Will the media turn their misogynist Palin attacks on Bachmann?

Dennis Miller made an excellent point tonight on O’Reilly which Bill poo-pooed because it wasn’t his idea first.  Let me say before I go on that I’m no Factor fan, I just like his guests and sometimes they’re able to get a complete thought expressed before Bill interrupts them. Frankly, Bill is annoying with his “looking out for the folks” meme all the time.

But I digress.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann

The point Miller made was that if the LSM goes after Michele Bachmann in the same ruthless and cruel way they’ve gone after Sarah Palin, the media will have established an MO.  That won’t look so good for them. Do these liberal journalists want to appear to be the misogynists that they really are or would they rather stay in the closet?  Miller gave great kudos to Palin for laying the ground work for all women to come after her because she’s taken all the abuse and heat – there can’t be any left unless the leftist media want to appear in the ugliest of lights. They will look like women haters – even if the woman in question happens to be conservative.

Party affiliation won’t matter a lot to the American people if they see the media pillaging yet one more UNDESERVING female candidate.

The people that both parties will be fighting for will be the independents: the so-called moderate Americans. They are leaving the democrat party because it’s been hijacked by leftist extremists.  It’s no longer the party of their parents.  It’s now the party of Che and Mao.  And I’m pretty sure those moderate American voters don’t want to be aligned with communists.  I think as it is, it will be hard for the democrats to win them back, but it will be especially hard if they see unfair and unnecessary gender abuse from the media, sanctioned by the democrat party.

 

 

 

 

The blog every ‘Birther’ should read – and all the rest of us on the right, too

I went looking for the blog that my good friend AFVET mentioned in another post regarding our START treaty with Russia and stumbled on this one. Everyone should read it.

Although I’ve waffled on this topic and can see both sides of the issue, mostly I’ve believed that this whole birth certificate thing is a red herring. It’s being used to set up the right as the nutwings the progressives believe we are. This is an issue that the left wants in the news, daily. And this Abercrombie in Hawaii is as stupid as a fox by using it to whip up more and more headlines in order to make conservatives look more and more nutty.

Did you know, for instance that this birth certificate thing all started with the Hillary movement, in 2008? Or that Orly Taitz (the lead attorney in this whole thing) is a democrat donor? And that a lot of this hoopla about the certificate has been fowarded by 9-11 truthers?

Well, I for one, had no idea of these things. But the author of this blog seems to have evidence to those assertions. And I find no reason to doubt his statements. And I admit to pretty much ignoring this BC topic because I believe, in the end, that it’s going to be a hammer used to beat us up and win this election for Obama.

When I read that this governor was going to “settle this birth certificate thing once and for all,” I smelled a rat. There is no way that this was going to happen without the imprimatur of the White House. Abercrombie, the self avowed socialist, was not working unilaterally. Obama’s people had to be involved in this. If the gov’s goal was to settle this, then why didn’t the WH just produce the thing and settle it?

I think it’s clear why they didn’t. They want to use the birthers to beat up on the right during this next election. Of course, the beating up will not OFFICIALLY come out of the Obama campaign. It will be a whisper campaign that will then be carried and screeched by all MSM.

The birthers want the same thing that the all conservatives want: a one term president. They need to quiet down this whole thing and let it ride until we vote him out.  Otherwise this is going to be used to beat the right – all of the right – over the head. This could change some independents minds come November 2012, who were likely NOT to vote to reelect him.

If the birthers turn out to be right, this can all be settled after we vote him out of office.

But who knows – maybe in the eleventh hour of this election, like a Hail Mary pass, someone will produce the real birth certificate, make the birthers look like wingnuts and a little thing like that could swing the election for Obama.

