About Me

Name: Allen Caeden
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Democrats to force kids to work for the government!

Why are we wasting time talking about B.O.'s insensative comment about special needs children. Granted this was a despicable remark, but something bigger is happening. The House of Reps just passed a bill to force children "volunteer" for the U.S. Government. This bill includes uniforms and training at federal insitutions. This marxist move should trouble us all. This my friends is extremely dangerous and strikes at the heart of American freedom. The following is from worldnetdaily.com:
 
Friday, March 20, 2009

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
WorldNetDaily

House adopts plan for uniformed 'volunteer' corps
Also requires new evaluation of 'mandatory' service for all

Posted: March 19, 2009
4:58 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh


WorldNetDaily

The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a plan to set up a new "volunteer corps" and consider whether "a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people" should be developed.

The legislation also refers to "uniforms" that would be worn by the "volunteers" and the "need" for a "public service academy, a 4-year institution" to "focus on training" future "public sector leaders." The training, apparently, would occur at "campuses."

The vote yesterday came on H.R. 1388, which reauthorizes through 2014 the National and Community Service Act of 1990 and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, acts that originally, among other programs, funded the AmeriCorps and the National Senior Service Corps.

It not only reauthorizes the programs, but also includes "new programs and studies" and is expected to be funded with an allocation of $6 billion over the next five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Many, however, are raising concerns that the program, which is intended to include 250,000 "volunteers," is the beginning of what President Obama called his "National Civilian Security Force" in a a speech last year in which he urged creating an organization as big and well-funded as the U.S. military. He has declined since then to elaborate.

The new bill specifically references the possibilities "if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service."

Such new requirements perhaps, the legislation notes, "would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds."

No one, apparently with the exception of infants, would be excluded:

"The means to develop awareness of national service and volunteer opportunities at a young age by creating, expanding, and promoting service options for elementary and secondary school students, through service learning or other means, and by raising awareness of existing incentives."

According to a report by Canada Free Press, "'volunteerism' that kept America running since the days of its founding" would be "wiped out with the stroke of a pen."

"It becomes forced labor and like the practice of another era, presses American citizens of all ages and creeds, unknowingly into military service," the commentary said.

"On paper, H.R. 1388 is the 'Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act'; the more innocuous sounding 'The Give Act,' for short.

"The Give Act puts the finishing touches to Public Allies New Leadership for New Times, modeled after Saul Alinsky's 'Peoples Organizations' and operating under Michelle Obama," the commentary said.

"Michelle was also a pioneer in the social entrepreneur movement – leaders who create new approaches and organize to provide new solutions to social problems. Like most things Saul Alinsky, H.R. 1388 sounds noble in stating why wide-sweeping change is necessary," the commentary said.

"H.R. 1388 goes straight to the heart of volunteerism in America, impacting everything from the lemonade stands of neighborhood children, to the residents of senior citizens homes. … The Give Act puts tow-headed school children and silver-haired seniors in the official uniform of the new State, and encompasses every walk of life in main-street America," the commentary said. "Whether you are young or old, or firmly believe that volunteering means you are offering your time to the good of community work, you will be pressed into Obama's National Civilian Community Corps."

Groups of such "volunteers," would, under the legislation, be "grouped together as appropriate in campuses for operational, support, and boarding purposes. The Corps campus for a unit shall be in a facility or central location established as the operational headquarters and boarding place for the unit. … There shall be a superintendent for each camp."

The plan generated this concern from Resistnet.com: "This is the equivalent of brown shirts."

Another portion of the bill talks about a "service learning" plan that will be "a mandatory part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency."

A forum participant noted, "I wonder what's going to happen to those who refused to 'volunteer.' Maybe they will be put into a different 'campus.' I guess we will soon find out."

Formal announcements about the plan suggested something far different, picking a provision far down in the 200 pages of legislation to highlight.

According to a Business Wire statement released by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the bill "would formally authorize federal support for establishing the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on America as a National Day of Service and Remembrance."

That provision is tucked into the far reaches of the legislation, but Schumer discussed it as if it were the primary point.

