Short break

I'm sorry I've been MIA for the past few days. I've been so swamped with work and home I can't keep up. I'll be back to normal in a few days, hopefully this week. Thank you for your patience.

From Sarah's Facebook: "Thoughts from Hong Kong"

Sarah posted this note on her facebook page this evening. It's a long excerpt of the text of her speech. Go to her page to read the whole thing.

Many have asked to see my remarks as presented in Hong Kong. Here is an excerpt:

So far, I’ve given you the view from Main Street, USA. But now I’d like to share with you how a Common Sense Conservative sees the world at large.

Later this year, we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall – an event that changed not just Europe but the entire world. In a matter of months, millions of people in formerly captive nations were freed to pursue their individual and national ambitions.

The competition that defined the post World War II era was suddenly over. What was once called “the free world” had so much to celebrate – the peaceful end to a great power rivalry and the liberation of so many from tyranny’s grip.

Some, you could say, took the celebration too far. Many spoke of a “peace dividend,” of the need to focus on domestic issues and spend less time, attention and money on endeavors overseas. Many saw a peaceful future, where globalization would break down borders and lead to greater global prosperity. Some argued that state sovereignty would fade – like that was a good thing? – that new non-governmental actors and old international institutions would become dominant in the new world order.

As we all know, that did not happen. Unfortunately, there was no shortage of warning signs that the end of the Cold War did not mean the end of history or the end of conflict. In Europe, the breakup of Yugoslavia resulted in brutal wars in the Balkans. In the Middle East, a war was waged to reverse Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. North Korea’s nuclear program nearly led to military conflict. In Africa, U.S. embassies were bombed by a group called al Qaeda.

Two weeks ago, America commemorated the 8th anniversary of the savagery of September 11, 2001. The vicious terrorist attacks of that day made clear that what happened in lands far distant from American shores directly affect our security. We came to learn, if we did not know before, that there were violent fanatics who sought not just to kill innocents, but to end our way of life. Their attacks have not been limited to the United States.

They attacked targets in Europe, North Africa and throughout the Middle East. Here in Asia, they killed more than 200 in a single attack in Bali. They bombed the Marriott Hotel and the Australian Embassy in Jakarta. Last year in Mumbai, more than 170 were killed in coordinated attacks in the heart of India’s financial capital. In this struggle with radical Islamic extremists, no part of the world is safe from those who bomb, maim and kill in the service of their twisted vision.

This war – and that is what it is, a war – is not, as some have said, a clash of civilizations. We are not at war with Islam. This is a war within Islam, where a small minority of violent killers seeks to impose their view on the vast majority of Muslims who want the same things all of us want: economic opportunity, education, and the chance to build a better life for themselves and their families. The reality is that al Qaeda and its affiliates have killed scores of innocent Muslim men, women and children. more

Palin slams Obama's spending in debut speech in Asia

From Breitbart:

Palin slams Obama's spending in debut speech in Asia
Breitbart.com
Sep 23 05:27 AM US/Eastern

Former US vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin said the US government was wasting taxpayers' money and could aggravate poverty, said delegates at her first speech outside North America on Wednesday.

Palin, the former governor of Alaska, gave hundreds of financial big-hitters at the CLSA Investors' Forum in Hong Kong a wide-ranging speech that covered Alaska, international terrorism, US economic policy and trade with China.

Her performance, which was closed to the media, divided opinion.

Some of those who attended praised her forthright views on government social and economic intervention and others walked out early in disgust.

"She was brilliant," said a European delegate, on condition of anonymity.

"She said America was spending a lot of money and it was a temporary solution. Normal people are having to pay more and more but things don't get better. The rich will leave the country and the poor will get poorer."

Two US delegates left early, with one saying "it was awful, we couldn't stand it any longer". He declined to be identified.

Palin, who shot to national and international prominence after Senator John McCain picked her as his running mate last year, stepped down as Alaska governor in July but has provided little insight into her future plans.

She is expected to write a book and has said she will travel the country campaigning for candidates who share her political ideology.

In the CLSA speech, which lasted about 75 minutes, Palin also tackled the recent US trade spat with China, a country she said the United States should have the best possible relationship with.