How ending the Bush tax cuts will hurt us all

The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis has run simulations using their Individual Income Tax Model comparing current law with President Obama’s most recent budget proposal which includes: 1) higher taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000; 2) higher taxes on capital gains; 3) higher taxes on dividends; and 4) the return of the death tax. The CDA found that the Obama tax hikes would:

• Destroy an average of 693,000 jobs every year.
• Drain $726 billion from disposal income, $38 billion from personal savings, and $33 billion from business investments.
• Raise taxes on the 55% of all joint filers earning more than $250,000 who run small businesses that employ others.
• Cost the average non-farm small-business owner $3,500 more in taxes.
• Cost the 49% of all seniors with income below $250,000 $525 in additional dividend taxes.
• Cost the 25% all seniors with income below $250,000 $742 in higher taxes.

The bottom line is clear: All Americans would suffer economic harm under the Obama tax hikes. There simply is no justification for raising taxes when the unemployment rate is already near 10%. The American people already know this, which is why the same independents who voted for President Obama by a 52% to 44% margin also oppose the Obama tax hikes. After polling these same independents, Independent Women’s Voice CEO Heather Higgins and former President Bill Clinton pollster Doug Schoen describe what these independents really want: “Decrease the size and scope of government, cut spending and taxes, balance the budget, reduce the federal debt, reduce the power of special interests and unions, repeal and replace the health-care legislation, and decrease partisanship.”

From the Heritage Foundation

This president will never do any of the things that Higgins and Schoen described. He is anti all those things and pro all of them. “Decrease the size of government?” In whose dreams?  “Reduce the power of unions?” I don’t think so. “Repeal health care legislation?” HA! what color is the sky on your planet?

The Federal Reserve: The historical results of a 3rd party

The Federal Reserve

In 1910, six men came together on Jekyll Island, off the coast of Georgia. They took a train ride, in total secrecy. No one could know who they were, where they were meeting or why and they could not acknowledge that they knew one another.

Benjamin Strong of head of J.P. Morgan's Banker's Trust Company

These were the wealthiest men in American and in fact, were part of corporations that owned a quarter of the entire world’s wealth. Three of the corporations or individuals they represented still mean MONEY to almost everyone, even today: Rockefeller, Rothschild and Morgan.

These men were not altruistically spirited. And they were  competitors in the business world. They included Benjamin Strong (J.P. Morgan’s Banker’s Trust  Company), Senator Nelson Aldrich (father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller), Frank Vanderlip (VP of Rockefeller’s National City Bank of NY, the largest bank in America), Charles Norton (President of Morgan’s First National Bank of NY, the second largest bank), Henry Davison, (Sr. partner of J.P.Morgan Company) and Paul Warburg (representing the Rothschilds.) Abraham Andrew  (Secretary of the Treasury) was the 7th man whose job it was to make sure the government’s interests  were represented, such as they were.

These men came together for a week and created the Federal Reserve.

Being far from stupid men, they knew that the only way that Congress would pass their Federal Reserve Act was to make it at least partially centralized: they knew that Congress would not pass a bill that was wholly banker run and they acknowledged that in time, changes could be made to the bill making it less under the thumb of Congress and more secretively run: all in good time and all in incremental steps. (Sound anything like what the socialists are now planning for our health care?)

They went out and “hired” third party economists and academicians to promote their bill and convince the American people that they knew what they were doing by taking over everyone’s money. Rockefeller, for instance, “donated” $50 million dollars to the University of Chicago where an economist and professor named J. Laurence Laughlin’s job was to go out and speak as a “neutral” authority on how good this idea was going to be to the American people and their Congressmen and Senators. This cartel of bankers called these so-called “neutral authorities”  the National Citizen’s League for the Promotion of a Sound Banking System.

But the banker’s cartel had one big hurdle to overcome: the election of a president.

President Taft – a republican – was running for re-election and he was opposed to this whole Federal Reserve idea. He was also likely to win a second term. The bankers wanted Woodrow Wilson. During the panic of 1907 Wilson said “this trouble could be averted if we appointed a committee of six or seven public-spirited men like J.P.Morgan to handle the affairs of the country.”

Uh huh. Bankers handling the affairs of the country and unelected bankers, at that. Ha! what a joke.

The Bull Moose "Progressive" party pin

It soon became clear to the banker’s cartel that Wilson couldn’t beat Taft. Enter former president Theodore Roosevelt and his 3rd party – the Bull Moose party.