"I could not be more proud to work to pass this important provision," said Schumer. "September 11 should not only be a day for mourning – it should be a day to think about our neighbors, our community, and our country. We can take a tragic day in our nation's history and turn it into a force for good."

On the Albany Insanity blog, this concern was raised: "What gives the government the right to require individuals to give three years service under the guise of 'volunteer' service? It is not explicit exactly who is required but I think they get the bill passed and then iron out the details. It talks about uniforms and 'camps.' They revise the word 'camps' and call it 'campus.' There is language about Seniors and Community organizations."

The blog noted, such work forces would be used for "pressing national and local challenges" that apparently could range from weather disasters to economic uncertainty.

At a Republican website, officials noted it authorizes funding for an Education Corps, Healthy Futures Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans' Corps and Opportunity Corps.

The bill was sponsored by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a Democrat from New York. It was approved in the House 321-105, with mostly GOP opposition. It now goes to the Senate.

WND reported earlier on Obama's Colorado Springs campaign speech when he sought a civilian security force as big and well-funded as the military – with a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars.

WND later reported when the official website for Obama, Change.gov, announced he would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs.

However, after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, officials softened the website's wording.

Originally, under the tab "America Serves," Change.gov read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.

"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.

WND previously reported on a video of a marching squad of Obama youth.

Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column first to raise the issue and then to elevate it with a call to all reporters to start asking questions.

"If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal?" Farah wrote. "I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?

"Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?" Farah wrote.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The mistake by SarahPAC and the confusion.

Some of you may be confused over how Sarah Palin could be listed as a keynote speaker at a major Republican fundraiser and Sarah did not even know about it. This article from ADN posted on Conservatives4Palin.com explains what happened.
 
"Here's the deal with all the confusion over whether Gov. Sarah Palin will headline the Washington D.C. fundraiser for Congressional Republicans in June. Apparently SarahPAC mistakenly confirmed Palin would go without asking the governor.

“Someone helping me out on the East Coast…in the enthusiasm of Sarah Palin and the enthusiasm of providing some sort of response confirmed that the governor was coming, and that wasn’t appropriate because the governor didn’t even know of the invitation,” said Meg Stapleton, SarahPAC spokeswoman.

Stapleton said Palin first learned of the invitation when the National Republican Senatorial Committee sent out a press release yesterday announcing Palin as keynote speaker for the annual Senate-House dinner in Washington D.C. on June 8.

The announcement made national news.

After Palin's official spokesman, Bill McAllister, pointed out last night that it wasn’t true, the NRSC countered that it had been confirmed through “the governor’s political staff” at SarahPAC. The press release announcing Palin will keynote remains posted on the NRSC web site as of tonight (Tuesday).

SarahPAC had been gathering all the political requests for Palin to appear, Stapleton said, in order to present the most promising ones to Palin to decide whether she would attend. But that hasn't happened yet.

Still no word on if Palin will attend the D.C. dinner, an annual fundraiser for the Republican Party’s Congressional re-election efforts.

“She may go, she may not go, that’s a decision for her to make and we’ll present it formally after the (legislative) session is over to determine whether she wants to go,” Stapleton said."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is Townhall.com turning on Sarah Palin?

     There appears to be a problem, Sarah Palin is considered to be the keynote speaker at a Republican fundraiser on June 8th in Washington D.C. but appearently Sarah Palin never got the message. As a resulut of what is obviously a SNAFU, Matt Lewis a writer for Townhall blogs wrote the following:

“... Turns out there was some confusion between Palin's Alaska staff and the DC-based SarahPac. Either way, this does little to reassure those who have concerns over Palin's leadership and organizational competency. Under normal conditions, a snafu such as this would be a minor story. But in the case of Palin, it is merely the latest example of a sloppy mistake. Why is it that with Palin, something always seems to go wrong???”

