posted December 07, 2010 09:29 AM            

Perhaps it's escaped your notice but the feds are already supplying 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. Let's call that 2 years shall we!!!!

There's no authority whatsoever for the feds to even be involved in a monetary give-away for doing nothing...and that's what unemployment benefits are. Money for doing nothing. Further, unemployment benefits are a state program.

The same could be and should be said for giving money to farmers for not growing certain crops.

So, let's see. Should I go to work and take home $300 per week OR...should I stay home, put my feet up on the coffee table, watch Days of Our Lives...and get $300 per week free from the taxpayers of America. For members of the dependency class that's not a hard question to answer.

Bailouts Reward Bad Behavior
by Sarah Palin
Monday, December 6, 2010 at 9:13pm

Do insolvent states actually believe other states should bail them out? In June 2009, I was invited to introduce Michael Reagan at an event in Anchorage. In my remarks as Governor of Alaska, I warned against President Obama’s debt-ridden stimulus bill and its effect on all our state budgets. I believed that the bill’s benefits would be limited because government would grow exponentially, and I warned that the package was equivalent to a federal bribe with fat strings attached that created new unfunded mandates for state governments. At the time, most state legislatures, including Alaska’s, chose to ignore that warning. I predicted that states like California would soon be coming to the federal government asking for a bailout. After I gave that speech, I remember the mocking I received for predicting California and other big government states would continue to spend recklessly and yet expect others to bail them out. The naysayers in the media went a bit wild in their condemnation of my sounding that alarm.

Well, fast forward to today. We now know that the nearly trillion dollar stimulus package didn’t lead to the job growth promised by President Obama; instead it left already struggling state governments even deeper in debt because now they are on the hook to continue programs and projects that were started by these “free” federal funds. So now, as predicted, folks in Washington and in over-spending state capitols are whispering the dreaded “b-word”: bailouts – for individual states!

American taxpayers should not be expected to bail out wasteful state governments. Fiscally liberal states spent years running away from the hard decisions that could have put their finances on a more solid footing. Now they expect taxpayers from other states to bail them out, which will allow them to postpone the tough decisions they should have made ages ago and continue spending like there’s no tomorrow. Most Americans would say these states have made their bed and now they’ve got to lie in it. They accepted federal dollars and did not voice opposition to the unfunded federal mandates, and they even re-elected politicians who foisted debt-ridden programs on them that could never be sustained.

Instead of coming to D.C. cap in hand asking for more “free” money, they should follow the example of their more prudent sister states and take the necessary steps to sort out their own finances. They must start by reforming their insolvent pension systems. Many states have multi-billion dollar unfunded pension liability problems that they have refused to address for many years. They’ve deferred their spending problems, assuming the problem deferred would be an issue avoided; instead, it’s resulted in a crisis invited. These states still won’t reform their costly defined benefit systems for fear of offending the powerful public sector unions. Sooner or later, their pension systems will collapse unless they do what states like Alaska did, which is to swap unsustainable defined benefits, which are more like glorified Ponzi schemes, for a more prudent defined contributions system.

My home state made the switch from defined benefits to a defined contribution system, and as governor, I introduced a number of measures to build on that successful transition, while also addressing the issue of the remaining funding shortfall by prioritizing budgets to wrap our financial arms around this too-long ignored debt problem. When my state ran a surplus because we incentivized businesses, I didn’t spend it on fun and glamorous pet projects for lawmakers – though that would have made me quite popular with the earmark crowd. In fact, I vetoed more excessive spending than any governor in our state’s history, and I used the state’s surplus to bring our financial house in order by paying down our unfunded pension plans that some other governors wanted to ignore. This fiscal prudence didn’t make me popular with the state legislature. In addition to vetoing hundreds of millions of dollars in wasteful spending, I put billions of dollars into savings accounts for future rainy days, much like most American families do in responsibly planning for the future. I also enacted a hiring freeze and brought the education budget under control through a commitment to forward-funding. I returned much of the surplus back to the people (it was their money to start with!) through tax relief and energy rebates. I had proven as the mayor of the fastest growing city in the state that tax cuts incentivize business growth, and though the state legislature overrode some of my veto cuts and thwarted an additional tax relief request of mine, the public was supportive of efforts to rein in its government.

It’s one thing to veto spending and reduce the size of government when your state is broke. I did it when my state was flush with revenue from a surplus – though I had to fight politicians who wanted to spend like there was no tomorrow. It’s not easy to tell people no and make them act fiscally responsible and cut spending when the money is rolling in and your state is only 50 years shy of being a territory and everyone is yelling at you to spend while the money is there to build. My point is, if I could fight this fight in Alaska at a time of surplus, then other governors can and should be able to do the same at a time when their states are facing bankruptcy and postponing this fight is no longer an option.

