Support Governor Palin At SarahPAC

Showing posts with label governor palin 4 president. Show all posts
Showing posts with label governor palin 4 president. Show all posts

Mike Potemra: The Palin Juggernaut -How can she not win GOP nomination!-

Saturday, December 04, 2010 0 Responses
When I see the fervor of Sarah Palin’s fans — and by no means just those who swell the adoring crowds who go to her public appearances — I am convinced that the question is not, “How can she win the GOP nomination?” but “How can she not win it?” When you have anywhere between five and fifteen GOP candidates, all expressing basically the same conservative views, how can anyone other than the only one with the passionate fan base possibly win? And yet: Reading between the lines of what conservative-movement people are saying and writing, there is a great deal of worry about the prospect of a Palin nomination.  […]
The choice between Palin and Obama, phrased in the least flattering (to Palin) possible way, is a choice between a woman who may turn out to be seriously inadequate to the job and, therefore, become a failed president; and a man who has already convincingly demonstrated that he is seriously inadequate to the job and, therefore, already is a failed president. This rather changes the “electability” issue, doesn’t it? […]
So far, every gaffe Palin has made and every attack she has endured have only soldered her supporters more securely to her cause. At this point, I think the only way this bond could be broken is through something politically nuclear […]
But there was another politician who faced a similar choice, four years ago: I could be content with the adoring crowds, the bestselling books, the ideological media applauding my every move — or I could go for the presidency. We all know the choice Barack Obama made.
Source:

Read more...

(Video) Christine O’Donnell & Sarah Palin On The Record w/ Greta

Monday, November 01, 2010 0 Responses
O'Donnell Rally 1,000 Vs Coons w/ Biden Rally 150 Attendance
Christine O'Donnell looks back on roller coaster Senate bid




Elections, Alaska-Style
Sarah Palin on the territorial, linguistic and other challenges voters and officials face in Alaska










Source:


Read more...

Sarah Palin To Obama: Humility & Honesty About Iraq Can Inspire Trust

Tuesday, August 31, 2010 0 Responses
Later today, President Obama will speak to the American people about Iraq. No doubt he will laud the “end of major combat operations” by the date he randomly selected some 18 months ago. His press secretary Robert Gibbs also gave us a glimpse of what else he might say, telling the Today Show this morning that ”What is certainly not up for question is that President Obama, then-candidate Obama, said that adding those 20,000 troops into Iraq would, indeed, improve the security situation, and it did.”

Iraq in 2010 is indeed a very long way from Iraq in 2006, when violence and sectarian conflict threatened complete chaos. But then-candidate Obama did not support the course that brought us here as his press secretary now claims. On January 10, 2007, when President Bush announced the surge, Senator Obama insisted that the surge would actually increase sectarian violence: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.” Barack Obama was clearly in opposition to the surge strategy.

Had we followed the course advocated by then-candidates Obama and Biden, the Iraq war would be remembered now as a crushing defeat for the United States and our allies. Al Qaeda in Iraq and Iranian supported extremists would have claimed victory over America – with grave implications for us throughout the region and the world. Iraq would have descended into full-scale civil war. Iraq’s neighbor would have likely been drawn into the conflict. Parts of Iraq would have been made a safe haven for terrorists to train and plan for attacks far beyond Iraqi borders.

Fortunately for all of us, these events did not occur. They did not occur because America changed strategy in Iraq. President Bush decided to increase our forces in Iraq and pursue a counterinsurgency strategy – a course long advocated by Republicans in Washington. This “surge” policy in 2007 was opposed by many – most notably and adamantly by Senators Obama and Biden. In October 2006, as the violence was spiraling out of control, Senator Obama actually advocated reducing our troop presence: “It is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we’ve been in right now.”