     Okay let us examine what was written here by Matt Lewis. What exactly is this long list of post-election mistakes made by Sarah Palin? How much of an organization is she supposed to have when her PAC is about three months old? Why do I consider this a hit piece? First the post is inaccurate there is not this long laundry list of post election mistakes made by Palin and the problems she had during the campaign were the result of McCain’s handlers not Sarah Palin. Secondly, Matt Lewis never misses a chance to take a swipe at Palin; because like Hugh Hewitt and Carol Liebau he seems to stand behind Bobby Jindal for 2012. Matt I can assure you that Bobby Jindal will never be president! I never thought I would say this but today’s liberal bent Washington Post had an article on this issue and it was far less biased in its reporting of this event than what I have read by Matt Lewis. Lewis simply does not want Sarah Palin for 2012 and it appears he is willing to distort and smear in order to accomplish this. I expect more from a conservative than this.

     Funny because no matter what Sarah Palin does or does not do someone complains. She does the Ziegler interview and Republican strategists yell that she risks overexposure and should focus on governing Alaska. Then she does this during Alaska’s 90 day legislative session and is actually doing her job as governor and then people complain that she did not attend CPAC. Then some shouted that she cancelled on CPAC when in fact she never committed to making an appearance in the first place. So there was a SNAFU between her and her SarahPAC, geez come on her PAC is no more than three months old, and Sarah Palin has been focusing on Alaskan politics for the past few months. What is she supposed to have an extremely well oiled political machine by now? Come on! Look Sarah Palin has not said that she would not attend this fundraiser, and if she has nothing going on she most likely will. If she does go she will be the star of the show and I am sure that there will be both Democrats and Republicans who will criticize her for overexposing herself once again. But think of this if she does go and gives a speech no one is going to remember this SNAFU, and they certainly will not remember it in 2012! Townhall.com may not have totally turned against Sarah Palin but Matt Lewis certainly has, this much I know for sure.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sarah Palin wins again!

Sarah Palin wins and again thwarts her opponents in Alaska. While many conservatives were upset that she did not go to CPAC (myself included) Palin stayed in Alaska getting the Alaskan natural gas pipeline worked out inspite of much oppposition. The building of this natural gas pipeline is going to be a major political victory for Palin and will carry far more weight in any presidential run than one CPAC meeting ever could. Here is an article from conservatives4palin.com on what she has just accomplished:
 
 

Alaska Wins!

Well, there she goes again.

Governor Sarah Palin has once again planted her stiletto into the backsides of the energy community to jolt them into movement on a pipeline for Alaskans.

This project has a lot of similarities to the pipeline that is to be built between Alaska and Canada. The Canadian hub will then flow the Alaskan natural gas directly to the United States.

Most of us have heard of this project and know it as the Alaskan Gasline Inductment Act, or AGIA.

One of the most misunderstood and misreported facts about Governor Sarah Palin is her leadership ability. The AGIA legislation is perfect proof of what she is capable of.

Since Alaska became a state 50 years ago, Alaskans have heard about a pipeline that will move its natural gas to US markets.

For 50 years the government of Alaska has failed at this task.

With the leadership of Governor Palin a pipeline will happen. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that after 50 years the pipeline will finally become a reality.

There is some consternation about which private pipeline will be built first. The TransCanada TC-Alaska pipeline, which holds a license with the state of Alaska, or the BP/Conoco-Phillips backed Denali pipeline. Some will tell you that the governor and the legislature failed if the TransCanada line is not the first line built. I disagree.

The ultimate goal of the Governor was to force a pipeline to be built that would get the natural gas that belongs to the people of Alaska to the US markets.

This is where the Governor’s true leadership abilities shine through the din created by the oil companies.

The oil companies promised for 50 years they would build this pipeline. When push came to shove, the oil companies sniveled, whined, complained and basically acted like petulant children.

Here is a list of some of the complaints and excuses that the oil companies came up with to stop the pipeline from being built:

“This project will not be profitable”

“The State government will not give us the permits we want”

“The state government will not give us the leases we want”

“We do not have the high tech engineers that are required”

“The DNR... blah, blah, blah”

“The Federal Government... blah, blah, blah”

And so on and so on and so on. The excuses were endless.

The excuses continued until Governor Palin stepped in.

With one powerful swift kick from her stilettos, she forced the hand of the oil companies. You need engineers, no problem; we got ‘em. You need to see if the project will be profitable, no problem. One at a time she and her team addressed the issues until there no more excuses left.

Then Governor Palin went one step further...