So, let’s not continue to reward irresponsible political behavior. Instead of handing out more federal dollars, let’s give the governors of these debt-ridden states some free advice. Shake off the pressure from public sector unions to cave on this issue. Put up with the full page newspaper attack ads, the hate-filled rhetoric, and the other union strong arm tactics that I, too, had to put up with while fighting those who don’t believe a state needs to live within its means. Stand up to the special interests that are bankrupting your states. You may not be elected Miss Congeniality for fighting to get your fiscal houses in order; but in the long run, the people who hired you to do the right thing will appreciate your prudence and fiscal conservatism.

As Michael Reagan’s dad once said, “We hear much of special interest groups. Well, our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected…. ‘We the people’…” The people deserve leaders who will make the tough decisions to secure the future prosperity of their states.

posted December 09, 2010 03:49 PM            

Palin's Dangerous Race Game
In her new book, the former Alaska governor questions the patriotism of African Americans who point out the country's imperfections.

* By: David Kaufman | Posted: November 25, 2010 at 12:03 AM

As if a new reality show, Fox News commentaries and daughter Bristol's Dancing With the Stars spin weren’t enough, Sarah Palin is back with another book: America by Heart: Reflections on Faith, Family and Flag, which was released on Tuesday. In it, the half-term governor and full-time Republican enigma shares her increasingly extremist worldview on everything from the legacy of JFK to her conflicted feelings about abortion to her commitment to giving up chocolate for a year.

Her most unflinching comments, however, center on race -- specifically, the racial dynamics surrounding the Obama presidency and the increasing suspicion by many progressives that Palin, the Tea Partiers and the entire anti-Obama establishment are motivated by racism.

Palin clearly thinks not. In fact, on Planet Palin, racism essentially does not exist but is merely a misanthropic by-product of African Americans' refusal to shut up, toughen up and truly become American patriots. This question of patriotism versus racism has been tackled by both white and black leaders since before the Civil War.

Back then, Frederick Douglass rightfully asked, "What to the American slave is your Fourth of July?" during his legendary Independence Day speech of 1852. More than 150 years later, Douglass' desire to rectify the triumphs of American history with the tragedies of African-American history still resonate for many descendants of his enslaved brethren.

Yet in the prose of Palin, any race-based frustration expressed by African Americans is proof positive of dubious patriotism and questionable allegiance. Racism is a ploy, a canard, a smoke screen by "opponents of this new American awakening" to impede intellectual debate and castigate conservatives as "evil … [and] just bad people."

The real "bad people," however, are Palin's anti-patriots, such as First Lady Michelle Obama, whose now infamous 2008 quote, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country," is resurrected yet again in America by Heart. This is Palin's "Gotcha!" moment, confirmation that the Obamas "think America -- at least America as it currently exists -- is a fundamentally unjust and unequal country."

I suspect that this thought may have crossed the minds of both Obamas -- much as it has millions of Americans of every color, every day. Indeed, at a time when increasing poverty on Main Street contrasts with stratospheric salaries on Wall Street, how could it not? And why not?

Demanding justice by refuting the status quo has been a hallmark of American politics ever since those original Tea Partiers were polluting Boston Harbor. Acknowledging fundamental injustices and inequalities has been the first step in every American civil rights movement -- from ending slavery and enshrining women's suffrage to establishing worker-protection laws, as well as current efforts to repeal "Don't ask, don't tell."

But back to those black people. Mindful of the minefield she's conspicuously crossing, Palin is clever enough to trade "liberal" for "African American" in much of America by Heart. But her message is abundantly clear, and it's an offensive one -- in every sense of the word.

Already dancing as the Republican star of the 2012 presidential campaign, Palin is using race as a first-mover advantage. And she deserves some props in the process. By framing racism in terms of patriotism, Palin is brazenly declaring race an equal-opportunity topic -- one that she's willing to exploit by any means necessary.

The challenge for African Americans -- indeed, all rational Americans -- is to respond to Palin's posturing in kind and in time. And they should. It's the same MO employed by most minority groups to defend their constituents from bigotry.

Take the Human Rights Campaign, America's largest LGBT advocacy group. Just last week, it issued two communiqués demanding that Palin account for her daughter Willow’s homophobic Facebook rants. Yet as it rightfully rallied for justice and accountability, there were no cries against the HRC as "unpatriotic."