According to delegates, she said US President Barack Obama's administration worsened an already difficult situation when earlier this month he slapped duties on Chinese tire imports blamed for costing American jobs.

They said she praised the economic policies of former US President Ronald Reagan and criticised the current administration for intervening too much during the recent financial crisis.

Although she touched on the threat posed to the United States by terrorism and talked about links with traditional US allies in Asia such as Japan, Australia and South Korea, one Asian delegate complained she devoted too much time to her home state of Alaska.

"It was almost more of a speech promoting investment in Alaska," he said, declining to be named.

"As fund managers we want to hear about the United States as a whole, not just about Alaska. And she criticised Obama a lot but offered no solutions."

Another said he was disappointed that she took only pre-arranged questions.

There were no apparent gaffes though from Palin, who was mocked during last year's presidential campaign for her lack of experience in foreign affairs and for her verbal blunders.

continued...

Palin keynote speaker in Hong Kong financial forum tomorrow

Palin is going to address the 16th CLSA Investor's Forum in Hong Kong tomorrow. This is a high-profile financial forum with a tradition of featuring very high-profile speakers.

Commenting on the former governor's presence at the Hong Kong summit Simone Wheeler, head of communications for CLSA, said she was convinced Mrs Palin would make interesting speaker.

"What we look to do is invite our keynote speakers who we feel are opinion makers, who are newsworthy and who we feel our clients - a very broad international client base - would be interested in hearing from," she said.

"We certainly believe that Sarah Palin will be - she has been in the news - we believe that she will continue to be a newsmaker in the future and therefore someone we feel that is definitely of interest to fund managers.

"She is a controversial figure, so she attracts polarising opinions. And we have received feedback from people that question our decision. But I would have to frame that by saying most of that feedback has come from people in the US who are not our clients."

Previous speakers at the forum include former US president Bill Clinton and vice president Al Gore.

What we know and what we can expect

I don't know if anything will come of Big Government's report that the White House was caught using the NEA for political ads for the Obama campaign. But for us Palin supporters what we know for sure is that Obama was caught creating Palin smear ads. He was caught making smear ads: (1) using a big PR firm; (2) the smear ads were made to look like they came from "grass roots;" and (3) it costs thousands of dollars, possibly tens of thousands to do it.

What we can learn from this is - Obama is a professional candidate. He will stoop to no low in getting elected. He's been deep in the trenches of ACORN for over a decade. He did the same thing to his opponents in Illinios in order get elected as a Senator.

Obama has deep pockets, friends in high places and a corrupt media that supports him. We have to expect more of these types of smear jobs if Palin continues to stay in the public eye or if she decides to run for any kind of public office. He works very hard to make sure nothing is traced back to him. This is only one tiny shred of evidence but it's something we can learn from.

Developing story: Palin smear ads could be traced to Obama

Ace of Spades is again on the trail following the latest Breitbart uncovering of the culture of corruption in Washington.

Unfortunately I'm at work, and they block certain websites so I cannot see what happened with the NEA Conference Call. I believe what's going on is that certain people in very close proximity to the president could be caught spending federal money (through the NEA) on political ads for Obama. At least that's what I can gather. I'm not able to visit those sites to make sure and Ace is the only one I can see right now.

This is what Ace says:

September 21, 2009
HmmMMMM!: Winner & Associates Was on NEA Conference Call
A bit of backstory.

Before the election, My Pet Jawa found that very-professional style supposedly "grassroots" nasty hit job videos on Sarah Palin were being posted on YouTube.

He discovered that these were created by a Democrat-connected California ad agency named Winner & Associates.

The suspicion was that the ads had been created, covertly, with Axelrod's connivance, to create a fake "grassroots viral video" that couldn't be traced to Obama.

But it couldn't be proven. In the end it was smoke but no fire. A lot of smoke, and yet no smoking gun.

Ethan Winner confessed to making the video, but claimed he hadn't had contact with David Axelrod for ten years, it was all just something he felt like spending thousands of dollars on himself. As a goof.

Well.

Okay.

What was a rep for Winner & Associates doing on that conference call?

You know, the one where White House official Buffy Wicks thanked everyone for helping them win the campaign?