She provided competition. One company stepped in and said, Yes, they could make money. Yes, they would be happy to step in and provide the resources, the financing and the determination to complete the project.

The oil companies began to panic. Oh my, COMPETITION?

Suddenly all of their projects that sat stalemated for 50 years began to move. The oil companies began to realize they would lose out on billions in profits if they did not get their tails moving.

Governor Palin has accomplished something that no other governor in Alaskan history has been able to do; she is getting the pipeline built. One, if not all of these companies, will get a pipeline built. If the oil companies drop the ball, TransCanada is still going to move forward.

Governor Palin gave these people exactly what they needed. She gave them a swift kick in the tuckus and told them to get moving or the pipeline would pass them by.

So it does not really matter which of the companies gets their pipeline done first, the pipeline will be done and the natural gas will be flowing to the US markets.

Governor Palin will have accomplished her goal of a pipeline and the people of Alaska are the ultimate winners. That is leadership. That is her job!

As if all of this were not enough, she just provided another swift kick in the tuckus of those folks promising for years to build a pipeline to move the natural gas from the North Slope down to the southern part of the state.

Once again, she and her team have one begun to eliminate the excuses that have been made for years.

Yesterday, with her press conference, and the accompanying legislation, Governor Palin is providing the leadership necessary to get this stalemated project moving.

Alaska wins again!

This is an amazing feat for any person, much less a governor who has been in office for only two years.

Great job, Governor Palin!

Thanks to all of the posters at Conservatives4Palin. If it were not for you guys doing all of this work, I would not have the time to look up all of the information on my own.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservative commentator says Palin is most like Reagan

This article was taken from Conservatives4palin.com

Tammy Bruce: Governor Palin Represents the "Reagan Legacy"

In her blog post on the Fox Forum, Tammy Bruce explains why Governor Palin is the best Republican politician to reclaim the mantle of President Reagan and why she poses such a threat to the beltway elite:

This current public fight between Limbaugh and Steele, two important and influential conservative men, reveals just how deeply in trouble the DOP really is. What happened to the Grand Old Party? Its so-called leadership has been inside the Beltway too long, going to the same cocktail and dinner parties for decades.

They like the money and the decadence and the smell of their own navels. The idea of returning to the principled values of Reagan means hard work, smaller government (read: less money), taking on the tyrants of the world thereby losing Islamist largess for travel, parties, and dare I say, presidential libraries. Worst of all, a return to the Reagan legacy brings with it an expectation of discipline and personal responsibility.

It is also especially frightening to the Republican Elite that a return of the Reagan legacy is represented by one person these days who, like Reagan, hails from the far-side of this nation, away from the increasing stench (and corrupting influence) of Washington. Sarah Palin is a woman who means business when she talks of reform. The one person none of the boys in Washington like, she lives and works west of the Rockies (let alone the Mississippi), was educated at a university without Ivy on its walls, is not of the monied class, and actually intends to confront the corruption and hypocrisy emanating from both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Sarah Palin is not “of” them, you see, so the DOP Elite (for the ultimate oxymoron) prepare to toss Reagan Conservatism, best represented by Palin, under the bus lest the loss of Islamist money, parties with boys from the same school as you, and the use of the American taxpayer to fund the greed, excess and conga-lines of the Obama White House as the economy tanks.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservatives vs. Michael Steele (the wrong man for the RNC job)

     I have been writing something for a long time, and it this: Michael Steele is the wrong man for the job as RNC Chairman. Simply put Michael Steele has nothing to offer the RNC except his skin color. He has no organizational skills and on the political spectrum he has long been viewed as a moderate, and now we see that he has no backbone in standing up to the neo-marxist Obama. Steele’s current battles with Reagan conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Mark Levin simply show that there is a rift between Traditional Conservatives and moderates like Michael Steele. Limbaugh in particular is fiercely determined to get as many Reagan conservatives in the House of Representatives, the Senate, and then the Presidency. Limbaugh simply refuses to carry the weight of making apologies for moderates like George Bush, and if Limbaugh has to take out Michael Steele then so be it. I make this plea from the heart, Michael Steele if you want to best serve the GOP then please resign as the RNC Chairman and let someone like Katon Dawson who is far more qualified than you to run the GOP.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why GOP entrenched management does not like Sarah Palin.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
"Not One of Us"
by Thomas Sowell
 
 

If Barack Obama has been the most remarkable phenomenon of the recent political scene, Sarah Palin must be second. The emotional responses to each-- especially by the media and the intelligentsia -- go beyond anything that can be explained by the usual political differences of opinion on issues of the day.