Nor do critics openly question the patriotism of the Anti-Defamation League, whose well-oiled machine cites and fights anti-Semitism -- even in Israel, a foreign nation. In fact, any effort to depict Zionism as unpatriotic would likely be discounted as anti-Semitic.

Despite the backlash from July's Tea Party condemnation, the NAACP must remain unwavering in its intolerance of right-wing racism. Anything less would fuel Palin's dismissal of racism -- both within her own political base and for the entire 2012 election cycle. It would also enable Palin's patriot game-playing by setting a higher standard for black "loyalty" than for other American minority groups.

Two years after she first appeared on the national stage, Sarah Palin has gone from political curiosity to a bona fide politician. Along the way, she's created a platform that touts unity while spouting divisiveness. As her new book arrives in stores, Palin is nothing if not prescient in attacking the Obamas where it clearly hurts most. But her efforts do not merely dis the first family; they’re an affront to the very American ideals that Palin claims to uphold.

"Fighting against injustice is one of the highest forms of patriotism citizens can carve out for themselves," says George Mason University professor Roger Wilkins, author of the 2002 book Jefferson's Pillow: The Founding Fathers and the Dilemma of Black Patriotism. "For Governor Palin to say otherwise ... suggests her ignorance and fantasy about the history of race in this country."

David Kaufman is a New York-based writer who regularly contributes to the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Time and Monocle.

http://www.theroot.com/views/palins-dangerous-race-game?page=0,0

------------------
No..I am not a Virgo.

posted December 09, 2010 05:58 PM              

that if you work for $300 a week your unemployment will be more like $150/week?

and that a painter with 40 years' experience who CANNOT GET WORK and would earn a good deal more than $300 a week, has paid into unemployment for 40 years and been looking for work constantly ...

would probably tell you where to stick your self-righteous assumption that unemployed people are sitting home watching tivo at your expense.

you want to start caring enough to look into the reality of unemployment jwhop. 90% of the unemployed would rather work any day than stay home. but they are being undercut by machines, foreign outsourcing, and under the counter workers.

posted December 09, 2010 06:16 PM            

Again Glaucus, I think you are entirely centered on race. Do you ever think about anything else?

Btw, Michelle O'Bomber pi$sed off a lot of Americans with her comment that it was the first time in her adult life she had ever been proud of her country.

katatonic, what's up with you? I used the number $300 as an example only. The fact is we make far too many people comfortable with being unemployed...paid not to work..plus foodstamps...oh and Medicade too. Wonderful, it pays to not work.

Strange as it may seen to someone in the dependency class in America...about 1/3rd of the unemployed find a job within 2 weeks of their unemployment compensation benefits expiring.

Now, no one promised any American they could sit on their as$es until the perfect job came along and bit them in the butt. So, they might actually have to do a job they don't really, really, really like.

TS baby!

**edit**

Something else katatonic:

posted December 12, 2010 12:07 PM              

as we head into the end of the year, a year of corporate record-breaking profits and millionaires" chump change being the only thing the republicans care about, see if you can figure out how much someone on unemployment can afford to spend in the stores for christmas, as they count their wads of cash leached off of you and try to reckon how they will pay for xmas AND dinner through january.

posted December 12, 2010 12:58 PM            

Myth #1: I'm going to get something out of unemployment insurance because I paid into it
Truth: Unemployment insurance is paid for primarily through employers' contributions. You, as an employee, do not pay into any unemployment compensation fund directly.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8821/ten_costly_myths_about_unemployment.html?cat=17

Who Pays for Unemployment Insurance?
No, they do not. Only employers pay, through a payroll tax to the employment security office of the state the employer is in.

No. Only employers pay unemployment taxes to the state who, in turn, pays the benefits to qualified unemployed workers.

Unemployment Payments and the Law
Each state pays its unemployed workers from the pool of unemployment taxes it collected from employers, based on their number of employees and their turnover history.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_employees_pay_for_unemployment_insurance

Myth #6: Unemployment benefits are a form of welfare. So if I need to make sure my mortgage is paid, they'll help me.
Truth: Unemployment benefits are a form of insurance, just like auto, medical, and life insurance. Your employer pays the premiums, and when and if you are laid off, you can file a claim.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8821/ten_costly_myths_about_unemployment_pg2.html?cat=17

posted December 18, 2010 07:53 AM            

The following statement I wrote regarding the New START treaty was just posted at National Review Online's The Corner:

The proposed New START agreement should be evaluated by the only criteria that matters for a treaty: Is it in America’s interest? I am convinced this treaty is not. It should not be rammed through in the lame duck session using behind the scenes deal-making reminiscent of the tactics used in the health care debate.