In response to President Bush’s State of the Union address on January 23, 2007, Senator Obama said: “I don’t think the president’s strategy is going to work…My suggestion to the president has been that the only way we’re going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political commendation is actually if we create a system of phased redeployment. And, frankly, the president, I think, has not been willing to consider that option, not because it’s not militarily sound but because he continues to cling to the belief that somehow military solutions are going to lead to victory in Iraq.”

Senator Joe Biden, just before the surge was formally announced, actually declared: “If he surges another 20, 30 [thousand], or whatever number he’s going to, into Baghdad, it’ll be a tragic mistake.”

In May 2007, Senator Obama voted against funding our troops in Iraq. Reporters have insinuated that I haven’t been telling the truth on this fact, but consider the fact: he did not support additional troop funding. Had his position prevailed, our troops would have been forced to leave Iraq precipitously and chaos would have ensued. Goodness, even Senator Biden voted for the funding and had to admit this about Senator Obama and others who opposed it: “My colleagues voted against the funding to make a political point. There’s no political point worth my son’s life. There’s no political point worth anyone’s life.” As the mother of a soldier who spent his year in Iraq recently, I have to agree with Biden on that point.

As it became clear in the summer of 2007 that the surge strategy was working, Senator Obama was still stubbornly in denial about the success our American troops were having, saying: “My assessment is that the surge has not worked and we will not see a different report eight weeks from now.” What willful blindness he showed with that assessment.

And even in November 2007, when everyone could see the success of the surge in reducing violence and increasing political space in Iraq, Senator Obama said: “Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.” 

As Americans tune in to watch President Obama, it is important to remember the facts. He opposed the surge. He predicted it would fail. He said it would make things worse even after it dramatically improved the situation. He voted to cut off funds for our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines fighting in Iraq. For months he refused to accept that the surge he fought was actually a spectacular success. As President Obama usually likes to look backwards and declare the state of everything to be “George Bush’s fault,” my hope is that tonight he stays consistent and looks backwards, and in this case acknowledges that credit should be given where credit is due.

Along with the points that Bill Kristol made yesterday, I too have some suggestions for the president. President Obama, please show grace, humility and some honesty before the American people tonight. Please don’t declare “Mission Accomplished” and then saunter away with an assumption that your opposition to the Iraq strategy was key to our troops’ success. Please end the political posturing. Admit you were wrong about the surge. Recognize what our brave armed forces have achieved. Admit that the strategy long advocated by Republicans, proposed by President Bush, led by Generals Petraeus and Odierno, and executed by thousands of America’s finest – our brave men and women in uniform – brought violence under control and made responsible withdrawals possible. The more honest you are about the past, the more likely it is you will gain the support of the American people for your Iraq policy in the future. We need to be able to trust the White House war strategy, as our children’s future depends on it. Being honest with us tonight is a good starting point in building trust.

- Sarah Palin

Read more...

Sarah Palin Post: Obama On Iraq Poor Leadership No Credit To GW, McCain, Troops & Billions Wasted