I don't know about this yet -- I really do not know if I can say this significantly advances the case. Need to mull it.

But it sure seems... coincidental.

Please go to Ace to read all about this angle and the rest of the story.

Nothing to see here! Move along!

I remember during the election last year when Obama had much higher poll ratings than McCain and the corrupt media* would not stop talking about it. They kept saying Obama was going to win in a landslide. I thought they used that tactic to dissuade Republicans from even voting.

Well, today Obama's approval rating index is at -8, which means there are 38% who strongly disapprove of Obama, and 30% who strongly approve: 8% more disapproving.

Where's the media now?? Crickets.

*I've decided to call MSM "corrupt media" for the time being.

Family first Sarah

Track is returning home from Iraq this weekend and Palin skipped a high-profile opportunity, the Values Voters Summit in Washington, to welcome him home.

"The Palins are expecting the return of eldest son Track this weekend from a yearlong deployment with an Army combat brigade in Iraq," Palin spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton told The Washington Times. "Mrs. Palin also has her first major paid speaking engagement in Hong Kong" in a few days, she added.

The Left always tries to paint Palin as an aggressive career-opportunist, foaming at the mouth at any chance to get on TV and makes speeches. Absolutely not true. She's always put her family first as she should, which is why we love her.

Mike Huckabee ended up winning the Value Voters Summit straw poll - congratulations to him.

No more "MSM"

I just read about the latest ACORN sting video over at Ace of Spades. He mentions how MSM did absolutely nothing to cover these scandals and is willing to let it blow over. I completely agree with his assessment of "MSM" and wanted to share this with you.

Bernie Goldberg is dead-bang right, we have been giving the media an accolade it never deserved by calling it the "Mainstream Media." It is not mainstream. It is leftwing.

We are the mainstream media. We're also the minor media, but we are the mainstream.

And so I'm never going to refer to them as "MSM" again.

Another Good Point by Goldberg: In that same interview -- maybe Monday? -- Goldberg challenged O'Reilly's question about the leftwing media taking an interest in this, asking, basically, "Why do we care if they've taken an interest?"

His point is that this is no longer David vs. Goliath. (Or an Army of Davids vs. Goliath, if you will.) It's now more like an up-and-comer vs. an aging, past-his-prime boxer. Sure, maybe the older boxer still gets a bigger share of the gate, but it's getting close to an even match. Not there yet -- but it's not some huge gulf.

It's no longer really the Dominant Media vs. the Outlaw Media. Well, it is that, but it's no longer "Dominant" -- it's now merely "Establishment, But a Shadow of Its Former Self, and Losing Audience Every Day" Media.

So his point was: Who cares if this fossilized incompetent corrupt old media covers it? Why are we even giving them that validation that what they assert to be true is in fact true -- "It's only a story when we say it's a story" ?

That's not true anymore. They said it's not a story -- the practically screamed it with their silence -- and we said "Oh yes it is."

And who won?

We did.

So who cares about them?

We're covering it -- we, the mainstream media -- and that's all that matters.

They will follow eventually, as they usually do these days.

And who really cares if they don't.

Anyone ever get linked by a legacy media outlet? We're linked right now by the NYT's blog and the referrals barely show up in the SiteMeter stats.

A link from a small blog throws a hell of a lot more traffic than the NYT. NiceDeb and Cassy Fiano are both linking us, as I can tell from my SiteMeter; there are zero referrals right now from the NYT. I only know I was linked because DrewM. told me so.

Who cares about them.

Who cares what they cover.

Who cares what they believe and what they think they "know."

The hell with them. They're losers. And they stink of desperation.

The Left is projecting again

Some of the most vile comments about Palin left in the comment section of places like ADN described Palin as "narcissistic," "craves attention," "can't stay out of the spotlight," "addicted to fame," "cares more about her popularity than the people of Alaska" and more.

But this weekend, their Dear Leader Obama will be a guest on five different news shows, with a final appearance on David Letterman's show on Monday.

As usual, the Left is projecting. The Obama-followers don't realize that Obama is the one who's addicted to fame, narcissistic and loves to see himself on TV and hear his own voice. He had two major primetime speeches this summer and also had the ABC health care primetime special. He's had so many speeches that Fox has finally stopped interrupting their primetime lineup for him because they're losing money. Even ABC news thinks that Obama is over-exposed.