 

 

That liberals would be thrilled by another liberal is not surprising. But there are conservative Republicans who voted for Barack Obama, and other conservatives who may not have voted for him, but who are quick to see in various pragmatic moves of his since taking office an indication that he is not an extremist.

Anyone familiar with history knows that Hitler and Stalin were pragmatic. After years of denouncing each other, they signed the Nazi-Soviet pact under which they became allies for a couple of years before going to war against one another.

Pragmatism tells you nothing about extremism. But the conservative intellectuals who seize upon President Obama's pragmatism to give him the benefit of the doubt are obviously bending over backward for some reason.

With Governor Palin, it is just the opposite. The conservative intelligentsia who react against her have remarkably little to say that will stand up to scrutiny. People who actually dealt with her, before she became a national figure, have expressed how much they were impressed by her intelligence.

Governor Palin's "inexperience" is a talking point that might have some plausibility if it were not for the fact that Barack Obama has far less experience in actually making policies than Sarah Palin has. Joe Biden has had decades of experience in being both consistently wrong and consistently a source of asinine statements.

Governor Palin's candidacy for the vice presidency was what galvanized grass roots Republicans in a way that John McCain never did. But there was something about her that turned even some conservative intellectuals against her and provoked visceral anger and hatred from liberal intellectuals.

Perhaps the best way to try to understand these reactions is to recall what Eleanor Roosevelt said when she first saw Whittaker Chambers, who had accused Alger Hiss of being a spy for the Soviet Union. Upon seeing the slouching, overweight and disheveled Chambers, she said, "He's not one of us."

The trim, erect and impeccably dressed Alger Hiss, with his Ivy League and New Deal pedigree, clearly was "one of us." As it turned out, he was also a liar and a spy for the Soviet Union. Not only did a jury decide that at the time, the opening of the secret files of the Soviet Union in its last days added more evidence of his guilt.

The Hiss-Chambers confrontation of more than half a century ago produced the same kind of visceral polarization that Governor Sarah Palin provokes today.

Before the first trial of Alger Hiss began, reporters who gathered at the courthouse informally sounded each other out as to which of them they believed, before any evidence had been presented. Most believed that Hiss was telling the truth and that it was Chambers who was lying.

More important, those reporters who believed that Chambers was telling the truth were immediately ostracized. None of this could have been based on the evidence for either side, for that evidence had not yet been presented in court.

For decades after Hiss was convicted and sent to federal prison, much of the media and the intelligentsia defended him. To this day, there is an Alger Hiss chair at Bard College.

Why did it matter so much to so many people which of two previously little-known men was telling the truth? Because what was on trial was not one man but a whole vision of the world and a way of life.

Governor Sarah Palin is both a challenge and an affront to that vision and that way of life-- an overdue challenge, much as Chambers' challenge was overdue.

Whether Governor Palin runs for national office again is something that only time will tell. But the Republicans need some candidate who is neither one of the country club Republicans nor-- worse yet-- the sort of person who appeals to the intelligentsia.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Palin vs. Jindal their speeches you decide!

I am posting a two links to two different speeches: one by Bobby Jindal and the other by Sarah Palin. Whom do you think is the better communicator?

Jindal's speech:YouTube - Gov. Bobby Jindal's Republican Response To Obama's Address to Congre
 
Sarah Palin's speeches:Conservatives4Palin.com
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Romney's CPAC straw poll victory is meaningless.