New START actually requires the U.S. to reduce our nuclear weapons and allows the Russians to increase theirs. This is one-sided and makes no strategic sense. New START’s verification regime is weaker than the treaty it replaces, making it harder for us to detect Russian cheating. Since we now know Russia has not complied with many arms control agreements currently in force, this is a serious matter.

New START recognizes a link between offensive and defensive weapons – a position the Russians have sought for years. Russia claims the treaty constrains U.S. missile defenses and that they will withdraw from the treaty if we pursue missile defenses. This linkage virtually guarantees that either we limit our missile defenses or the Russians will withdraw from the treaty. The Obama administration claims that this is not the case; but if that is true, why agree to linking offensive and defensive weapons in the treaty? At the height of the Cold War, President Reagan pursued missile defense while also pursuing verifiable arms control with the then-Soviet Union. That position was right in the 1980’s, and it is still right today. We cannot and must not give up the right to missile defense to protect our population – whether the missiles that threaten us come from Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, or anywhere else. I fought the Obama administration’s plans to cut funds for missile defense in Alaska while I was Governor, and I will continue to speak out for missile defenses that will protect our people and our allies.

There are many other problems with the treaty, including the limitation on the U.S. ability to convert nuclear systems to conventional systems and the lack of restriction on Russian sea launched cruise missiles. In addition, the recent reports that Russia moved tactical nuclear weapons (which are not covered by New START) closer to our NATO allies, demonstrate that the Obama administration has failed to convince Russia to act in a manner that does not threaten our allies.

If I had a vote, I would oppose this deeply flawed treaty submitted to the Senate. Just because we were out-negotiated by the Russians that doesn’t mean we have to say yes to this. New START’s flaws have to be addressed in the form of changes to the treaty language that, at a minimum, completely de-link missile defense from offensive arms reductions. Other issues would have to be addressed in the ratification process. If this does not happen either now or next year, Senate Republicans, vote no!

posted January 15, 2011 09:41 AM            

We can't have that......

Finally the Facebook Ghostwriter has been outed. Maybe this was around before, as my IP front page had it in the 'news bar' and we all know how fresh that news is.

I have been patiently waiting over a year for Sister Sarah's' writer to come forward, or be leaked.

Sarah Paling's Secret Asset: Cyber-Messenger Rebecca Mansour

quote:

---

In a July 2010 story on Palin's newly formed political action committee, Politico described Mansour as "a Los Angeles screenwriter and political neophyte whose creation of the popular cheerleading blog Conservatives4Palin endeared her to Palin's inner circle."

---

I feel a little catty about this, I am admittedly being catty. I guess because so many of the Palinites believe she writes her own material.

Listen to just one unscripted Palin tape, and you know she is not writing the blogs and few of the tweets.

quote:

---

[Mansour's] C4P functions as a hybrid news service, discussion board, and field headquarters for a virtual army of Palin supporters, who pride themselves on brute devotion. "Who We Are and What We Stand For," a post written by Mansour, declares, "We're ordinary barbarians here. No one controls us. We're a horde." A prominent C4P contributor, Nicole Coulter, told CBS.com this summer, "We would literally walk across hot broken glass for this woman. . . . She's our family, and you protect your family; it's like the mafia."
On C4P, any journalist or public figure who questions Palin in any way is flicked off as a "creep," a "hack," a "loser," a "storm trooper," a "liar," or as just plain "slime." "I assumed the governor was above that," says Jay Ramras, an Alaska state legislator who has been a frequent target of the site. "Or at least that there was a Chinese wall between her and these people. But then they crossed over -- she hired them."

Mansour's words have continued to appear on the site occasionally, even after she was formally taken on board by Sarah PAC. She used to police C4P message boards for dissenters from the party line and, under the name RAM (her initials, shortened from her earlier, more descriptive handle, RAM Hammer), rip them mercilessly: "Now you are banned for life, you sick son of a ***** ." . . . The nastiness on C4P exists alongside an idealization of the former governor, as displayed in the closing lines of "Who is Sarah Palin?," an 8,000-word posting by Mansour: "C4P has your back, Governor. And when you finally ride out from the north with your banner lifted high, we'll rally."

---

quote:

---

One thing is clear: Mansour, as writer, has discovered a character in Palin.

"I am sick & tired of the 'lack of substance' argument against Sarah Palin," she once tweeted. "Try reading her Facebook posts & listening to her speeches."
Mansour takes her roles seriously. She uses social media skillfully to broadcast Palin's messages on an array of topics. She is suspected by many to be the true author of Palin's tweets and Facebook posts. (Mansour told Draper, "the governor reads, checks and approves everything that's under her name.")