The reason he does this is because he has no substance whatsoever. He has nothing to offer except the sound of his voice. He is a puppet whose campaign platform was "hope and change" with zero specific ideas on how to get anything done. And the voters fell in love with this "hope and change" rhetoric.

After McCain/Palin lost the election last year Palin hunkered down in Alaska and didn't make any appearances until the end of the congressional session. She was totally focused on her job and didn't give a whit about her "fame;" she only cared about doing what was best for Alaska. She accomplished so much when she got back, too. Because she has more to offer than lofty rhetoric.

The Left is projecting what they know is true about Obama onto Palin, which is a false projection. Palin is none of those things. While Obama is everything they accuse her of.

Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
ABC News Blog

Obama Over-Exposure?
September 16, 2009 8:33 AM

This Sunday, President Obama will be interviewed on five shows -- ABC News’ “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” CNN’s “State of the Nation”, CBS’s “Face the Nation”, NBC’s “Meet the Press” and Univision’s “Al Punto with Jorge Ramos."

It's a rare feat called "the Full Ginsburg." In modern media lore, the first time someone pulled a five-show feat was 11 years ago, in 1998, when Monica Lewinsky’s attorney William Ginsburg made the rounds to defend his client. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, did a Full Ginsburg in 2007 after launching her presidential bid.

For both Ginsburg and Clinton, Fox News Sunday made the cut, and Univision didn’t. Such is not the case for President Obama; Democrats say the Fox News Sunday audience is largely entrenched in their opposition to the president, essentially unconvincible, and thus submitting to an interview might not be the best use of President Obama's time.

1.5 to 2 million march on DC!

What an inspiration! I watched Glenn Beck on Saturday cover this and it was one of the most inspiring events I've ever seen. I wish so much I could have been there.

I feel like we are at a HUGE moment in history. This is the moment where Americans take their freedom back. It almost feels like a revolution.

There are some great photos at Red State.



And where was Obama?? Listening to the people I'm sure, right? No, he left town and was shilling for the Obamacare bill in Minneapolis. I'm certainly glad he's on the pulse of what the American people want.

MSM is also trying to downplay the crowd size and marginalize the event. But one thing they can't say anymore is that it's an astroturf movement. I think 1.5 to 2 million is a VERY clear statement that this is NOT astroturf and we are not "right-wing terrorists."

This is about freedom, not about political parties. Freedom is what unites all of us and the 9/12 March underscored that. I tip my hat to them and can't wait to get involved in future tea party events.

Palin is irrelevant?

If Palin is so irrelevant, why does Tina Fey bring her up every chance she gets? Why does she continue to try and tear her down?

Fey won an Emmy for mocking Palin last Fall on SNL, and this was her gem of an acceptance speech:

"Mrs. Palin is an inspiration to working mothers everywhere because she bailed on her job right before Fourth of July weekend. You are living my dream. Thank you, Mrs. Palin!"

I'll tell you what, Tina Fey; I bet she is living your dream of being an influential figure - unlike you. And she has actual talent and ideas, unlike yourself whose only talent is mimicking people's voices and making fun of them.

The "comedians" who do these SNL skits are just bullies. It is so easy to make fun of people. I remember when Fey was the head writer at SNL pretty much all the skits were making fun of celebrities. Since she's left it's gotten better with, you know, actual comedy skits. Fey seems to be one of those comedians who is very angry and bitter on the inside. It really shows. Palin is the bigger person.

Bill Kristol - Palin is from "University of Real America"

Bill Kristol posted about a sentence that bothered a lot of people in Obama's health care speech. Obama referenced the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It was inappropriate and uncouth to say two days before September 11th. Palin discussed it in her Facebook response and Kristol highlights it as well.

Obama: I'm Spending Too Much on the Troops
William Kristol
The Weekly Standard
September 10, 2009

Two of my favorite bloggers -- Jim Ceaser of the University of Virginia, and Sarah Palin of the University of Real America -- were particuarly struck by one line in President Obama’s speech last night. As was I.