      It should be noted that Romney has previously won the CPAC straw poll for the previous two years, and in the end despite these victories and a ton of money (56 million just of his own money) and a good ground campaign, as well as many major Republican endorsements, he could not even beat the worthless John McShame. This raises two questions, the first is that why couldn’t Romney defeat McShame? The reasons are that Romney has two serious handicaps that will still be with him in 2012 if he decided to run again. The first is that he was a social liberal while he was Governor of Massachusetts, and decided to become a “social conservative” when he wanted the Republican nomination. The Republican base simply smelled this phoniness and they wanted a true conservative on the ticket and they did not trust a blatant flip-flopper. The second problem for Romney is his Mormon faith which to put it mildly most American find to be weird. The second issue that needs to be raised about this straw poll is what kind of “conservatives” were voting in this straw poll? I mean to vote for liberal flip-flopper? Do these attendees truly represent the base of the GOP or are them more in line with the GOP establishment which has run the GOP into the ground?               
 
   The second issue concerns the recent CNN Poll (conducted among Republicans) that came out a few days earlier where Sarah Palin came out on top closely followed by Mike Huckabee, with Romney a distant third, and Jindal barely on the radar. This second poll is more likely to be reflective of the true state a potential contenders for 2012 since it pretty much reaffirms what Rasmussen reported a little over a month ago. Still CNN polls are notoriously unreliable. To find out who is leading the field for 2012 GOP contenders we will have to wait for either a Gallup Poll or even better a Rasmussen poll.       
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A bad night for Jindal but an excellent night for Palin.

   It is hard to say but Bobby Jindal may have done irreparable damage to his presidential aspiration for 2012 last night in what is universally acknowledged (even by conservatives) to be a disastrous performance. Since most of the Republican base are unfamiliar with Jindal and who saw him for the first time last night are simply not going to want to see this guy be the 2012 Republican nominee. Ed Rollins Reagan’s campaign manager for the 1984 election which was a 49 state victory stated that last night was a very bad night for Jindal, so bad in fact that it may have ended his presidential hopes. On the flip side Rollins said that last night was a very good night for Sarah Palin who now has one less conservative opponent to worry about if she decides to run in 2012.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Palin vs. Jindal in 2012

   Ya know it is funny how double standards work. Over the past few weeks many Republican strategists have commented that Governor Sarah Palin needs to get out of the media spotlight and spend some time brushing up on national and foreign policy issues. Yet Governor Bobby Jindal is given a front and center stage by the Republican establishment in providing the Republican response to Obama’s ridiculous stimulus package. By why should they pick a first term governor from the state of Louisiana to give this address instead of a prominent Republican member of Congress? The answer is simple: this is Bobby Jindal’s coming out party. This is a move by the Republican establishment to thrust Bobby Jindal into the national spotlight and on to the road to winning in 2012.

                So what is the double standard between Jindal and Palin? Well the Republican establishment is doing everything to put Jindal in the spotlight while at the same time advocating that Sarah Palin stay out of the spotlight. There is also another double standard being applied to Sarah Palin and this is that she should disappear so that she can brush up on foreign policy issues, but what foreign policy experience does Bobby Jindal have? At least there are positions taken by Sarah Palin on foreign policy, they can be found at: http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm. However, we know nothing about Bobby Jindal on these issues, but yet he is given the media spotlight.

                I have stated this before and I will state it again. First, Bobby Jindal is a political lightweight who will not rock the boat for the Republican establishment in Washington D.C. and in my opinion he is simply a clone of President Bush, and how did that work out for us? Sarah Palin on the other hand has made a career out of rocking the boat for both the Democratic and the Republican establishments, and the Washington elites simply do not want her in power because they know that they cannot control her. Sarah Palin is a crusader for the people and will always side with her principles and the people over and against any political establishment and this way of doing things has worked out quite well for her.

                The second point is this, does anyone really believe that Bobby Jindal can take on and beat Sarah Palin in a primary, let alone Obama in a general election? Bobby Jindal has some serious handicaps that will hold him back in any run for the presidency. First, he is not charismatic, meaning he does not energize the Republican base. Sarah Palin drew wildly enthusiastic crowds of 20,000-30,000 people. Does anybody honestly believe that Jindal has this kind of charisma? Second, Bobby Jindal is simply unattractive and looks like the wimpy kid that was constantly beat up in school. Sarah Palin is a highly attractive woman. This may sound superficial but in today’s elections looks play a major factor in many people votes, this is just being honest. Third, Jindal in my opinion simply lacks both the fierce debating skills and the political killing skills that Sarah Palin possesses. A fourth problem for Jindal is that the Republican base is wildly attached to Sarah Palin and it is going to be awfully difficult for him to break this bond between Sarah Palin and American conservatives. If he attacks her the base may very well turn on him as a result, so Jindal is playing with fire when it comes to dealing with Sarah Palin and the conservative base.