---

posted January 15, 2011 10:32 AM            

So Node...where is any proof of what you allege? You didn't supply a single particle. So, where's that tape you're so proud of?

Where too Node, is any proof that Mansour writes Palin's tweets, speeches or.....

Rumor, supposition, innuendo and gross hypocrisy of the "catty" leftist variety...given the known intellectual incapacity of THE ONE, THE MESSIAH...O'Bomber who cannot string together enough words to form a complete sentence without uhhhhing, ahhhhing, uuulping to the point he sounds like a cat throwing up a fur ball.

Further Node, Palin gave Mansour literary credit for assisting with her book.

On the other hand, O'Bomber failed to mention...anywhere..that his book was written by the communist domestic terrorist bomber...Bill Ayers.

Btw Node, Sarah Palin was a very successful Governor of Alaska...with an 80% approval rating....before she ever heard of Mansour...and probably before Mansour ever heard of her. During this same period, O'Bomber became well known as Senator Present in the IL state legislature.

Sarah Palin wrote some key words...very few..on her hand to refer to during a speech...and "catty leftists" went nuts. Palin didn't use a teleprompter...as President Teleprompter does and she didn't use notes cards or a typewritten outline. She spoke contemporaneouslyly; a feat far beyond the intellectual abilities of Barack Hussein O'Bomber.

Here's what happens when O'Bomber is caught without his Teleprompter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp0hU1THjuc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThEAO0lt4Dw&feature=related
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/004870.html

posted January 15, 2011 11:04 AM            

quote:

---

Where too Node, is any proof that Mansour writes Palin's tweets, speeches or.....

---

did you read the article?

Do you really believe she writes all of those blogs and tweets?? I guess so, poor baby.

80%? your facts are off. They fell to 67%

Palin unscripted?

My personal fave from my post of page 12 of this thread.

Palin and the Alaskan school teacher

I just listened/watched again...the near shrieking tonality of the Palin voice requires an aural cleansing ---off to listen to some Lorena Mckennit.

posted January 15, 2011 01:08 PM            

You've furnished NO evidence Palin doesn't write her blog pieces and her own tweets.

Yeah, I read the trash article you posted AND...there's no proof of any of your allegations in that article either.

My facts are not off. Sarah Palin had an 80% job approval rating among citizens of Alaska.

So, a Palin hating school teacher ambushes Palin...down to a preprepared banner...and Palin handled her with class.

It's obvious to everyone whom leftists fear in any election against O'Bomber. It's Palin whom they know would wipe the floor with O'Bomber in any debate.

O'Bomber is a wholly created persona with an unfocused mind. Palin is real and that's scary for leftists.

It's noted leftists don't attack the other potential Republican candidates.

posted January 15, 2011 10:04 PM            

How about this for starters,

before nomination->

more recent

your fave poll Rassmutation has the highest number for Palin @ 73% in April of '08 before the nomination I might add.

posted January 15, 2011 10:54 PM            

End of the argument.

Does Sarah Palin Have an 80% Approval Rating?
Posted By Josh Goodman | September 3, 2008

Sarah Palin has an 80% approval rating -- I've read it more times than I can count over the past five days. But is it true?

It certainly was true as of May. Take a look at this report from KTUU in Alaska, as reproduced by the Republican Governors Association:

KTUU - Sarah Palin's popularity initially seemed to be a honeymoon of sorts -- the soccer mom had it coming, many thought, after defeating an incumbent governor and a former two-term governor in the 2006 elections.

As 2007 progressed Palin's continued high standing in public opinion polls became a big political success story.

Now, her sustained approval rating of more than 80 percent is widely seen as something of a phenomenon.

In contrast...the information you cite traces back to "image shack" . I didn't know anyone considered "image shack" a credible source for polling information.

By contrast, O'Bomber's approval rating is only 46% and, of those, only 26% strongly approve of O'Bomber's job performance.

No credible poll has ever given O'Bomber an overall 80% job approval rating.

posted January 23, 2011 04:22 AM            

did is the operative word.
for a brief moment in time- Considering how long she held down the Job it could be little else but brief.

sometimes I think to myself --[] maybe JW is just a plain old fashioned, garden variety idiot......then it all starts to make sense.

Note to supporters of the intellectually challenged.....image shack stored the upload....the copy write is the Hays research group/ it is on the image goofdalackas.

posted January 26, 2011 10:46 AM            

The question Node is why you ever started down the road in opposing what is manifestly true...and so easily proved true.

Even the poll you chose to post showed Palin had an 80% approval rating in Alaska...44% of which was a "Very Favorable" rating.

I suppose we could chalk up your observed lapses as inattention to detail. Some of my friends would ascribe your resistence to truth as PDS...Palin Derangement Syndrome; other would go for HS...Harpy Syndrome. But not me; I'm too nice a guy.

As for me, I'm chalking it up to jealousy...and abject fear.

Sarah Palin is everything you and your leftist twit wannabees are not. further, Palin represents the biggest threat to the Marxist O'Bomber and the rest of the useful idiots who want to expand the busybody role, scope, size and cost of government.

That's really what all the unhinged vitriol coming off the hateful left is about.

Sarah Palin is also a gigantic threat to the RINO...Republican in Name Only..establishment...the Socialist Lite crowd. She worked hard in the primaries to get them sent back where they came from and some of them won't be coming back. As far as I can see, Palin hasn't taken her foot off the throttle or backed off a nanometer. Her message of smaller, smarter, more effective, less intrusive, less costly government cuts straight across their voting records when they controlled the House, the Senate and the White House.

What’s so scary about Sarah?
Sunday, January 23, 2011 12:00 am | Updated: 7:50 am, Sun Jan 23, 2011.
FRANK MIELE/Daily Inter Lake

Some people don’t like Sarah Palin.

As an intellectual exercise, you might want to ask yourself why that is.

Is it because they don’t like her personally or because they don’t agree with her ideas?

I suppose some people might not like her because she speaks with a funny accent, or because she is from a rural state or because she likes to hunt and fish.

I think we can all agree that people who don’t like her for any of those reasons, or because (shudder!) she goes to church, are narrow-minded and not really worthy of serious consideration. Besides, all of those characteristics could apply to Abe Lincoln just as easily, and from what we know he was considered quite likable personally.

But what if it is her ideas that people don’t like? Isn’t that fair?

Maybe so. Surely, there is room for disagreement on such significant policy issues as abortion or tax rates or immigration, but even if you support abortion or higher taxes or citizenship for illegal aliens, does that mean you have to dislike Palin as a human being? Do you have to belittle her? Do you have to distort her words?

Whatever happened to that civility we keep hearing about? It doesn’t seem to apply when people talk about Sarah Palin. She has been vilified and smeared from the instant she arrived on the national scene as John McCain’s vice-presidential pick. People have wished for her death. They have insulted her children. They have twisted her words. They have painted her as incoherent and illogical and finally — with the Tucson shooting — as an inspiration for killers.

And that’s just what her fellow Republicans have said about her!

Here’s a sampling at random:

Former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan: “...there is little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office.”

Columnist Kathleen Parker: “Clearly Out Of Her League.”

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: “I think that she’s got to slow down and be more careful and think through what she’s saying and how she’s saying it.”

Former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum: Palin “should stop talking now.”

Those last two comments seem to represent the mainstream Republican view of Palin — and certainly the mainstream Democratic view: SHE SHOULD JUST SHUT UP.

But why?

Well, let’s face it, the usual reason people want to see someone else shut up is because they disagree with that person’s point of view. It’s not rocket science. The more your enemy talks, the more chance there is that someone will listen.

And what exactly is it that Palin is saying that mainstream Republicans are afraid of? What is she saying that scares all establishment politicians?

When you analyze her scary ideas, they usually come down to this — a belief in individual liberty and responsibility, a belief in limited government, a belief in American exceptionalism, and a belief in a Creator.

So what part of those things is offensive or stupid? What part of that “agenda” do mainstream Republicans want to run away from?

Individual liberty, responsibility, and limited government? Those ideas come from our Founding Fathers. American exceptionalism? That idea comes from a study of history. Belief in a Creator? That idea is the bedrock on which all our liberties are built. Look in the Declaration of Independence if you don’t want to look in the Bible.

Just to make sure there was nothing scary about Sarah, I read the full text of Sarah Palin’s Facebook statement about the Arizona shooting, which has been widely denounced as reprehensible, mostly by Democrats such as Chris Matthews and Jon Stewart. PoliticusUSA blogger Sarah Jones attacked the statement for its “volatile, incendiary rhetoric.” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s spokesman said it showed “a complete ignorance of history — or blatant anti-Semitism.”

I encourage you to read Palin’s statement for yourself (see link below). Or watch it on Facebook. Just visit www.facebook.com/sarahpalin and look for the posting under the terrifying title, “America’s Enduring Strength.”