This is it: "Now, add it all up and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years, less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars....”

What’s the implication? Apparently, that we shouldn’t have spent so much on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fair enough, perhaps, with respect to the war in Iraq, which Obama opposed. On the other hand, Obama has supported the war in Afghanistan. Indeed, he’s criticized the Bush administration for under-resourcing that effort. So, as Ceaser points out, Obama’s inclusion of Afghanistan in his snarky comparison is odd:

"He is President of the United States and he strongly supports the War in Afghanistan, asking soldiers daily to sacrifice their lives for that cause. Less than a month ago he rousingly defended the policy before the Veteran's of Foreign Wars not as "a war of choice" but as "a war of necessity....” The question now, however, is why he would include Afghanistan inside of a rhetorical appeal that rests on the implicit notion, at least to his own partisans, of the scandal of wasting funds. And why he would do this at the very point when he is calling on Americans to make greater sacrifices for that venture? A President who is a serious war-time President, a position he has embraced for himself, might wish to think twice before evoking sentiments that raise doubts about his own policies."

What’s more: Obama is now president and commander-in-chief. What we are currently spending on both wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, is what President Obama has requested. Presumably it’s important and worthwhile that we spend that money. President Obama is sending troops into harm’s way in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Presumably this too is important and worthwhile.

And yet in Obama’s mind -- and apparently in the minds of those around him, who had a chance to comment on the speech but let this line remain -- Obama is still campaigning, still attacking Bush’s wars. But they are America’s wars, being fought by American troops today at the direction of their commander-in-chief. Is Obama really so oblivious to the responsibilities of being a “serious war-time president?”

Perhaps he is. If President Obama had really internalized the fact that he is now commander-in-chief, I don’t think he could have said those words.

For the president, in a formal address to Congress, to suggest even in passing that these struggles are merely distasteful burdens rather than worthwhile missions, is appalling. Sarah Palin is right: Obama’s “offhand applause line” was an insult to those who have fought and sacrificed, and to those who are now fighting and sacrificing, on our behalf.

9/11 Remembrance

Congressman Joe Wilson's outburst

Congressman Joe Wilson from South Carolina yelled out "you lie!" during Obama's healthcare speech last night.



In the beginning of the clip Obama talks about death panels. He calls them a lie and the people "spreading the lies" are "cynical" and "irresponsible." He calls out cable TV, radio and prominent politicians. Of course we know he is the one who is lying about that and he must not have read Palin's article, or if he did, he didn't comprehend it.

I don't have a problem at all with Wilson's outburst. There are a few reasons why. Obama was acting like the previous eight weeks have never happened. He trotted out the same talking points last night that he did during his primetime network healthcare special and his other healthcare speech before the August recess. It appeared like he hadn't heard the thousands of people voicing concerns and the masses who have extreme discomfort with this bill. He has his fingers stuck in his ears saying "la la la I'm not listening." Meanwhile he wants to shove the bill down our throats. Not only that, he was blatantly lying about the bill. Tension was at its breaking point and Joe Wilson broke. Ironically, his outburst occurred when Obama said he was going to call out people who misrepresent the bill.

Also, it hasn't been that long that TV has been televising everything constantly. I imagine these sorts of outbursts occurred in the pre-TV age quite a bit. In British Parliament these outbursts happen all the time. It's not an indication of an un-civil society. It was merely an example of the tension breaking. It was very short and then over, and it didn't happen again. Now, if he had stood up and started yelling and preaching for an extended amount of time that would have been uncalled for. In any event, he has since apologized and it's over. I don't think it took anything away from our debate.

***Edited to add***

This also was a place of employment, a job setting, for everyone there except the press. The president and congress are all working as public servants for the citizens. Wilson's outburst is not comparable to, say, the people who pelted GWB's inauguration limo with eggs, or the members of Code Pink disrupting townhall meetings, or Cindy Sheehan protesting outside GWB's house, or the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at the GWB. In those cases and similar ones, those are private citizens attacking public officials. What Joe Wilson did was completely different. He and Obama are more like equals trying to work together to create a health care bill for the country. He couldn't sit through Obama's obvious lying and lost his composure. It wasn't the right thing to do, but I certainly don't think he deserves all the flak he's been getting for this.

Palin delivers a response via Facebook

Although I thought Congressman Charles Boustany from Louisiana did an excellent job as the Republican responder last night, Palin also delivered a great response to Obama's speech via her Facebook page:

After all the rhetoric is put aside, one principle ran through President Obama’s speech tonight: that increased government involvement in health care can solve its problems.

Many Americans fundamentally disagree with this idea. We know from long experience that the creation of a massive new bureaucracy will not provide us with “more stability and security,” but just the opposite. It's hard to believe the President when he says that this time he and his team of bureaucrats have finally figured out how to do things right if only we’ll take them at their word.

Our objections to the Democrats’ health care proposals are not mere “bickering” or “games.” They are not an attempt to “score short term political points.” And it’s hard to listen to the President lecture us not to use “scare tactics” when in the next breath he says that “more will die” if his proposals do not pass.

In his speech the President directly responded to concerns I’ve raised about unelected bureaucrats being given power to make decisions affecting life or death health care matters. He called these concerns “bogus,” “irresponsible,” and “a lie” -- so much for civility. After all the name-calling, though, what he did not do is respond to the arguments we’ve made, arguments even some of his own supporters have agreed have merit.

Her concluding paragraph is a knock-out.

Remember, Mr. President, elected officials work for the people. Forcing a conclusion in order to claim a “victory” is not healthy for our country. We hear you say government isn’t always the answer; now hear us -- that’s what we’ve been saying all along.

Palin knocks another op-ed out of the park

Posted in the Wall Street Journal this evening at around 7:45pm, Palin delivers another knockout punch to the health care debate.

Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care
The president's proposals would give unelected officials life-and-death rationing powers.
By SARAH PALIN

Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans "talk with one another, and not over one another" as our health-care debate moves forward.

I couldn't agree more. Let's engage the other side's arguments, and let's allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats' health-care proposals should become governing law.

Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.

We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.

How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.

Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals "will provide more stability and security to every American."

With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it's a promise Washington can't keep.

Let's talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats' proposals "will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control" by "cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . ."

First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such "waste and inefficiency" and "unwarranted subsidies" in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn't think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that "in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."

Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . ."

Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through "normal political channels," they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration.

continued...

Obama's speech to students today

In this non-Palin post I wanted to talk about my thoughts on Obama's speech to school children today.

Many of the speech proponents emphasized that the speech was non-political and only contained a positive message that all students could benefit from - but they are missing the point. The point is whether or not the President should have an audience with children at any time during school without their parents' involvement.

Children attend school for the sole reason of obtaining their education. They are not there to be at the beck and call of the President. Children are not allowed to vote because they don't have an understanding of the world or the bigger issues. They need to learn them before making an informed choice about what the president is saying. Adults can listen and process a Presidential speech, but children cannot. And kids in a classroom have no choice but to watch, and watch without their parents' input. In this way, the President has circumvented the parents.

When Obama wants to speak to children without the parents' involvement, it looks like he's trying to gain some influence over them in some way. Kids tend to indulge in "hero worship" more than adults and seeing the President speak directly to them, without parents, creates a special sort of relationship that the child has with someone without the parent being involved - it could be their first experience with politics and based on that speech they could be swayed to his side of the issues. It also sends a message to the parents. "You might be the parents, but when your child is at school he belongs to the state. We will teach him without your influence." Parents aren't allowed to watch the speech with their kids and provide their comments or opinions.

It also sets the precedent that the President has some sort of control or authority over children. He can speak to them whenever he wants and they have to drop what they're doing and listen. They stop their day to listen to the President - why? They aren't military personnel; they aren't government employees; they aren't even taxpayers - they are students. So why do they have to drop everything and listen? Adults don't have to stop what they're doing to listen to the President but these kids do, and it sets the precedent that they will again when they grow into adults.

It totally sends the wrong message to kids. Citizens elect the President. The President works for us. He has to listen to what we have to say. His job is to ensure Americans' best interests are represented in the world. So to force kids to drop what they're doing and watch his televised speech sends the message that he's like a King and we're his subjects. When the horns announce his presence we all must bow and listen. I'm exaggerating this to make a point - people in a free society do not have to drop what they're doing to listen to a Presidential speech and that includes children.

I personally think Obama wanted to give this speech to test the waters. He wants to push to see how far he can reach without receiving a backlash, which isn't the first time he's done so. He asked Georgetown University to cover the name of Jesus Christ while he spoke there. It was also requested that the Naval Academy grads not wear their ceremonial swords while Obama spoke there. Both of those examples are of him asking someone/something to do something that is inherently against their philosophies/traditions. Obama knew asking to nationally televise a speech to school children would make people slightly uncomfortable, but not enough to not let it happen. Then, if the speech went over well enough he could make it the "norm" to speak to children whenever he wanted to. Maybe even create a monthly or weekly address.

So the content of today's speech wasn't a big deal at all. It was never about today's content. It was about the fact that the President could speak to your children at will, and set a dangerous precedent that it's okay to drop what you're doing, listen and obey.

A little something called perspective

I rarely read NRO anymore because of their treatment of Palin; however I did go today and saw a very good piece by Peter Kirsanow. He's talking about Van Jones, the latest "Czar" appointed by Obama, who has a very long history of extreme radical left activism - even being a 9/11 "truther". Kirsanow flips the scenario and asks you to imagine how people would react if a President Palin appointed someone like that - heck, she wouldn't even have these unconstitutional "czars" so that in itself is a comparison.

Why is the MSM silent on these "czars" and in particular Van Jones? This is an outrage.

Anyway, here's the NRO post by Kirsanow.

Imagine a Van Jones in a Republican Administration [Peter Kirsanow]

Imagine it's September 2013 and President Palin is preparing to present her massive tax cut proposal to a joint session of congress. She's momentarily distracted by an MSNBC report that her Second Amendment czar, Sig Sauer, has a peculiar history: He was once (and perhaps still is) a Bircher who argued for the repeal of the 14th Amendment. He's also appeared on numerous radio and TV shows calling for the oppressive United States government to be transformed into a monarchy. Shortly before his appointment he was captured on YouTube calling Democrats "a**holes." Another YouTube video shows him ranting about "black gun-control advocates" who confiscate guns from law-abiding white communities. Back in 2009 he signed a petition published in the New York Post calling for the impeachment of Barack Obama on the grounds that he wasn't born in the United States. Sauer has even been arrested twice for participating in riots outside the U.N. and G-8 Summit.

Imagine that during a press briefing, a reporter asks White House press secretary Chuck Krauthammer how a radical right-wing racialist with an arrest record like Sauer could've possibly been appointed to a prominent White House position. Didn't President Palin know? Chuck dismisses the query, saying it's old news since Sauer has issued an apology contending that none of the forgoing actions reflect his actual views.

Imagine that the members of the press corps nod their heads collectively and move on to the more relevant issue of what President Palin will be wearing to the joint session.

Imagine. It's easy if you try.

09/04 09:46 AM Share

Tea Partiers want Palin to attend Sep 12 event

There's going to be a big Tea Party event on September 12 in Washington DC and the event organizers have invited Palin to attend the event.

I don't know if it would be a good idea for her to do that, but I am very happy that the tea partiers have been chanting her name and wearing t-shirts and signs with her name on it. I'm so happy that she's been part of the movement without officially doing anything in it. It shows that they identify with her, that she represents what they believe in.

Why I'm hesitant for her to attend the event is because of the "leader" issue, which I'll write about more in a different post. The angle of the following CNN story is that the Tea Party movement needs a leader. I don't necessarily believe they/we do. I support the Tea Parties and I attended one on April 15. And I really like the fact that we're a very large group of citizens who are expressing opinions in this way.

To me, Palin represents much more than just the Tea Parties and I hope that if she does attend she will not be labeled as the "leader" of it. I wouldn't want that to pigeon-hole her into that. I will explain more in a later post.

Looking for a leader, Tea Partiers issue invite to Palin
Posted: September 2nd, 2009 10:53 PM ET

EL PASO, Texas (CNN) — As the Tea Party Express makes its way across the country, Sarah Palin has emerged as a favorite daughter of the movement, and organizers have invited her to join the tour — or at least come to the final stop in the nation's capital.

The bus is scheduled to end its nationwide journey in Washington on Saturday, September 12.

"We've been in touch with her people, letting her know the response that we've gotten. She's very suportive of the movement," says Joe Wierzbicki, one of the organizers traveling on the Tea Party Express.

So far, no politician has emerged as a leader of the Tea Party movement – and the question of just who might eventually take up the mantle is a hot topic on the bus. Nobody may be better positioned than Palin — but organizers, some of the most motivated members of the conservative base, still say she'll need to earn that title.

"Right now there's a handful of people who strike a chord with the tea party base, and she is certainly one of those people," says Wierzbicki. "Whether or not she emerges as one of those leaders, that's between her and the American people."

continued...

Another significant anniversary

Chris "Tingle" Matthews at it again

Chris Matthews is so far gone he can't even see his own blatant hypocrisy and blind worship. This is so embarrassing I almost feel pity for him. He's not even trying to be a respected journalist anymore. His legacy will be that of a rabid, slobbering shill of the Left.

I give props to the Newsbusters staff who can sit through an episode of Hardball and then write about it. You couldn't pay me enough to do that job.

Chris' Crazy Comparisons: Palin Like Howard Stern and Bill Clinton is 'Voice of God'
Newsbusters
By Geoffrey Dickens
August 31, 2009 - 18:34 ET

Chris Matthews, on Monday's "Hardball," threw out a couple of crazy comparisons as he likened the socially conservative Sarah Palin to shock jock Howard Stern and the rakish Bill Clinton to God. First up, in his "Hardball Sideshow" segment, Matthews claimed the reason the former Alaska governor was so popular on the lecture circuit is because, "just like Howard Stern the reason people will pay to hear her is that they have no idea what she's gonna say next." However Matthews outdid himself, just a little later, as he declared listening to Clinton's strategic advice for Democrats on passing health care reform was like hearing, "The Voice of God."

The following Matthews observations were made on the August 31, edition of "Hardball":

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Now for tonight's "Big Number." Sarah Palin is no longer in elected office but people apparently still want to hear what she has to say. According to Politico how many speech requests is Sarah Palin fielding right now? Over 950 speech requests. I know it. I knew she was gonna do it. Say what you will, but just like Howard Stern the reason people will pay to hear her is that they have no idea what she's gonna say next. Anyway a speech next month in Hong Kong to the Investors Forum. I'm betting there's a lot more to come. About 1000 speaking requests, so far, already in, to hear the former governor of Alaska. Tonight's "Big Number."

Then after a clip in which former President Bill Clinton urged the passage of health care reform, Matthews, on the August 31 edition of "Hardball," offered the highest of compliments:

MATTHEWS: Let's take a look at the former President Bill Clinton who really knows what he's talking about in politics, especially on this front, where he went through that Hell in '94. Here he is offering advice to the Left in saying this. Let's listen.

BILL CLINTON: I'm just telling you we need to pass a bill. It needs to be the best bill we can possibly get through Congress. But doing nothing is not only the worst thing we can do for the economy, and the worst thing we can do for health care, it's the worst thing we can do for the Democrats. And don't you think the Republicans don't know it.

MATTHEWS: That is the Voice of God sir, David Corn. That is the Voice of God because it's the voice of truth and experience. I completely buy what he said, completely. Because when you lose in politics you lose. And if you think you're gonna get any credit from the center, or from the right, or any of the commentators from that part of the world, for losing, you're crazy! The Democratic Left will be pounced on and blamed for defeat. So this idea you're waiting for the perfect bill or you won't go without the public option is suicidal.

Incidentally this isn't the first time Matthews has spoken of the former president in religious tones, as back in February 28, 2007, he compared Clinton to Jesus.

MATTHEWS: When I watched him [former President Bill Clinton] at Mrs. King's funeral, I just have never seen anything like it....There are times when he sounds like Jesus in the temple. I mean, amazing ability to transcend ethnicity — race, we call it, it's really ethnicity — in this country and, and speak to us all in this amazingly primordial way.

—Geoffrey Dickens is the senior news analyst at the Media Research Center.