                Let me just add one more point and this is that Republicans have been in this situation before in both 1976 and then again in 1980. In 1976 it was Ronald Reagan vs. Gerald Ford in the GOP primaries. Now guess whom the Republican establishment supported? If you guessed Gerald Ford then you would be right, and Ford went on to lose the election to Jimmy Carter. However, Ronald Reagan ran again in 1980 but guess whom the Republican establishment supported? Reagan? Nope. They supported George Bush 41. However, this time the Republican grassroots had enough and worked hard to get Reagan to win both the primaries and the general election. Now once again there is a divide between the Republican base and the Republican establishment and this can be seen in the establishments support for Bobby Jindal and the conservative grassroots support for Sarah Palin. Now let me ask you this: how has voting for the choice of the Republican establishment worked out for conservatives? George Bush 41 undid what Reagan accomplished and was voted out. Bob Dole could not even boot out Bill Clinton when Clinton was so scandal ridden that it wasn’t even funny. George Bush 43 grew the government by leaps and bounds and messed up the war in Iraq and asked us for a trillion dollar bailout. Then John McCain gave us Barak Obama. So you can listen to the Republican establishment if you like but you will only get more big government, less liberty, and with Obama now you can have socialism.  

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A conservative hit piece on Sarah Palin?

   Carol Platt Liebau has an article posted on Townhall.com concerning Sarah Palin which is about how Sarah Palin is handling the media, but her article has numerous factual errors in it. First, Liebau claims that Sarah Palin made a committment to attend CPAC but then backed out of it. This is false because Sarah Palin never made a commitment to attend CPAC, I have monitored that issue for some time and I am disappointed that she has decided not to attend. However, she will have a taped speech of some kind which is sure to be all over the news and youtube five minutes after it is given. Second, Liebau's comparing Palin's tax issue with what is going on in the Obama White House is not a fair comparisson. Palin's tax issue was simply a misunderstanding about tax laws that was quickly resolved by her own inititive, and unlike the Democrats she never intended to evade taxes. 

   Third, Carol obviously did not watch the Bristol interview with Greta. I can say this because Bristol never came out and said that abstinence education was wrong as Liebau claims; and I never heard her advocating the giving out of condoms either. Fourth, Bristol stated that she informed her mother that she was going on Greta’s show the day before she was interviewed; this was not some grand plan by Sarah Palin to remain in the media spotlight as Liebau claims. In fact, I am betting that Sarah Palin may have been upset with Bristol for pulling this stunt because it does look bad for Sarah Palin, but Bristol is 18 years of age and can do what she wants at this point in her life. Lastly, Carol radically underestimates the predicament that Sarah Palin is in right now concerning the media. No matter what Sarah does, whether it is something small and insignificant or big and political it is going to be reported in the press. I check the news for articles on Sarah Palin every day and there is always some lefty smearing her. If she talks to the press they claim she is hogging the spotlight and risking overexposure, and when she doesn’t talk to the press they write stories about how she was hogging the spotlight and needs to retreat from center stage for a while. This kind of ongoing 24/7 media attack on a politician who maybe running in four years has never been seen before, not even Reagan had to endure this kind of smear campaign after he lost the Republican primary in 1976. So it is easy to criticize Sarah Palin for how she is handling the media, but no matter what she does the leftist press continues to hammer her. So what is Palin to do?
 