I can find nothing in it that any patriotic American — Republican, Democrat or independent — could possibly disagree with. It begins with a broken heart, mourning and “a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.” It ends with a prayer for the victims of the tragedy and a plea for “God’s guidance and the peace He provides.” In between, there is a lengthy meditation on the American spirit, the American political system, and American values.

It is a very thoughtful statement — filled with the kind of serious discourse we claim that we as Americans want our leaders to engage in — but because it was made by Sarah Palin, it was immediately dismissed as self-serving and sophomoric. Pundits pounced to persuade the consumers of cable news that Palin was once again fomenting hate. That Palin is not like the rest of America. That her ideas are somehow foreign and unattractive. That she is mean-spirited and downright stupid.

But listen to what she actually said about the shooting in Tucson and the debate that followed, and you will find out that she was just the opposite — kind-hearted, generous and thoughtful.

“Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world,” Palin said. “Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day...”

See anything you disagree with there?

How about this?

“The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.”

Not too radical, is it?

But what really bothered Palin haters is that she actually responded to their outrageous claims that she was somehow responsible for what the alleged pot-smoking, Bush-hating gunman did in Tucson. In other words, they were once again mad at her for daring to speak.

“Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event,” she said.

“Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

Well, it’s easy to see why the irresponsible journalists and pundits who blamed Palin for the shooting deaths in Tucson would take offense at being chastised. But for the life of me I can’t see why the American public would consider Sarah Palin dangerous because she told the truth. Lacking anything else to complain about, the pundits seized on Palin’s use of the phrase “blood libel” to make the case that she was being “insensitive” to Jews in general or to Rep. Giffords, in particular, because she is Jewish.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The phrase “blood libel” refers to false allegations of responsibility for murders and death that were levied against the Jews in the Middle Ages and beyond by anti-Semites. The accusation of wrong-doing was supposed to be sufficient to prove guilt, and led to untold harm being done to innocent Jews through the years.

Palin likewise has been wrongfully accused, the blood in Tucson laid at her feet, and yet she was supposed to accede to this libel without protest for the sake of presumptive “civility.” Again, the message to Sarah Palin both before and after her Facebook statement is the same: Shut up, Sarah!

But Sarah did not shut up, and her words — for those who can be bothered to study them — are thoughtful and profound.

“In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.”

Nor does she leave it in the abstract. She provides evidence from nearly a year ago that she abhors political violence, and has said so publicly.

“As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms,’ we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box — as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.”

Please read the entire text of Palin’s statement. Let me know if you are offended by any of her praise of American ideals. And as you meditate on the vast difference between what she said and what the mainstream media would have you believe she said, please pay close attention to the following words:

“No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.”

posted February 06, 2011 01:21 PM            

Republican Sarah Palin said on Friday an explosion of government spending and debt under President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats had put the United States on "the road to ruin."

In a tribute to former President Ronald Reagan, the potential 2012 White House contender said leaders in Washington had lost sight of the values that made Reagan a Republican icon and a hero to conservatives -- a belief in limited government, low taxes and personal freedoms.

"This is not the road to national greatness, it is the road to ruin," Palin said of the growth in government spending, budget deficits, joblessness and housing foreclosures under Obama. "The federal government is spending too much, borrowing too much, growing and controlling too much," she said.

Palin said Obama had revived the era of big government, and she ridiculed the infrastructure spending and investment he outlined in his recent State of the Union speech.

"The only thing these investments will get us is a bullet train to bankruptcy," the 2008 vice presidential candidate said in a speech at the Ronald Reagan Ranch Center in Santa Barbara, California, part of two days of festivities marking the late president's 100th birthday.

Reagan served two terms as president beginning in 1981, and his belief in limited government, reduced taxes and military strength has been the dominant political doctrine of his Republican Party ever since.

His legacy gained new momentum in the last year with the growth of the conservative grassroots Tea Party movement, which has focused on a push for limited government and reduced government spending.

Like virtually all Republican Party leaders, Palin and many of the other possible Republican candidates to unseat Obama go to great lengths to stress their belief in Reagan's principle.

But Palin said the Republican search for the next Reagan would never be successful. "He was one of a kind," she said.

Palin focused in particular on a Reagan speech during conservative Barry Goldwater's losing 1964 presidential campaign, titled "A Time for Choosing."

'AT A CROSSROADS'

That speech brought Reagan, a Hollywood actor, to the attention of conservatives and helped catapult him to two terms as California governor and eventually to the White House.

posted February 06, 2011 04:46 PM              

and that speech was not what brought him to the "attention of conservatives" - obviously he had already been noticed or he wouldn't have been speaking there at barry goldwaters' team's invitation!

posted February 07, 2011 09:09 AM            

Again, Palin is right...and you are wrong.

SAG...Screen Actors Guild is not now nor was it ever a bastion of conservative thought. In fact, SAG was and is a rather leftist organization.

The Speech, given before the Republican National Convention audience was so concise in stating what was wrong and still is wrong with leftist demoscat thought that people saw in Ronald Reagan a very straight talking conservative. Reagan governed the same way, as Governor of California and President of the United States.

I notice you said a Reagan policy had Socialist overtones.

What crap! Since when is saving people's lives in a medical emergency...a Socialist policy?

Socialism...around the world, has been engaged for almost 100 years in killing their own citizens....those who disagree with them.

O'Bomber...and the heads up their as$es sycophant leftists who drool over O'Bomber are now trying to wrap O'Bomber in the mantle of Ronald Reagan.

posted February 07, 2011 09:42 AM            

I've never met a leftist who wasn't an angry, hateful, hate spewing specimen of humanity.

And wait, it gets better. The focus of leftist hate...in this case is Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas.

Now, aren't leftists forever telling everyone they're the champions of the downtrodden, the disenfranchised and MINORITIES...and against Racism? Yes they are, yes they are, yes they are.

Progressives are such liars one would be wise to never believe a word they say.

"put him back in the fields"

“He’s a scumbag”

“He’s a dumb **** scumbag”

"A young woman at the rally said that though she was “all about peace,” she would like for Thomas to undergo “torture.”...An enlightened loving leftist progressive speaks.

“hang him” while another protester says “string him up.”

Enjoy the video

Anti-Koch progressives call for violent acts against Justice Clarence Thomas at rally
By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller | Published: 7:35 PM 02/03/2011 | Updated: 2:26 AM 02/04/2011

In an edited video released Thursday, progressive protesters are shown calling for violent attacks on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas while protesting outside a summit billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch held last week in Palm Springs, Calif.

Asked by the filmmaker to say what he would like to do to Thomas, one protester says: “put him back in the fields.”

“He’s a scumbag,” the man says. “He’s a dumb **** scumbag.” The man also said Thomas’s colleague, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, “should go back to Sicily.”

A young woman at the rally said that though she was “all about peace,” she would like for Thomas to undergo “torture.”

Two other protesters appear to call for Thomas’s death. When asked what should happen to Thomas, one person says “hang him” while another protester says “string him up.”

Videographer Christian Hartsock, who has worked with undercover specialist James O’Keefe in the past, told The Daily Caller this video is different from undercover work he’s done previously because he held a camera right up in these people’s faces.

“I’ve worked on undercover investigations before where hidden cameras were involved and this was not such a case,” Hartsock said in a phone interview. “In this case, I had a very prominent camera. These people knew that they were on camera and, in a way, I didn’t even deceive them.”

WATCH: Progressives use vitriolic hate speech at anti-Koch brothers rally
http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/03/anti-koch-pr ogressives-call-violent-acts-fox-news-justice-clarence-thomas-conservatives-rally/

Hartsock said the progressives he interviewed continued with their vitriolic hate speech even though they knew they were on camera.

“They knew that they were accountable for their own words and that their look and likeness would be reproduced later,” he said. “That still did not deter them from expressing the most vile forms of hatred, and some would say racism, on the record.”

Hartsock said he did wear a t-shirt with the logo for “Common Cause,” the left-wing organization that staged the anti-Koch protest. In the video, Hartsock also appears trying to portray himself as an ideological ally of the people he interviewed. Nonetheless, he told TheDC he ”just asked questions” and was “really nice.”

“If a liberal journalist were to produce the kind of footage at any one Tea Party, we would not be allowed to forget about it for the next five years,” Hartsock said.

posted February 07, 2011 11:34 AM            

quote:

---

What crap! Since when is saving people's lives in a medical emergency...a Socialist policy?

Socialism...around the world, has been engaged for almost 100 years in killing their own citizens....those who disagree with them.

---

posted February 07, 2011 02:44 PM              

very rational my dear watsons. methinks the only difference is that reagan did not advertise the fact that this was going to cost EVERYone money and obama was upfront about it.

newsflash. both of these are socialism. and while jwhop thinks all national healthcare systems are killing machines, for most people they have extended life and quality thereof...along with making it affordable to have a healthy labour and child. criminal indeed. murderers!!

can i suggest to you who have never lived in a country with a national health system that YOU MIGHT BE WRONG? i have 21 years experience in one of those countries, and what has caused the collapse of those health systems was the SELLING OFF TO PRIVATE CORPORATIONS for profit, NOT the single payer system that was in place.