It was an Independent party.

Thanks to Roosevelt, the bankers had found a way to divide the republican party and get their man Wilson in the White House. In fact, Morgan’s allies donated heavily to Roosevelt’s campaign. Roosevelt’s run had divided the republicans and as a result, Wilson won but with only 45% of the vote.

President Woodrow Wilson

Had this been a two-man race, Wilson would have lost and the Federal Reserve likely would never have come into being.

In less than a year in office, Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law. And the rest is… more history.

Rasmussen Stat of the day

Poll of 3500 likely voters, taken between Jan. 25 -30, 2009

45% Republican

38% Democrat

5% Other

13% Not Sure

The secret to Scott Brown’s success

It was one of the prettiest morning home drives I’ve driven in months. It’s been raining here for days and this morning the clouds had broken a bit and were on the ground. When I got to the top of the summit and could see into the valley, it was a blanket of clouds. Here and there I could see little hilltops above the clouds, but the whole valley was buried under cloud. The sun hadn’t completely risen but enough to make the sky bright. It was a really breathtaking view which really has nothing to do with this blog: but I wanted to share.

And I was listening to a replay of Wednesday’s Brian & the Judge on Fox Radio. It was a post-election show and they were encouraging callers from Massachusetts to ring in with comments and opinions. While I listened to Brian describe Scott Brown walking out of the MLK breakfast, his hands in his pockets and minus an enterage of handlers, it occurred to my just why Brown walked away with the race.

Do you remember these videos?

Scott parked his truck and walked the parking lot, shaking hands with supporters and Coakley sign carriers, alike. Martha on the other hand, was driven to the front door in a black sedan and was whisked into the building without even being seen by her supporters.

How about this clip?

Scott is so sincere, it’s almost heartbreaking. True sincerity is always easy to spot. He speaks his truth and it comes from the heart. That’s hard to fake.

Coming home on this beautiful morning, I had an epiphany. Scott Brown won this election because he struck the same chord with voters that Sarah Palin has. Honesty, sincerity, humility, self-effacing humor, committment to values, genuine civility with even his opponents, class – this is the kind of person we all wish we could to send to Washington. But since we can’t, we all wanted to be part of sending Brown there.

Because of Sarah Palin, I think we will be seeing more like Scott Brown spring up this year. Nothing could be better for our country, than that.

Non-affiliated voter numbers rising

“… the number of Republicans in the country is essentially no different today than it was in November 2008 when Barack Obama was elected president. The change since Obama’s election is that the number of Democrats has fallen by six percentage points and the number of voters not affiliated with either major party has grown by six. The number of adults not affiliated with either party is currently at 30.6%, up from 24.7% in November 2008.”

I believe this is what we will see leading up to the ’10 election – more voters identifying as Independents. Sensible democrats will see that their party has been hijacked by marxists and they will leave the party. They may not join the GOP but they will not want to be part of what their party has become, thanks to Obama.

Anything will be better than the Marxist (democrat) controlled government we now have. But we have to be careful of a third party launch. Historically, when that happens it only benefits the democrats.  There are close to 11 democrat House members who are not going to run again. That opens the door for a third party candidate but it also opens the door for the GOP to win over independent voters.

That’s the task the GOP has to successfully accomplish. They have to prove to the American people that they are not the same old party of spend, spend and borrow.

MSNBC’s Matthews: Republicans Have Become ‘Party of the Confederacy’

“Are you going to keep building your party with Dixiecrats – ex-democrats who think the Democratic Party is too mainstream?”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “MSNBC’s Matthews: Republicans Have Be…“, posted with vodpod

Too Mainstream? TOO Mainstream? Has this leg-tingler lost his  mind? I’m really sure that no one views the democrats as too mainstream. The problem so many Americans are having with the democrats is that they are not even close to mainstream. They have been hijacked by the crazy left marxists and it’s turning off many sensible party members. I believe there will be a dramatic rise in people who identify as independents in the coming year. There are many who simply cannot call them selves Republicans but will not call themselves democrats, any longer.

Obama will leave a legacy of gutting his own party.