   I cannot help but wonder if this is not a hit piece against Sarah Palin from those who are closely aligned with the Republican establishment and who favor Bobby Jindal. I know that Carol Liebau is closely associated with Hugh Hewitt and I have known for sometime now that Hugh is a big fan of Bobby Jindal. In fact, it seems to me that many leaders in the Republican Party seem to be leaning toward Bobby Jindal. So I ask is this an attempt to try and break the bond between Sarah Palin and the Republican base? Lord knows that Jindal will never be able to do this on his own.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Palin vs. Jindal in 2012

I have known for sometime that Jindal is going to run in 2012 and he seems to be the favored candidate of the GOP establishment, which is one of the reasons I distrust him. Sarah Palin on the other hand is the candidate favored by the base of the Republican Party and what we have is 1980 all over again. In the Republican primaries of 1980 the GOP establishment completely backed George Bush SR. over Ronald Reagan, and the grassroots base of the GOP were all for Ronald Reagan. I think we are going to see this divide again in 2012. One of the reasons the GOP establishment is afraid of Sarah Palin is that Sarah Palin will not tolerate either corruption or incompentance from either political party. In short Sarah Palin is not a team player and her record in Alaska bears this out. The establishment is afraid that many Republicans in Washington will get a pink slip from President Sarah Palin soon after her election. Jindal however is more of a team player as both Bush presidents were and how did that work out for us? The way that I see it is that the 2012 GOP primary is Sarah Palin's to lose. Even Newt Gingrich stated that Sarah Palin is ahead of any other potential candidate for 2012, including Jindal. The plain fact is that the GOP base loves and trusts Sarah Palin and Jindal in my opinion is going to have a hard time breaking the bond between Sarah Palin and the GOP base. Also, never forget that Jindal completely lacks charisma and good oratory skills, both of which Sarah Palin greatly excels and are vital to energize people to your cause. I do not see Jindal lasting long against Sarah Palin in the forthcoming 2012 debates. Sarah Palin has political star power and in my opinion Jindal simply does not. Sarah Palin however cannot continue to avoid conferences like CPAC as she has done this month, granted she is providing a taped speech and it will be interesting to see how this taped speech will be recieved by those at CPAC. One thing is for sure and this is that Palin's speech will be all over youtube five minutes after it is given. Maybe this is Sarah's intention?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Michael Savage vs. Sarah Palin

Today on Michael Savage's webpage he refered to Sarah Palin as "the Alaskan hillbilly". Even the far left does not use this kind of language in public concerning Sarah Palin. Now I like Michael Savage and I think his criticism of the left is spot on, but when it comes to whom he would like to see in office he never has any answers. It is as if Savage is only good in poiting out the negatives and never the positives. Now why would he have such incredible disdain for Sarah Palin? Savage wants to get rid of corrupt politicians: Sarah Palin has done this in Alaska. Savage want smaller government: Sarah Palin has done this in Alaska. Savage wants low taxes: Sarah Palin has kept taxes low in Alaska. Savage wants action taken against corrupt corporations: Sarah Palin has taken on big oil in Alaska and has won. Savage is concerned about gun rights: Sarah Palin is fiercely pro-second amendment. Savage hate deficits: Sarah Palin has kept the Alaskan budget in the black and even has a large surpluse. Savage has disdain toward those who believe in global warming: Sarah Palin believes that global warming is nonsense and says that there is no evidence of it in Alaska. So I have to ask what is it that drives Michael Savage to slander Sarah Palin by calling her an "Alaskan Hillbilly"? Perhaps Savage is simply ignorant of what Sarah Palin believes in and has accomplished in Alaska. I wonder if Ronald Reagan would have been good enough for Michael Savage?  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama is a foreign policy disaster.

It is interesting to see how fast the world is turning against B.O. First after his speech on Arab TV the Iranians told him what to go do with himself. Second, the nation of India has told B.O. to go screw himself when Obama claimed that he would solve the Kashmir issue between Pakistan and India. Third, I read today that the Israelis have now told B.O. what to go do with himself. But hey not all the news for Obama is bad because he did recieve an endorsement from what remains of the Taliban in Afganistan. I have said this before and I will say it again, B.O. is not a smart man, he is a media creation and he has let the messiah praise go to his head. I stand by my conviction that this dunce has absolutely no idea what he is doing and in the end B.O. is going to be remembered as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. Hey the Jimmy Carter years are back again!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive