I am often critical of people on FOX news. Many of their "stars," including Greta and sometimes Hannity, are mainly interested in getting viewers rather than providing solid information. Notice Greta's continual comments on how this-or-that "is really going to raise your blood pressure . . . or get you angry."
Frankly, raising the national blood pressure may cause more heart attacks, but it's not going to remove Obama from power. Organizing, calling our congressional representatives, donating money to conservative causes (e.g., www.sarahpac.com) are what will end the national nightmare.
For FOX or anyone else to suggest otherwise is just game-playing.
Rush gave Greta a thumping the other night when she expressed her silly "hope" that Obama's Stimulus package, which she apparently knows nothing about, will work. Rush basically told her that a vague "hope" is for losers, and he's right.
As for Geraldo, who's a pro-illegals leftist with a history of grandstanding, he should not be on FOX or anything else. Anyone who spend one minute of his or her time watching "Geraldo" needs to find more productive things to do. There is not a conservative bone in Geraldo's body.
There are some great young people on FOX -- one is Patty Ann Browne on the Beck show, another is Greg Gutfield on their weekend late show, and others are Andrea Tantaros and S. E. Cupp -- but there many other big shots interested more in making millions than in winning the battle for America.
Showing posts with label Greta van Susteren. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Greta van Susteren. Show all posts
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Sarah Palin: Criticism from "Friends"
Below: Sarah and Todd at prom . . . and later, with children Track and Bristol . . .
How should Sarah Palin respond to "constructive" criticism from people who claim to be her ardent supporters? My view: she should respond by using an old truism: "With friends like that, who needs enemies?"
[Note: On my other blog I basically solve America's health care crisis -- in less than 800 words. It was a very tough job, but somebody had to do it. "If not now, when? If not me, who?"]
Ever since she came on the national stage (on August 29, 2008, in Dayton, Ohio, when John McCain named her as his running mate), Sarah has been subject to a torrent of vitriol from Obama/Aexlrod and their media cronies. She does not need -- nor does she merit -- additional criticism from people claiming to be her friends and admirers.
During the presidential campaign (and after), Sarah was surrounded by McCain staffers who ranged from incompetent to disloyal. I've revealed recently that one of the people spreading false rumors about Sarah was Meghan McCain, the Senator's thoroughly pathetic daughter.
Having to work with people she couldn't trust made it hard at times for Sarah to campaign effectively. When John McCain failed to defend Sarah adequately that must have been disheartening for her, as she had been the Senator's most faithful cheerleader between August 29 and the election on Nov. 4.
In politics, the people you sometimes need to worry about most are your supposed "friends" -- not your enemies, whose behavior is predictable. The smears Sarah and her family have been subjected to have inflicted some damage on the famously tough and close-knit Palins. Realizing the challenges she faces, Sarah demands absolute loyalty from her staff. She's entirely right to do so. Disloyal staffers -- and, frankly, disloyal "supporters" -- are useless.
The critics that must dishearten Sarah the most are those on the right -- particularly "single-issue" conservatives. Understand that single-issue people inhabit a political universe the size of a broom-closet.
For example, Sarah was recently criticized for selecting a distinguished female jurist, Morgan Chretien, to serve on the Alaska Supreme Court. To the single-issue people, Ms. Chretien has committed the unforgivable sin: she is -- or may be -- pro-choice. In the fever swamps of the extreme Right, Chretien's views on a thousand or so other issues don't matter.
Critics of "Sarah's choice" ignore an important reality: Under the Alaska system, a judicial board selects the candidates (two in this instance), and the Governor chooses among them. A spokesperson for Sarah's political action committee (sarahPAC) explained it this way: the Governor had a choice between a liberal and a moderate -- and she chose "the moderate."
Sarah's critics on the right say she should have taken the entire matter of the Supreme Court appointment . . . to the Supreme Court. She should have, they say, fought the system for selecting judges to the highest court. They ignore the fact that a prior governor, Frank Murkowski, did just that . . . and had his lawsuit tossed back in his face.
Of course, Obama's perpetual campaign has seized upon the conservative criticism of Sarah and is running with it. They're using it to try to drive a wedge between Sarah and the small but passionate pro-life community.
Frankly, Sarah's sometimes unreliable friends on the political right have hatched an image of her that resembles a cartoon-character rather than a real human being. Through glazed eyes, they apparently see her a pure ideologue. "Wind her up, and she spouts an endless stream of right-wing propaganda."
Strangely enough, Sarah's liberal supporters -- and she has millions of them -- seem to understand her better than many conservatives. Consider Elaine Lafferty, a feminist and former editor of Ms. Magazine. She worked as a speechwriter with Sarah during the campaign and wrote a famous article describing the Alaska governor as a "brainiac" and a "feminist." (Lafferty also co-authored a book with Sarah's most consistent admirer on the media, Greta van Susteren.)