“I have become increasingly concerned that the bills and policies pushed by the current Democratic leadership are not good for north Alabama or our nation,”  Griffith said during a press conference Tuesday.

“I am announcing today that I’m joining the Republican conference immediately,” he said.  “Our nation is at a crossroads and I can no longer align myself with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy, and drives us further and further into debt.”

Let’s hope that what Congressman Griffith is saying, is true and heartfelt.

More to the point – Has the Conservative moment arrived?

Has the liberal moment come and gone?

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
09/30/09 7:16 AM EDT

A new Gallup poll shows a sharp increase in the number of people who say they want the government to promote “traditional values.”

Gallup’s question was simple: “Some people think the government should promote traditional values in our society. Others think the government should not favor any particular set of values. Which comes closer to your own view?” In the new poll, taken in the first days of September, 53 percent of respondents say they want the government to promote traditional values, while 42 percent say they do not want the government to favor any particular set of values. Five percent do not have an opinion.

The results are a significant change from recent years. For most of the last two decades, a majority of people have been in favor of the government promoting traditional values. But that number began to decline in 2005, and the number of people who believe the government should not favor any particular set of values began to rise. Last September, when Gallup asked the same question, the public was split down the middle on the issue, 48 percent to 48 percent. Now, opinion has rather abruptly gone back to the old position, and there’s an 11-point gap between the two, in favor of traditional values.

By the way, the Gallup pollsters did not define “traditional values” when asking the question. “Thus, respondents answer in light of their understanding of the term,” Gallup writes. But Gallup adds that “the results by party and ideology…suggest that respondents understand traditional values to be those generally favored by the Republican party.”

The recent change in favor of traditional values has been most pronounced among independents, among whom Gallup says there has been a “dramatic turnaround.” Last year, independents were overwhelmingly in favor, by 55 percent to 37 percent, of the government not favoring any set of values. In the new survey, those numbers are almost reversed, with 54 percent saying the government should promote traditional values and 40 percent saying it should not. Gallup did not find similarly striking changes among Democrats and Republicans, although Democrats have also moved a little bit in the direction of wanting the government to promote traditional values.

But it is the turnaround among independents — Gallup also found similar numbers among people who called themselves moderates — that put a screeching halt to the shift that had been taking place in the last few years. “Americans’ views of the proper government role in promoting traditional values had moved in a more liberal direction since 2005, to the point that last year, as many said the government should not promote traditional values as said it should,” Gallup writes. “If that trend had continued, 2009 would have marked the first time Gallup found more Americans preferring that the government refrain from actively promoting traditional values. Instead, Americans’ attitudes reverted to a more conservative point of view on the matter. Now, Americans favor the government’s promoting traditional values by an 11-point margin, similar to the double-digit margins favoring that view through much of the prior two decades.”

There’s no way to know precisely what this means. But here’s one theory. In the last few years, public opinion on the role of government was driven by the intense unpopularity of George W. Bush and the Republican Party. Unhappy with Bush and the GOP, voters recoiled from the image of Republicans as the party of traditional values — even though they basically held to those traditional values in their own lives. Now, however, with a government completely controlled by Democrats, that is, by the anti-traditional values party — in last year’s poll, Democrats were 60-37 against the government promoting traditional values — the public has abruptly returned to its basic pro-traditional values position.

But that period of revulsion at Bush and Republicans from 2005 to 2008 left a legacy: a Democrat in the White House and large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, at least until 2010. That is why you see Democrats racing to enact their agenda, even as they see the political conditions around them changing. They have the majorities, based on the public’s very temporary mood of 2005-2008, and they are determined to put their preferred policies in place no matter what the public thinks now.

The Gallup numbers also suggest that Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate have fundamentally misread their own victories. Did voters elect Democrats because they desperately wanted national health care? Sprawling and expensive environmental regulation? Federal deficits triple the size of just a few years ago? No. The voters elected Democrats because they were sick of Bush and Republicans. Now Bush and the GOP are gone and out of power. Democrats are doing what they thought the voters wanted. And it turns out the voters didn’t want that at all.