Monday, August 30, 2010 0 Responses
KHAN BANI SAAD, Iraq – A $40 million prison sits in the desert north of Baghdad, empty. A $165 million children's hospital goes unused in the south. A $100 million waste water treatment system in Fallujah has cost three times more than projected, yet sewage still runs through the streets
As the U.S. draws down in Iraq, it is leaving behind hundreds of abandoned or incomplete projects. More than $5 billion in American taxpayer funds has been wasted — more than 10 percent of the some $50 billion the U.S. has spent on reconstruction in Iraq, according to audits from a U.S. watchdog agency.
That amount is likely an underestimate, based on an analysis of more than 300 reports by auditors with the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. And it does not take into account security costs, which have run almost 17 percent for some projects. […]
Christensen acknowledged that mistakes have been made. But he said steps have been taken to fix them, and the success of the program will depend ultimately on the Iraqis — who have complained that they were not consulted on projects to start with.
"There's only so much we could do," Christensen said. "A lot of it comes down to them taking ownership of it."
The reconstruction program in Iraq has been troubled since its birth shortly after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. The U.S. was forced to scale back many projects even as they spiked in cost, sometimes to more than double or triple initial projections.
As part of the so-called surge strategy, the military in 2007 shifted its focus to protecting Iraqis and winning their trust. American soldiers found themselves hiring contractors to paint schools, refurbish pools and oversee neighborhood water distribution centers. The $3.6 billion Commander's Emergency Response Program provided military units with ready cash for projects, and paid for Sunni fighters who agreed to turn against al-Qaida in Iraq for a monthly salary.
But sometimes civilian and military reconstruction efforts were poorly coordinated and overlapped.
Iraqis can see one of the most egregious examples of waste as they drive north from Baghdad to Khan Bani Saad. A prison rises from the desert, complete with more than two dozen guard towers and surrounded by high concrete walls. But the only signs of life during a recent visit were a guard shack on the entry road and two farmers tending a nearby field.
In March 2004, the Corps of Engineers awarded a $40 million contract to global construction and engineering firm Parsons Corp. to design and build a prison for 3,600 inmates, along with educational and vocational facilities. Work was set to finish in November 2005.
But violence was escalating in the area, home to a volatile mix of Sunni and Shiite extremists. The project started six months late and continued to fall behind schedule, according to a report by the inspector general. […]
Another problem was coordination with the Iraqis, who have complained they weren't consulted and often ended up paying to complete unfinished facilities they didn't want in the first place.
"Initially when we came in ... we didn't collaborate as much as we should have with the correct people and figure out what their needs were," Christensen said. He stressed that Iraqis are now closely involved in all projects. […]
The U.S. military pinned great hopes on a $5.7 million convention center inside the tightly secured Baghdad International Airport compound, as part of a commercial hub aimed at attracting foreign investors. A few events were held at the sprawling complex, including a three-day energy conference that drew oil executives from as far away as Russia and Japan in 2008, which the U.S. military claimed generated $1 million in revenues.
But the contracts awarded for the halls did not include requirements to connect them to the main power supply. The convention center, still requiring significant work, was transferred to the Iraqi government "as is" on Jan. 20, according to an audit by the inspector general's office.
The buildings have since fallen into disrepair, and dozens of boxes of fluorescent lightbulbs and other equipment disappeared from the site. Light poles outside have toppled over and the glass facade is missing from large sections of the abandoned buildings.
Waste also came from trying to run projects while literally under fire. […]
By contrast, the Basra children's hospital — one of the largest projects undertaken by the U.S. in Iraq — looks like a shining success story, with gardeners tending manicured lawns in preparation for its opening. But that opening has been repeatedly delayed, most recently for a lack of electricity.
The construction of a "state of the art" pediatric specialist hospital with a cancer unit was projected to be completed by December 2005 for about $50 million. By last year, the cost had soared above $165 million, including more than $100 million in U.S. funds, and the equipment was dated, according to an auditors' report.
Investigators blamed the delays on unrealistic timeframes, poor soil conditions, multiple partners and funding sources and security problems at the site, including the murder of 24 workers. Bechtel, the project contractor, was removed because of monthslong delays blamed on poor subcontractor performance and limited oversight, the special inspector general's office said. A Bechtel spokeswoman, Michelle Allen, said the company had recommended in 2006 that work on the hospital be put on hold because of the "intolerable security situation."
In an acknowledgment that they weren't getting exactly what they hoped for, Iraqi officials insisted the label "state of the art" be removed from a memorandum of understanding giving them the facility. It was described as a "modern pediatric hospital."
Hospital director Kadhim Fahad said construction has been completed and the electricity issue resolved.
"The opening will take place soon, God willing," he said.
Residents are pleased with the outcome. One, Ghassan Kadhim, said: "It is the duty of the Americans to do such projects because they were the ones who inflicted harm on people."
Source: 
Sarah Palin @ SarahPalinUSA


Read more...