Here's what Lafferty said about Sarah's appointment of Judge Chretien (only the second female ever appointed to the Alaska Supreme Court): "Of course Sarah Palin is not pro-choice. But she is now, as governor of Alaska, what she was before the presidential campaign: a pragmatic conservative politician who largely governs from the center. She is opposed to abortion, but it does not inform every decision she makes.
Lafferty adds, "Done with playing the good soldier for McCain’s right wing on the campaign trail, she [Sarah] is back to being who she is."
Trust me, Elaine Lafferty understands Sarah Palin much better than, say, Phyllis Schlafly. Elaine grasps Sarah's human gravity and complexity. If Gov. Palin never makes it to the presidency, it won't be the fault of Elaine Lafferty and others like her.
I have a lot more to say about Gov. Palin's future, including the issue of whether she should seek either re-election as Alaska's governor or go after the Republican nomination for President. Right now, I'm leaning against her doing either -- a major reversal of position for me. Come back on Sunday and Monday to find out why.
Ever since she came on the national stage (on August 29, 2008, in Dayton, Ohio, when John McCain named her as his running mate), Sarah has been subject to a torrent of vitriol from Obama/Aexlrod and their media cronies. She does not need -- nor does she merit -- additional criticism from people claiming to be her friends and admirers.
During the presidential campaign (and after), Sarah was surrounded by McCain staffers who ranged from incompetent to disloyal. I've revealed recently that one of the people spreading false rumors about Sarah was Meghan McCain, the Senator's thoroughly pathetic daughter.
Having to work with people she couldn't trust made it hard at times for Sarah to campaign effectively. When John McCain failed to defend Sarah adequately that must have been disheartening for her, as she had been the Senator's most faithful cheerleader between August 29 and the election on Nov. 4.
In politics, the people you sometimes need to worry about most are your supposed "friends" -- not your enemies, whose behavior is predictable. The smears Sarah and her family have been subjected to have inflicted some damage on the famously tough and close-knit Palins. Realizing the challenges she faces, Sarah demands absolute loyalty from her staff. She's entirely right to do so. Disloyal staffers -- and, frankly, disloyal "supporters" -- are useless.
The critics that must dishearten Sarah the most are those on the right -- particularly "single-issue" conservatives. Understand that single-issue people inhabit a political universe the size of a broom-closet.
For example, Sarah was recently criticized for selecting a distinguished female jurist, Morgan Chretien, to serve on the Alaska Supreme Court. To the single-issue people, Ms. Chretien has committed the unforgivable sin: she is -- or may be -- pro-choice. In the fever swamps of the extreme Right, Chretien's views on a thousand or so other issues don't matter.
Critics of "Sarah's choice" ignore an important reality: Under the Alaska system, a judicial board selects the candidates (two in this instance), and the Governor chooses among them. A spokesperson for Sarah's political action committee (sarahPAC) explained it this way: the Governor had a choice between a liberal and a moderate -- and she chose "the moderate."
Sarah's critics on the right say she should have taken the entire matter of the Supreme Court appointment . . . to the Supreme Court. She should have, they say, fought the system for selecting judges to the highest court. They ignore the fact that a prior governor, Frank Murkowski, did just that . . . and had his lawsuit tossed back in his face.
Of course, Obama's perpetual campaign has seized upon the conservative criticism of Sarah and is running with it. They're using it to try to drive a wedge between Sarah and the small but passionate pro-life community.
Frankly, Sarah's sometimes unreliable friends on the political right have hatched an image of her that resembles a cartoon-character rather than a real human being. Through glazed eyes, they apparently see her a pure ideologue. "Wind her up, and she spouts an endless stream of right-wing propaganda."
Strangely enough, Sarah's liberal supporters -- and she has millions of them -- seem to understand her better than many conservatives. Consider Elaine Lafferty, a feminist and former editor of Ms. Magazine. She worked as a speechwriter with Sarah during the campaign and wrote a famous article describing the Alaska governor as a "brainiac" and a "feminist." (Lafferty also co-authored a book with Sarah's most consistent admirer on the media, Greta van Susteren.)
Here's what Lafferty said about Sarah's appointment of Judge Chretien (only the second female ever appointed to the Alaska Supreme Court): "Of course Sarah Palin is not pro-choice. But she is now, as governor of Alaska, what she was before the presidential campaign: a pragmatic conservative politician who largely governs from the center. She is opposed to abortion, but it does not inform every decision she makes.
Lafferty adds, "Done with playing the good soldier for McCain’s right wing on the campaign trail, she [Sarah] is back to being who she is."
Trust me, Elaine Lafferty understands Sarah Palin much better than, say, Phyllis Schlafly. Elaine grasps Sarah's human gravity and complexity. If Gov. Palin never makes it to the presidency, it won't be the fault of Elaine Lafferty and others like her.
