagging.” Which was a gross, crude sexual pun to describe decent, intelligent people.
The tea party movement was mocked and dismissed by the media until it was obvious they were deliberately lying about the movement; and then the media started to demonize them and label them as racist. Even though in reality the tea party better reflects the racial composition of the country than any other political movement.
We’ve had the mainstream media bombard us with the message that tea party supporters were some kind of ignorant, fanatic, fascist hillbillies and tools of some conservative elite puppetmasters when in actual fact they are actually considerably wealthier and better educated than the population at large.
Joe Miller is a case in point. The Senate candidate from Alaska – who is backed by and who in fact espouses the tea party platform – is not only a West Point graduate, but is also a graduate of Yale Law School. But since those facts refuted the mainstream media narrative about tea partiers as ignorant hillbillies, they were ignored.
There’s the petty vindictive stuff. Such as the TV ad that Christine O’Donnell paid to run on a public channel – and even held a rally timed for its airing – only to have the network “conveniently” forget to run it. Twice. Like “Oops. Sorry. Don’t think for even a second that it’s because government-funded media aren’t in the pocket of liberals, though.”
And there’s the more institutionally biased stuff. Such as the fact that the mainstream media refused to use the word “extremist” to describe anyone on the left, but ONLY used the word to describe conservatives and tea partiers. Which simply proves that there is an institutional ideological leftwing bias across the board. When you turn on or turn the pages of any mainstream media bias, you are simply pumping leftwing bias into your brain.
But all of that, as bad as it is, is nothing compared to the true black cockroach souls of the mainstream media and “journalists” of today.
This story says it all.
News staff from the CBS affiliate KTVA in Anchorage inadvertently left a message on the cell phone of Joe Miller’s campaign spokesperson yesterday. Nick McDermott, the KTVA assignment editor, had just ended a phone call with Miller’s spokesperson but missed the ‘end call’ button on his iPhone.
The conversation between McDermott, and those who are assumed to be other KTVA staff, goes on for about one minutes and 15 seconds. The audio and transcript are below. They seem to conspire to create stories that will harm the election efforts of Miller including looking for registered sex offenders and child molesters who happen to support Miller’s campaign. Then they suggest staging a Rand Paul-type moment where someone attacks Miller.
Not surprising to me. Remember, many journalism students join the profession to make a difference, not to report the news. When they realize they are not making a difference — in this case electing their preferred choice for Alaska’s next senator — they start making up the news.
Big Journalism had the breaking story, and Gov. Sarah Palin let the Fox News Sunday audience know about the story this morning during an interview with Chris Wallace. She called the conspirators “corrupt bastards” (video below) this morning and reminded Americans this is just one example of what it has been like for Joe Miller when the GOP establishment, Democrats, the Washington elites, and the left-wing media machine are all gunning for you.
Written transcript follows…
FEMALE REPORTER: That’s up to you because you have the experience but that’s what I would do…I’d wait until you see who shows up because that indicates we already know something… [Laughter [INAUDIBLE]
FEMALE REPORTER: Child molesters…
MALE REPORTER: Oh yes…Joe Miller’s…uh…get a list of people/campaign workers which one’s the molester [INAUDIBLE]
FEMALE VOICE: You know that of all the people that will show up tonight, at least one of them will be a registered sex offender.[Laughter]
MALE REPORTER: We need to find that one person… [INAUDIBLE]
FEMALE REPORTER: The one thing we can do is ….we won’t know….we won’t know but if there is any sort of chaos whatsoever we can put out a twitter/facebook alert: saying what the… ‘Hey Joe Miller punched at rally.’
FEMALE REPORTER: Kinda like Rand Paul…I like that. [Laughter]
FEMALE REPORTER: That’s a good one.
So reporters from a CBS affiliate made a call to Joe Miller’s campaign, and then these people who are so damn smart (versus all the ignorant hillbillies in the tea party movement) forgot to hang up the phone before plotting to destroy the GOP candidate they had just called. And it was all gloriously caught on air.
Does anyone honestly think any of these people are reporting or covering the political news fairly or honestly?
It’s not enough to call these reporters “leftwing.” They are fascist.
CBS reporters are talking about deliberately seeking out stories that will “frame” Joe Miller as dangerous or unstable to sow seeds of fear in the electorate. It’s a “November Surprise,” only they are looking to somehow create it. And there’s no chance in hell that the Democrat is ever going to face that level of hard-core bias and outright animosity.
Think about this. This incredibly cynical, deceitful, disingenuous and malicious attitude toward conservatives isn’t just happening in San Francisco; it’s happening in Alaska. And Alaska is so conservative that the Democrat is only getting 30% of the vote.
If this kind of shocking media bias against the right is going on in a solidly red state such as Alaska, what is going on in your state? Just how bad is it everywhere else?
As bad as the Democrat Party is, their dishonesty is NOTHING compared to the blatant dishonesty coming from the “journalists” who staff the mainstream media.
They’re supposed to report the truth in an objective, non-partisan manner; instead they look for dirt against conservatives and Republicans.
If the media reported fairly and honestly, we’d be talking about Democrats the way we talk about dinosaurs – as a giant behemoth that died out due to its own stupidity eons ago. Instead they fabricate one story and falsify one “angle” after another.
And as a result of the mainstream media dishonesty, the Democrat Party has been allowed to become more and more and more corrupt.
Piss off a “journalist” tomorrow. Vote for Republicans.
Vice President Biden once again proved that he is the intellectual compatriot with Ruprecht the Monkey Boy in his statement about Republicans being “absolutists” even as he attacked conservatives such as Sarah Palin in a quintessentially absolutist manner.
(CNN) – Vice President Joe Biden challenged Republican voters in New York’s 23rd congressional district to teach conservative “absolutists” a lesson in the special House election Tuesday by voting for the Democratic candidate in the race.
“We aren’t asking you to switch your party,” Biden said at a rally for Democrat Bill Owens in Watertown, New York Monday morning. “We are just saying join us in teaching a lesson to those absolutists who say no dissent is permitted within your own party.” […]
“This is a different ideology,” Biden continued. “This is different than anything I’ve known in my 45 years of being familiar with this district. You know, they may have any room for moderate views in the Republican Party upstate anymore, but let me assure you, we have room, we have room.”
Later in his remarks, the vice president couldn’t help but return to the subject of the former Alaska governor when the issue of energy came up.
“Sarah Palin thinks the answer to energy is ‘Drill, baby, drill,’ he said, leaning into the microphone. “It’s a lot more complicated, Sarah, than drill baby drill.”
First of all, Ruprecht, you total waste of a human brain, it wasn’t the Republican Party that displayed “absolutism.” A group of “eleven county GOP committee apparatchiks” selected Dede Scozzafava in a form of “absolutism” that was clearly idiotic, but hardly ideological. There was no election; the people in the Republican Party of NY-23 did not get to express their voice. Secondly, it was hardly the Republican Party that displayed “absolutism,” apart from the “so-open-minded-their-brains-fell-out” form of idiocy mentioned above; GOP establishment figures such as Michael Steele and Newt Gingrich endorsed Scozzafava in spite of a whole host of reasons not to.
It was the fact that the conservative majority of the NY-23 district deserved better than Scozzafava, just like the country as a whole deserves better than you, Ruprecht.
The PEOPLE you so demagogue and despise rose up and rejected this abortion-supporting abortion of a Republican. And they chose in place of this apparatchik-foisted pseudo-Republican candidate an actual conservative, which is what they SHOULD have had in the first place.
With Scozzafava no longer clogging the vote as a Republican-In-Name-Only, Hoffman has a huge lead. In fact, he apparently had a huge lead regardless of WHAT Scozzafava did:
In a three way contest with Democrat Bill Owens and Republican Dede Scozzafava Hoffman leads with 51% to 34% for Owens and 13% for Scozzafava. In a head to head contest with Owens Hoffman holds a 54-38 advantage.
Instead of Republicans learning some fictitious lesson about their “absolutism,” why don’t Democrats learn about just how massively unpopular the radical policies of the Democrats are becoming in the minds of more and more of the electorate?
Meanwhile, Ruprecht, you self-righteous hypocritical fraud, Democrats are “vowing unity,” with “Democrats everywhere are uniting for change.” How is it that you can have unity, but Republicans are evil for wanting the same damn thing?
And while we’re talking about “absolutism,” why don’t we contemplate what happens if a Democrat decides to stop goose stepping for a second and actually voices a dissenting viewpoint?
One of the leading Senate Democrats on healthcare reform legislation fired a warning shot in Sen. Joe Lieberman’s direction yesterday, previewing the possible consequences of joining a GOP filibuster.
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Senate HELP Committee, told reporters that Lieberman (I-Conn.) ought to consider the benefits of his membership in the Democratic caucus before he decides how to vote on healthcare reform.
“[Lieberman] still wants to be a part of the Democratic Party although he is a registered independent. He wants to caucus with us and, of course, he enjoys his chairmanship of the [Homeland Security] committee because of the indulgence of the Democratic caucus. So, I’m sure all of those things will cross his mind before the final vote,” Harkin said in a conference call.
Just who do you damn Democrats think you are to lecture ANYBODY about “absolutism”?
What might be the most delicious thing of all was the way that Sarah Palin, having only Facebook to respond to the White House’s massive communications advantage, nevertheless further pulverized the nectarine mush that is surely stuffed inside the brainless wonder’s skull:
As the vice president knows, I have always advocated an all-of-the-above approach to American energy independence. Among other things, my alternative energy goal for Alaska sits at 50 percent because Alaska reached more than 20 percent during my term in office. The Obama-Biden administration, on the other hand, recently announced a renewable goal of only 25 percent. However, domestic drilling should remain a top priority in order to meet America’s consumption and security needs.
The vice president’s extreme opposition to domestic energy development goes all the way back to 1973 when he opposed the Alaska pipeline bill. As Ann Coulter pointed out, “Biden cast one of only five votes against the pipeline that has produced more than 15 billion barrels of oil, supplied nearly 20 percent of this nation’s oil, created tens of thousands of jobs, added hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy and reduced money transfers to the nation’s enemies by about the same amount.”
This nonsensical opposition to American domestic energy development continues to this day. Apparently the Obama-Biden administration only approves of offshore drilling in Brazil, where it will provide security and jobs for Brazilians. This election is about American security and American jobs.
There’s one way to tell Vice President Biden that we’re tired of folks in Washington distorting our message and hampering our nation’s progress: Hoffman, Baby, Hoffman!
- Sarah Palin
They say Sarah Palin wasn’t “experienced” enough to be the Vice President. Sure, she had more executive experience than Barack Obama even counting his ten months as president. Sure, she could change the entire health care debate with a Facebook entry while on vacation. Sure, she could demonstrate what an idiot Barack Obama’s pick for V.P. was with a couple of paragraphs. What matters most of all is that even after Sarah Palin is no longer a candidate for Vice President, and even after she has stepped down as Governor of Alaska, Democrats still become emotionally unhinged at the very thought of her.
I have long-since become sick with Democrats – who have become the biggest demagogues since Joseph Goebbels – routinely pointing fingers of blame when they are five times more guilty of whatever they are accusing the Republicans are doing.
Remember the avalanche of political obituaries journalists wrote following Sarah Palin’s decision to step down as governor?
Sarah Palin was 14 for 14 defeating one trumped-up “ethics” violation after another from unhinged leftists who were using the courts as a means to attack her. But in today’s caricature of justice that liberalism has created, one can win big and lose huge: she was at least $500,000 in debt – and I’ve heard figures close to $1 million – fending off these frivolous lawsuits. With her own children under vile personal attack, with her family deep in debt through no fault of her own, and with her very ability to govern hamstrung by “Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome,” she stepped down and left the governance of Alaska to her trusted lieutenant.
And it was revealing how the very same people who unrelentingly dumped on Sarah Palin as some kind of inbred hill-billy chick who wasn’t qualified to manage a 7-11 were outraged by her decision to step down as governor.
In any event, if I had a nickel for every mainstream media entry into the “Sarah Palin is finished” narrative, I’d be so filthy rich it would be unreal.
Sarah Palin redefined the entire debate on ObamaCare with a single Facebook entry submitted while she was on vacation.
Not bad for a political has-been who destroyed her platform and popularity by stepping down.
Now we learn another little factoid about Sarah Palin’s ongoing relevance:
Palin worth $100,000 per hour; over 1,000 invitations so far
August 31, 9:57 AM Fresno Political Buzz Examiner Nicco Capozzi
Many pundits, Alaskans, and simple political observers have pondered why Former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin resigned from office. One answer now seems apparent—money. Since her resignation, Palin has been offered over 1,000 invitations to make paid speeches, appear, and campaign on behalf of politicians and political groups.
She has received offers from numerous speakers’ bureaus (scouts for speechmakers) and has reportedly signed with at least one of them, the Washington Speakers Bureau. Washington Speakers Bureau’s clientele currently consist of Former President George W. Bush and Laura Bush, Bob Woodward, Katie Couric, Colin Powell, Rudy Giulianni, Alan Greenspan, and many others. For a full list of speakers click here.
Nearly all of the over 1,000 invitations include request for speeches. On top of the speeches, over 120 political candidates from all levels of federal and state government have requested Palin to appear on their behalf at various political events. She will also make cameos for charities, Christian organizations, and other related social causes and groups.
So when Palin beckoned to Alaskans that she would better serve them not as their governor but as a private citizen, what she really meant was, she will raise a tremendous amount of money so that she could have a better chance of running for President in 2012. Or, she could have resigned simply to make money without having any plans to run for higher office. Of the 1,000 speech invitations, almost all will be bring the former governor $100,000 each.
Palin has not yet confirmed where she will be speaking or campaigning, but responses to the invitations are expected to begin this week. However, one cannot expect Palin to hurry in confirming such invitations as she has her book to finish (reported to be 85% complete), and a giant file of other offers ranging from cable to business ventures that she is still considering. With all the possibilities, it is no wonder Palin left a $100,000 government job as she can now make that in one hour of work—a sum to which soccer moms and plumbers can certainly relate.
Now, of course, that last sentence immediately above is just pure bitter leftist showing through. Sarah Palin could be the most successful human being who ever lived, and the leftwing wouldn’t allow her so much as one yoctogram of praise or credibility. Comprehending reality is just not in their nature.
Not only has Sarah Palin not lost her relevance; but she has gained more than she had when she was serving as governor of Alaska.
You know who really SHOULD step down? Every single “journalist” who discredited himself or herself trying to tear Sarah Palin down. How much credibility do the people who wrote Sarah Palin’s obituary deserve?
Sarah Palin is stupid. She is a self-gratifying narcissist, a terrible mother, a terrible governor, and a frankly demented human being.
And the very same people who are saying all that are simultaneously absolutely outraged that she is stepping down as governor. Apparently, the left wants stupid, self-gratifying, narcissistic, and demented people to stay in office. One can only conclude that if all politicians meeting the description that the left and the mainstream media assigned to Sarah Palin were to resign, there would be no more Democrats in office.
The left calls Sarah Palin “erratic,” “unhinged,” etc. etc. But they can’t stop talking about her – with “talking” being a polite euphemism for some of the most psychotic anger and fear that I have ever heard directed towards anyone in my life.
Not long after Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain’s running mate, the left launched absolutely vile attacks. The Daily Kos ran a story that maintained that Sarah Palin had faked the pregnancy that resulted in the birth of Trig Palin. The reason? To cover up for the fact that the baby was actually Bristol Palin’s, by way of an incestuous relationship with Sarah’s husband (and Bristol’s father) Todd Palin. Being the loathsome cowards and weasels of the left which they so ably exemplify, the Kos purged the article as the facts came out and they were revealed for the liars they truly are. And so the left introduced Sarah Palin to the world.
Stories ran in the mainstream media calling her a terrible mother who put her political career over the needs of her own children. One vicious personal attack after another, with no play considered out-of-bounds, and no media referee blowing the whistle to call a foul.
It’s been deleted, of course (again, the leftists being the genuine cowards that they are); but Heather Mallick wrote the following that was published on Canada’s CBC News under the title, “A Mighty Wind blows through Republican convention” from September 5, 2008. An excerpt:
John Doyle, the cleverest critic in Canada, comes right out and calls Palin an Alaska hillbilly. Damn his eyes, I wish I’d had the wit to come up with it first. It’s safer than “white trash” but I’ll pluck safety out of the nettle danger. Or something.
Doyle’s job includes watching a lot of reality television and he’s well-versed in the backstory. White trash — not trailer trash, that’s something different — is rural, loud, proudly unlettered (like Bush himself), suspicious of the urban, frankly disbelieving of the foreign, and a fan of the American cliché of authenticity. The semiotics are pure Palin: a sturdy body, clothes that are clinging yet boxy and a voice that could peel the plastic seal off your new microwave.
Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favoured by this decade’s woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression. Bristol has what is known in Britain as the look of the teen mum, the “pramface.” Husband Todd looks like a roughneck; Track, heading off to Iraq, appears terrified. They claim to be family obsessed while being studiously terrible at parenting. What normal father would want Levi “I’m a fuckin’ redneck” Johnson prodding his daughter?
So much for demonizing Sarah Palin – both as a woman and as a parent – merely for being attractive and growing up relatively poor. And of course, why not savagely launch into Sarah’s daughter Bristol why you’re at it?
Recently, of course, David Letterman felt free to tee off on Sarah’s 14 year old daughter Willow, suggesting that she was “knocked up” by a baseball player during the 7th inning stretch when Sarah attended a New York Yankee game with her youngest daughter. Letterman later issued a smarmy, self-serving “apology” for attacking a completely innocent young girl, but he felt no need to apologize for describing Sarah Palin as a “slutty flight attendant.” That’s just par for the course, after all. At least given the frankly demonic hostility of the mainstream media toward Sarah Palin.
As for Sarah’s infant son Trig, the left is unhinged with hatred toward him merely for the fact that his mother chose to allow him to live. Legal Insurrection has some “creative” liberal Photoshop examples of the utterly vile attacks on this innocent little baby boy.
After nearly a year – and eight full months after the November election – the left couldn’t stop their slimy, satanic, beyond-evil hatred for Sarah Palin and her young children. She was an attractive, well-spoken, self-made, independent woman who stood for family and for traditional values — and she therefore had to be destroyed at all costs.
And she was “erratic” and “unhinged” to want to get away from that daily hate festival? That is, of course, the opinion of the very sort of people who actively despised and tore down Sarah Palin from the outset.
Sarah Palin makes Mark Foley, the congressman who sent filthy emails to pages look almost normal. She makes David Vitter, the senator who was hanging out with hookers, look almost boring. She makes Larry Craig, caught hitting on a cop in a men’s room, look almost stable. She makes John Ensign, the senator who was having an affair with a staffer, look almost humdrum (and compared to the rest of the GOP whack-jobs, he is). And she makes Mark Sanford, the governor with the Latin lover, look positively predictable.
One of the most obvious things that Begala does is repeatedly compare Sarah Palin with warped sexual behavior. Notice that every single comparison he provides is precisely that. Why does he think Sarah deserves such rabidly sexualized comparisons? Has she had an affair that he can direct our attention to? Did she have sexual relations with prostitutes? Did she try to lure women in a public restroom for lesbian sex? Did she leave her state without leaving anyone in charge so she could fly to another country to be with her lover-not-her-husband?
Why is it deemed okay to attack this woman in this way? Even as the people engaging in such attacks claim that she, rather than they, are twisted and sick? Why are David Letterman, Heather Mallick, and Paul Begala able to continue to operate without being publicly destroyed for their despicable conduct?
The Huffington Post later took this down (again, the whole coward and weasel thing), but it was one of their own writers – Erik Sean Nelson – who wrote the piece:
In Sarah Palin’s resignation announcement she complained about the treatment of her son Trig who always teaches her life lessons. She said that the “world needs more Trigs, not fewer.” That’s a presidential campaign promise we can all get behind. She will be the first politician to actually try to increase the population of retarded people. To me, it’s kinda like saying the world needs more cancer patients because they teach us such personal lessons.
Her first act as President: To introduce a Pre-K lunch buffet that includes lead paint chips. Sort of a Large HEAD-START Program.
She will then encourage women to hold off on pregnancies until their 40’s just to mix up some chromosomes.
She now is in favor of abortion only in case of diploid birth.
Her policies will increase jobs because Wal-Mart is building new stores each day and someone has to be the greeter.
This will lead to smaller government because fewer Americans will have the cognitive ability to hold a government job.
Look, she says she’s resigning as governor because people are making attacks on her and Trig. If she ever did become president, all Osama bin Laden would have to do to defeat the United States is Photoshop a picture of Trig and she’d surrender the country that night. As she said, “That’s not politics as usual.” It isn’t. Politicians don’t usually quit for so stupid of reasons.
Just one more example of demonic attacks from demonic people. Huffington Post. Daily Kos. Well established liberal media outlets. The Democratic Party presidential candidates attended a major debate via the Daily Kos, while passing up an invitation from Fox News decrying the latter as unacceptable. We’re talking about the very core of the leftwing machine.
Why is it okay to attack Sarah Palin this way — not merely as a woman but as a mother? Why is it okay to attack her daughters and her infant child so hatefully and so horribly? What kind of ugly people are Democrats to have tolerated this, over and over and over again, for so long?
The left didn’t just attack Sarah Palin with shockingly distorted words and even more shockingly distorted images of her children. They attacked her in court, with one ginned-up lawsuit and ethics complaint after another. They declared total war upon her; and there was nothing that could potentially hurt her that they did not pursue.
She successful fended off every single one of these bogus charges, but at great cost to her state and to her family. It cost the state well over $2 million and it cost Sarah Palin more than $500,000 in legal debts that she and her family will have to pay.
And she’s “unhinged” for wanting to leave office so she can spare her state and her own family these extravagant costs – which came from bogus and frivolous charges that just kept coming one after the other?
Allow me to address some of the mainstream media’s disinformation regarding Sarah Palin’s resignation remarks.
First of all, they have created the narrative that her remarks were “rambling.”
Have you ever heard Barack Obama try to speak without his constant friend and companion, the Teleprompter of the United States of America? It would be a compliment to say that he rambles; the man is literally speaking in tongues. Sarah Palin had a few scripted lines, and frequently spoke “off the script” from her heart. Decent people would welcome such candid and non-telepromptered honesty. But the left appears to be devoid of decent people.
In their shockingly biased distortion of her resignation comments, the media describe her as having “portrayed herself as a victim.” Excuse me? “Portrayed herself as a victim“? Yeah, the way the women that Jack the Ripper butchered portrayed themselves as victims, I suppose. Anyone but the most pathologically demented fools have to realize that she didn’t “portray herself” as anything; she was repeatedly attacked in the most hateful, vicious, unhinged ways again and again and again. And it was obvious that they had absolutely no intention of stopping.
The left is saying she “quit” on her state. And she did. But lest you forget, Barack Obama – who promised on national television that he would not run for president, but would serve his full Senate term – also quit on his state, and lied to his voters and to the American people before doing so:
SEN. OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things, but my thinking has not changed.
MR. RUSSERT: But, but—so you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?
SEN. OBAMA: I will not.
And lets throw in Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, and Kathleen Sabelius – the last two being governors of states – who abandoned their commitment to their states to fulfill their terms. Did they not have every bit as much of a duty to fulfill their terms as Sarah Palin had? Why is it that their departure – even when they outright lied as Barack Obama did – not matter, but Sarah Palin’s is some kind of personal betrayal?
The media are howling that Sarah Palin abandoned her state. But she is leaving it in the hands of an excellent governor who shares her views and her values. She is saving the state millions of dollars in continuing defense of frankly psychotic leftist legal harassment that has no other purpose than to intimidate and paralyze a sitting governor. She is freeing her state of the gridlock that has been erected for no other reason than to stifle and thwart any national ambitions she might have to the clear detriment of the state.
And it certainly proves the lie that Sarah Palin is some kind of power-hungry Lady MacBeth. Or, at least, I’d love to hear the argument that walking away from a governorship to an uncertain future is an evidence of “an insatiable hunger for power.”
It all boils down to this: Sarah Palin made a personal and professional decision that was most likely motivated primarily out of concern for her family and her family’s finances. Freed from her position as governor, Palin is freed from the constant legal attacks; she is able to write, give speeches, and even host a lucrative television program that will recoup the financial losses incurred by the psychotic leftist troll army.
Will it hurt her future political career? Who knows for certain that she even plans to have one? Would you, if you knew that you – and your family – would be subjected to the demonic left? Rather than run for the White House, she may choose instead to play the role of spokeswoman and king-maker, attempting to bolster support for conservative values and conservative candidates.
Bill Kristol has maintained that Sarah Palin’s move – assuming she does intend to run for President in 2012 – is a bold albeit risky move that may yet pay off for her. And she is young enough that she literally has 25 years to consider such a candidacy.
I hope he’s right, and the critics – who have ALWAYS been critics of Sarah Palin before there was anything to criticize – are wrong.
In the meantime, I will be wondering what would happen if the kind of attacks that were so routinely launched at Sarah Palin and her children were deemed appropriate by the mainstream media to be launched at Michelle Obama and her children.
It’s like you can go for a walk anywhere, stomp your foot, and it will land on some hateful liberal cockroach.
Saturday Night Live, a show that is rumored to have been funny before many of us were born, ran a sketch that featured the following dialog:
“What about the husband?” asked a Times reporter during a mock assignment meeting for the paper. “You know he’s doing those daughters. I mean, come on. It’s Alaska.”
The assignment editor for the Times, portrayed by actor James Franco, responded: “He very well could be. Admittedly, there is no evidence of that, but on the other hand, there is no convincing evidence to the contrary. And these are just some of the lingering questions about Governor Palin.”
SNL says that Sarah Palin and her family were not the target:
“Anyone that watched Saturday’s show and believed the skit in which it was suggested that there was incest in the Palin household needs to have [his] head examined,” said Jimenez. “The purpose of the joke (tacky and crude as it was, I did not care for it at all by the way) was to show how out of touch journalists are – not an attack on the Palin household. Sheesh, get a grip!”
But the point is that it is those who don’t know that this was a vicious attack against the Palin family who should be fitted for the strait jacket:
“What if somebody did one with this kind of humor on Obama and his daughters?” asked Jim Cash of Chattanooga, Tenn. “What an uproar there would be. This line of humor is tasteless and moronic and about as low as they could go. There simply must be an uproar over this. We cannot let this just pass.”
Clearly this hateful display of liberal thought backfired. The sketch somehow didn’t make it to the SNL video clip site, and youtube is apparently taking postings of the clip down as fast as they go up.
Here’s the contact link for NBC. Why not drop them a line and let them know what degenerate particles of rat filth they are?
Liberals and conservatives seem to disagree on dang near everything these days. So it should come as no surprise that they would differ on the choice of Gov. Sarah Palin for Vice President.
Liberals such as editorialist Cynthia Tucker and chief Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod claim that John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin was nothing more than an act of political cowardice; a man knuckling under to the extreme right wing of his own party: (more…)
Can you define “hypocrite”?
According to Merriam-Webster:
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
With that in mind, let us tune in to Barack Obama’s attack against John McCain today:
“Don’t be fooled,” Obama told the crowd surrounding him in a large barn. “John McCain’s party, with the help of John McCain, has been in charge” for nearly eight years.
“I know the governor of Alaska has been saying she’s change, and that’s great,” Obama said. “She’s a skillful politician. But, you know, when you’ve been taking all these earmarks when it’s convenient, and then suddenly you’re the champion anti-earmark person, that’s not change. Come on! I mean, words mean something, you can’t just make stuff up.”
First of all, if words REALLY mean something, maybe we should consider some of the words that are directly linked to Barack Obama.
But that aside, let us consider Obama’s earmark record. According to The Hill:
Obama has released all the earmark requests he offered since being elected to the Senate in 2004, which totaled roughly $740 million over three years.
That same article concludes with this wonderful sentence:
Last year, Obama took in $91 million while McCain earned nothing because he did not request any projects, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Here is a list of Obama’s earmarks, in his own “But it was all for worthy causes” words.
I wrote an article about Sarah Palin and earmark spending. To put it is a single sentence, Sarah Palin is a Governor who reduced her state’s earmarks by 63%, nearly 2/3rds, since taking office. Earmarks continue to be high in Alaska (for reasons the article describes), but they are only one third as high as they used to be thanks to Gov. Palin. To portray her “taking all these earmarks” when she has cut earmark spending like no other governor, is beneath the level of cheap. She has done everything she reasonably could do – and much more than any other governor – to cut a vicious cycle of pork that has characterized Alaska for decades. She has often found herself on the other side of her own party in the process. And if she can do it in Alaska, she can do it anywhere.
What’s wrong with earmarks? The very idea of earmarks represents everything that’s wrong with Washington insider politics. They are requested and awarded purely on the basis of special interests. They are inherently tainted with fraud, waste, abuse, and quid pro quo political patronage. They are tacked on to other, legitimate issues without review and are funded entirely by deficit spending.
John McCain has always opposed them; Sarah Palin has a documented history of fighting them tooth and nail in her own state, and has been painstakingly winning the battle. Meanwhile, the guy who has benefited from $740 million dollars is talking smack while studiously ignoring the log in his own eye.
Barack Obama – the same guy who asked for $740 million dollars as a politician in one office, has asked for zero dollars since announcing his candidacy for another office. Maybe you see that as a radical conversion; I view it as radical pandering.
In that same campaign appearance described above, Obama said:
“I mean, come on, they must think you’re stupid,” Obama said as the crowd laughed and cheered.
But who really thinks who’s stupid here?
“Al I ever really needed to know I learned on the basketball court,” Gov. Sarah Palin has said.
“‘I know this sounds hokey,” she told an interviewer in 2006, “but basketball was a life-changing experience for me.’ The problem for today’s feminists is that the life lessons Palin learned from basketball have made her their biggest nightmare.”
A woman who played against her on the basketball courts during their high school days has some unique and fascinating insights into the mindset of the woman that I believe will be our next Vice President.
Jessica Gavora, writing in an article titled, “Game Changer: Will the battle of 2008 turn out to have been won on the playing fields of Alaska?” has this to offer: (more…)