Sarah Palin: Please Read WSJ - Higher Dividend & Cap Gains Taxes LOWER Revenue. Limit Deductions?

Monday, August 09, 2010 1 Response
No serious economist thinks higher dividend and cap gains taxes are efficient ways to raise revenue. Why not limit deductions for high earners instead?

Friday's weak employment report reminds us anew of the flagging U.S. economic recovery. While the Obama administration discusses additional stimulus packages, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is arguing that we should roll back key elements of the Bush tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003. The administration is particularly skeptical about the benefits of today's lower rates on dividends and capital gains.
The tax on dividends, for example, is currently 15%, but it could increase to as high as 39.6% if the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire. On top of this, a new 3.8% tax on investment incomes for high-income earners begins in 2013 to help pay for ObamaCare. The administration's arguments for higher taxes on capital center on fairness and the need for deficit reduction.
These arguments are seriously mistaken. The relationship between investment, capital and wages is such that workers are better off if capital is not taxed at all. […]
There are at least four channels through which Mr. Bush's tax reform (proposed and passed) raised the long-run productive capacity of the economy—that is, increased the size of the pie. First, since lower taxes mean higher returns to investors, those investors allocate more funds to corporate capital. Corporations can raise capital for investment more cheaply. As a result, the nation's capital stock and output increase.
Second, reducing or eliminating the differential tax treatment between corporate and noncorporate investments means that investment flows are not channeled artificially by tax considerations and the overall productivity of the economy increases.
Third, lowering or eliminating taxes on capital mitigates distortions in our financial structure. Prior to 2003, equity financing was disadvantaged relative to debt financing, with taxes levied twice, at the corporate level and again at the investor level. Because interest payments to debt holders are deductible at the corporate level, debt financing was taxed only once, at the investor level. This system contributed to over-reliance on debt financing. The 2003 tax cuts reduced this bias substantially. Nonfinancial companies went into the recent crisis with lower leverage as a result, a very good thing. […]
If the Obama administration's goal were truly fairness, it could propose an increase in the average tax rate on higher-income earners without raising marginal rates—for example, by limiting deductions. Does the Treasury really believe that raising dividend and capital gains taxes addresses its fairness concerns at the lowest cost in terms of reduced economic activity? […]
If President Obama is interested in promoting growth now and in the future, he should commit to retaining the low tax rates Congress passed in 2003.
Mr. Hubbard, dean of Columbia Business School, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush.
Source:

Read more...

Sarah Palin: PolitiFact Gets "Pants on Fire" Rating For Their Spin On Democrats' $3.8 Trillion Tax Hike

Thursday, August 05, 2010 0 Responses
Yesterday, PolitiFact.com fact-checked my statement about the coming $3.8 trillion Obama tax hike – the largest tax increase in history. They did such a bad job of it, however, that I feel compelled to fact-check the fact-checkers.
First of all, they claim that there are Democrat proposals which would “keep the tax cuts for individuals who make less than $200,000 and couples who make less than $250,000.” 
Unfortunately for PolitiFact, no such proposal exists. They admit as much, by the way, when they state that “There are no formal congressional proposals yet to keep the Bush tax cuts in place, so we don’t have precise estimates from official sources like the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.” That doesn’t stop them, though, from claiming I “confuse the issue” by “using numbers that assume all the tax cuts are going away. That is not the Democratic plan nor is it President Obama’s plan.” 
Plan? What plan? There is no plan. All we have is smoke and mirrors based on an old Obama campaign pledge that if elected, he would exempt families making less than $250,000 a year from “any form of tax increases.” But this pledge was already watered down before he was even elected. First vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden lowered it to $150,000. Then campaign surrogate Gov. Bill Richardson lowered it even further to $120,000. 
A few months after the inauguration, even that last promise disappeared in a puff of smoke. When asked to reaffirm the White House’s commitment to the campaign promise of no tax increases for families earning less than $250,000, Obama’s spin doctor David Axelrod declared the President had “no interest in drawing lines in the sand.” 
The truth is that as of today, Democrats haven’t taken any action to extend any part of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for any income group – and in this case doing nothing equals hitting American taxpayers with a massive $3.8 trillion tax increase. 
What we do know for certain is that the White House is more than willing to raise taxes on families with incomes of less than $250,000. Democrat Senator Max Baucus admitted as much during the debate about Obamacare when he stated that “One other point that I think it’s very important to make is that it is true that in certain cases, the taxes will go up for some Americans who might be making less than $200,000.” 
PolitiFact doesn’t dispute the $3.8 trillion estimate of the cost of repeal of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. It admits that “Palin’s estimate of $3.8 trillion over 10 years is within a reasonable range, if you’re talking about all taxpayers.” And yet somehow it continues to argue that I’m wrong, based on a proposal it admits doesn’t exist which in turn is based on a phantom campaign pledge which Democrats have already broken anyway. I call that a “Pants on Fire” statement.
To prevent PolitiFact from making similar mistakes in future, it would be helpful if the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership finally mustered the courage to table their plans to let the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire. Mr. President, publish your proposals, and we’ll duke it out. You can argue in favor of a multi-trillion dollar tax hike in an age of economic uncertainty and mass unemployment, and we’ll argue for fiscal sanity combined with serious spending cuts. I for one look forward to such a debate.
In the meantime I suggest the St. Petersburg Times hires a few extra staff to fact-check its fact-checkers. It might help it prevent being caught with its “pants on fire” again in the future.
- Sarah Palin

Read more...

Sarah Palin Alert: Kansas Vote Tuesday Todd Tiahrt For U.S. Senate

Monday, August 02, 2010 0 Responses
Todd Tiahrt Believes In Sarah Palin!!!


I want to remind the good people of Kansas to vote on Tuesday for Todd Tiahrt for U.S. Senate. He is a strong... http://fb.me/EKyS3p0K
- Sarah Palin

Source:







Read more...

Sarah Palin: Please Read Excellent Article, Yes A Period of Consequences

Friday, July 23, 2010 0 Responses
Last month, we published an editorial under the title “A Period of Consequences.” The phrase was taken from a speech in the House of Commons in late 1936 in which Winston Churchill warned: “The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.”
In the editorial, we lamented the procrastination, half-measures, soothing and baffling expedients, and delays that have characterized U.S. policy toward Iran’s nuclear program. We argued that U.S. military action to stop the program was preferable to a nuclear Iran, and urged the Obama administration to keep open (and plan for) the possibility of such action. Reuel Marc Gerecht makes the case in our pages this week that an Israeli strike would also be better than no strike at all. This is certainly the case. Still, American action is preferable, and desirable.  […]
- We’ve been living beyond our means and have failed to come to grips with the problem. The financial crisis has been followed by an irresponsible “stimulus” package that has meant the assumption of more debt, and a financial regulation bill that doesn’t address our core financial problems. A European sovereign debt crisis is bearing down on us as the global economic recovery falters, and our fiscal and monetary policy instruments seem exhausted. Now we are entering a period of consequences that will require an end to procrastination, and that will necessitate both difficult short-term choices, and a fundamental rethinking of a host of government programs and the very structure of our fiscal and monetary policies. […]
- We’ve allowed our universities to become politically correct, our media to become juvenile, and our entertainments to become ever-more adolescent—and then we wonder why we’re baffled by the difficulties we have as a society in being candid, serious, and grown up. As C.S. Lewis put it, “We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.” Now we are entering a period of consequences in which delaying the decay is no longer enough, and in which the counter-cultural and reconstructive cultural efforts that are underway will not only have to be intensified, but will have to make a difference quickly.
The British economist and businessman Josiah Charles Stamp is said to have remarked, “It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.” Stamp, along with his wife and son, was killed in London in 1941 during the Blitz. Those deaths, and tens of millions others, were the result of decent people seeking for too long to dodge their responsibilities and to evade the consequences.
- William Kristol
Source:
The Weekly Standard: Yes, A Period of Consequences by William Kristol 
Keep America Safe: Co-Founders William Ktistol & Liz Cheney

Read more...

(Video) Sarah Palin Strikes Back At Journolist’s ’Sick Puppies’

Thursday, July 22, 2010 0 Responses






From a remote location on an island off Alaska’s coast, former Governor Sarah Palin is blasting what she describes as the “sick puppies” in the media who immediately and ruthlessly attacked her when Sen. John McCain picked her as his running mate during the 2008 presidential campaign.
In exclusive remarks to The Daily Caller, Palin described “hordes of Obama’s opposition researchers-slash ‘reporters’” descending upon Alaska in the days after she was picked by McCain.
She said the media became a key reason she decided not to finish out her term as governor and faults, in part, the McCain campaign for failing to vigorously defend her.
Palin chose to be a public figure at the highest level, as a candidate in a presidential campaign, arguably inviting the most intense scrutiny imaginable.
Yet TheDC revealed posts from Jounolist that show liberal journalists coordinating attack lines against Palin from the moment McCain picked her, suggesting she may have had the deck stacked against her.
Palin said she sensed the vitriol coming from campaign reporters at the time.
“It was too obvious to me, my family, my administration and anyone else who knew me (and my record) that we were in a defenseless position the minute I gave my acceptance speech and the hordes of Obama’s opposition researchers-slash ‘reporters’ had descended upon Alaska,” Palin told The DC.................


Read more...

Sarah Palin: Forget Freedom, These Yahoos Would Shut Down Fox News PLEASE READ

Wednesday, July 21, 2010 1 Response

Forget freedom of speech and freedom of the press if these yahoos ever get their way in America. It seems "prominent" journalistic champions of free speech suggested having the federal government shut down a media outlet that takes a broader look at issues than these "media elites" would like you to see.
- Sarah Palin



If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would.
But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio (update: Spitz was a producer for NPR affiliate KCRW for the show Left, Right & Center), that isn’t what you’d do at all.
In a post to the list-serv Journalist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.
In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.” […]
The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journalist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.
“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organization *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracized. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.
“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”
Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “I hate to open this can of worms,” he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?”
And so a debate ensued. Time’s Scherer, who had seemed to express support for increased regulation of Fox, suddenly appeared to have qualms: “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”
But Zasloff stuck to his position. “I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,” he wrote. “If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”
Scherer seemed alarmed. “So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”
John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”
Source:

Read more...

Sarah Palin About The Crap Media: Media Bias? What Media Bias? BOMBSHELL!

Tuesday, July 20, 2010 0 Responses
It’s encouraging for commonsense conservatives who are frustrated with media cover-ups and biases to see truth revealed.
Remember the infamous “JournoList” – the listserv chat group of hundreds of “prominent” mainstream media personalities? It seems The Daily Caller obtained copies of the JournoList email exchanges from the 2008 campaign having to do with the media’s coverage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, then candidate Obama’s pastor of 20 years. It’s everything you may have suspected. 
This, in the words of one JournoList member:
“I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.
And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.”
That’s just one little excerpt. Read the whole thing here. It’s quite an eye-opener. It really says it all – though more will no doubt be revealed in the future, no doubt covering the lamestream media’s coverage of other issues and people. May the light keep shining!
- Sarah Palin

Read more...

(Video) Sarah Palin Endorsement: Kelly Ayotte for New Hampshire

Monday, July 19, 2010 0 Responses
Todd, Willow, and I are headed out to Kodiak and Afognak to meet with logging families on the forested islands. As we work and sightsee on America’s largest island we’ll get to view more majestic bears, so now is a good time to draw attention to the political equivalent of the species. 
It’s my honor to endorse a Granite State “mama grizzly” who has broken barriers, fought off and locked up criminals, and battled all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the rights of New Hampshire parents – and won!
New Hampshire is lucky to have Kelly Ayotte as a candidate for the U.S. Senate this year. Kelly is a daughter of the Granite State, a product of its public schools, and its first female Attorney General. In her impressive five years in the AG’s office, Kelly earned a reputation for being tough on crime, supportive of law enforcement, and tireless in the defense of the rights of the people of New Hampshire. When Planned Parenthood challenged New Hampshire’s parental notification law, Kelly fought them all the way to the Supreme Court and won.
She’s the proud mother of two and the wife of a combat veteran who flew missions over Iraq and currently serves in the Air National Guard. Kelly and her husband started a small landscaping/snow removal business; so, she understands first hand the crushing burden Washington imposes on our small businesses. This pro-life, pro-family, anti-tax constitutional commonsense conservative is the Democrats’ biggest fear in November. They’re already running false ads against her weeks before even the primary election. And on top of that Kelly is facing attacks from a self-funded millionaire running with an R next to his name who likes Obamacare and cap-and-tax.
Kelly is the strongest commonsense conservative who can win in the fall. I knew I liked her when I met her earlier this year, and I know this Granite Grizzly will represent New Hampshire with distinction in Washington.
Please join me in supporting Kelly Ayotte by visiting her website at www.ayotteforsenate.com and following her on Facebook and Twitter.
One final note: I spent time campaigning in New Hampshire in 2008, and I know that the good people there are a lot like Alaskans. In both of our states, we like to get to know the people running for office, look them in the eye, and judge their character. New Hampshire voters know not to rely on misleading negative ads. New Hampshire, tune out the ads and send your native daughter to the Senate. She’ll fight for you there just as passionately and fearlessly as she fought for you in the highest court of the land.
- Sarah Palin


Read more...

Time Magazine / CNN: Sarah Palin in '12? Why She's for Real

Thursday, July 15, 2010 0 Responses
The music swells and then picks up tempo. Sarah Palin is talking about how 2010 will be the year that "commonsense conservative women get things done for our country." She's worried about "these policies coming out of D.C. right now, this fundamental transformation of America," and reports that she is not alone. "Moms kinda just know when something's wrong," she says. "You thought pit bulls were tough? Well, you don't wanna mess with the mama grizzlies!"
Can a two-minute Internet video reshuffle a Republican presidential race before it has even started? Palin's glossy yet authentic clip, released without any fanfare did just that. It was the surest sign yet that she means to be an energizing factor in this year's midterm elections and will mount a real bid for the White House in 2012. Most compelling is the way the video targets women, specifically moms, whom Palin exhorts to vote in the midterms and halt the Obama agenda. The video features image after image of everyday, determined, smiling, patriotic mothers and grandmothers, all keen to join her army of supporters. Palin calls it a "mom awakening." If Palin can inspire GOP and independent women to turn out for the party's candidates in November, she could decisively influence the outcome of the midterms.
Palin doesn't need specific policies to crank up the energy — or even specific criticisms of Obama. She knows that injecting emotion into the conversation is the most efficient way to spark a movement. Her charming if idiosyncratic way with words may also be an asset: "Look out, Washington, because there's a whole stampede of pink elephants crossing the line, and the ETA stampeding through is November 2, 2010. Lotta women comin' together." […] 
Her candidacy would require almost none of the usual time sinks that force politicians to jump in early: power-broker schmoozing, schedule-intensive fundraising, competitive recruitment of experienced strategists, careful policy development. She would have immediate access to cash, with even small Internet donations likely bringing in millions.
Already the most arresting political figure other than the President, Palin will be even more visible in the coming months. After a year of profitable speaking, bookselling and punditry on Fox, she will do some promotion in August for the paperback release of her best-selling Going Rogue. When it airs in the fall, her documentary series about Alaska on TLC will attract both curiosity and viewers. And after the midterms, her second book, America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag, will hit stores in time to rack up millions in Christmas sales. She keeps in touch with her fans via Twitter and Facebook; on July 13 she pushed back hard after the NAACP criticized the Tea Party.
Palin thrives on the unpredictable, and as her new video shows, she can adapt quickly. "What she knows, you can't teach," says Mark McKinnon, a top strategist for George W. Bush and McCain. "And what she doesn't know she can learn — and she's learning fast."
Source:

Read more...

Sarah Palin Outs Darth Vader

Monday, July 12, 2010 0 Responses
From The Great American Thinker:  Darth Vader is out of the closet...and we have Sarah Palin to thank.
The intrepid crusader from the north cut to the heart of Obamacare a year ago, slashing through the professor-speak and government gobbledygook with a searing summary on Facebook of its bottom line: "death panels." With those words, the grounds for debate had shifted, the mainstream media ideological blackout was circumvented, and now, although it may have been Obama's new head of Medicare, Harvard's Dr. Donald Berwick, who stepped on the shuttle at Boston's Logan International Airport, it is Darth Vader who has exited at Reagan National.
Darth Vader -- really? The man responsible for the death of a gazillion inhabited worlds, through whom the evil Emperor Palpatine -- described as " a middle-aged politician ... who gains power through deception and treachery"...sound familiar? -- sought to enslave the universe in the fictional Star Wars saga? Surely, an exaggeration! Yes, and deliberately so, for Berwick starts off his gig as head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid as an enthusiastic proponent of, as one British media commentator noted, a system that routinely denies "some poor suffering victim a remedy that is available in other countries." At the same time, it views the elderly as simply less worthy of care, an expendable segment of the population for whom doctors and heart specialists provide less treatment past the official "cut-off" of 65 years, a British health research journal documented.
Palin's column on death panels ignited a firestorm of elite media and beltway criticism. Once, that would have been enough to shut down debate, for the broadcast networks and newspapers controlled information -- we knew only what they wanted us to know. Suddenly, the new media (including the site you're now reading) provided reality, and the Tea Parties and Republican Party followed. And now Darth Vader has become a metaphor, a figure of speech signifying that the coming of Harvard's Berwick represents the same thing to the average American that the arrival of the Death Star, the spaceship used to destroy planets, meant for entire populations. All of a sudden, life-and-death decisions are out of our hands, resting with a government determined to control every waking moment of our lives. […]
Sarah Palin was right, stubbornly hanging in when the mainstream media -- sensing "a great disturbance in the [leftist] force" -- trained its batteries on her. She was ridiculed on network newscasts, in the White House briefing room, by the media "stormtroopers [who] represented the most visible extension of Imperial [Obama] might." Darth Vader and Star Wars serve as metaphor, Palin as Princess Leia, while network anchors, commentator after commentator, all the president's men showered ridicule on her. "Downright evil," screamed Keith Olbermann; "stupid as s**t," proclaimed a popular Democratic blog.
But she persevered, and the truth emerged. The president and his congressional allies were forcing a crazy quilt of statist bureaucracies, socialist dysfunctions, and authoritarian controls. Each day brought more revelations as Tea Party activists, Republican staffers, ordinary citizens, and new media combed through Obamacare legislation. Sarah Palin was right. Popular radio host Mark Levin put it best: "Sarah Palin's not scary. You know who is? Barack Hussein Obama."  More...........
Stuart Schwartz, a former retail and media executive, is on the faculty at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.
Source:


Read more...

Deals At Amazon

Get Your 2-Sided Palin Apparel (LOL on back)

Palin For President T-Shirts

Friends

Governor Palin 4 President Facebook:

You Can Get Involved ==> Organize 4 Palin

Join Draft Sarah Committee

NEWS ARCHIVE:

VISITORS BY COUNTRY

free counters

Visitors:

My Profile

My photo
Washington, DC, United States
I live in DC and a I can be reached at sarah2012gop@yahoo.com