I have a lot more to say about Gov. Palin's future, including the issue of whether she should seek either re-election as Alaska's governor or go after the Republican nomination for President. Right now, I'm leaning against her doing either -- a major reversal of position for me. Come back on Sunday and Monday to find out why.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Sarah Palin Mystifies Liberals, Elitists
I've discussed the need for us to use powerful images and symbols in the crusade to defeat Barack H. Obama. The image below is one of the most powerful I've ever seen. I hope Gov. Palin visits Israel soon to show her solidarity with the Jewish people.
BULLETIN: Tonight (Wed.) on the Greta van Susteren show on FOX, John Ziegler, creator of the documentary "Media Malpractice" will be the primary guest. If you didn't see Ziegler's intellectual evisceration of Matt Lauer on the "Today Show," you missed a classic.
Part I: What Sarah Palin Knows That We Don't
The Lorenzo Benet book on Sarah Palin (Trail Blazer) is most compelling when it discusses the period when she and her family first lived in Alaska in the 1960s and early 1970s. Then, Alaska was very much America's "wild frontier." Sarah grew up in a world that relatively few Americans -- and almost no one in the liberal media -- understand. It was a time and a place that demanded real survival skills and self-reliance.
Granted, Sarah's early years in remote Skagway (100 miles north of Juneau) when she was 4-5 years old were extreme by modern standards, but Alaska still maintains a lifestyle that was pretty standard for much the world into the 20th century. If people survived, they had to do it pretty much on their own. There was no "going down the mall," because there was no mall. If you wanted meat, you had to go out and shoot something. If you wanted fish, you went out and caught it.
The suburban liberals -- and the left-leaning MSM that criticize Sarah believe she's "not like them." In a way, they're right. She's tougher and much more attuned to life on a fundamental level, one where family and community are very close to one another -- and dependent on neighbors not just for company but for survival.
A lot of modern people -- I'd include myself -- don't have great survival skills. If the electricity went off and the grocery closed down, we'd largely be helpless. We wouldn't have learned the basic skills that were almost second-nature to our ancestors -- and skills Sarah did develop as a child. Instead, we live on top of support system whose existence is one of which we're hardly aware. We're a lot less self-reliant than Sarah, her family, and many of the people in Alaska.
Part II: Sarah and The Media
One of the various disasters in the McCain Campaign was the effort to keep Sarah on a tight leash. I agree that we absolutely must "let Sarah be Sarah." Beyond that, she should never let the MSM use her as a punching bag. She need to fight back with ferocity (and so do her supporters).
Another disaster of the McCain Campaign: the pathetic belief that if Sarah had media interviews, it had to be with hostile people like Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric (called "the little rodent" by Don Imus). Yikes, why not throw in David Letterman and Bill Maher? Frankly, every time we put out a hand of friendship to those in the MSM (as my friend Roger Morrow observed) they try to chew it off.
Thus, Sarah should have interviews with Sean Hannity, Greta van Susteren (as she's doing several times), Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Wallace (maybe), and, I'd add, Deborah Norville of "Inside Edition." I'd add several more cable people who would be appropriate: Kyra Phillips, Betty Nguyen, and Heidi Collins of CNN. Norah O'Donnell of NBC would also be okay. Rush Limbaugh? If you're in GOP politics, I suggest being good buddies with Rush.
I'd also recommend some national talk radio people (Hugh Hewitt, Laura Ingram, Michael Medved, and a few others), as well as LOCAL political reporters who don't have an axe to grind. Top print journalists reporters like Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes (both ofThe Weekly Standard), Katie O'Malley (Human Events), Debra Saunders (San Francisco Chronicle) and Jack Kelly (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) would also be good.
There are also international journalists who like Sarah a lot, including my friend Mariko Fukuyama of Japan's Asahi TV, as well as some of the BBC "morning drive" people in London.
These aren't lighweights. In fact, they're the heavyweights. Sarah should be talking to such people rather than pretentious leftists like Couric.
Yeah, my strategy is to freeze out the MSM windbags completely. Any reporter who is going to play gotcha games should be ignored. This approach would allow us to begin re-shaping the way society defines the media. This strategy would have horrified the McCain Campaign, which was headed by incompetents and narcissists.
*The night of Sarah's speech at the Convention, Kyra Phillips was in Anchorage for CNN doing a friendly, informative interview with Sarah's older sister (Heather) and brother-in-law. Kyra "gets it," while most of her counterparts in the MSM don't get it -- and perhaps can't get it. Sarah makes them feel inferior, and since they are inferior to this women, their instinct is to attempt to destroy her.
Part I: What Sarah Palin Knows That We Don't
The Lorenzo Benet book on Sarah Palin (Trail Blazer) is most compelling when it discusses the period when she and her family first lived in Alaska in the 1960s and early 1970s. Then, Alaska was very much America's "wild frontier." Sarah grew up in a world that relatively few Americans -- and almost no one in the liberal media -- understand. It was a time and a place that demanded real survival skills and self-reliance.
Granted, Sarah's early years in remote Skagway (100 miles north of Juneau) when she was 4-5 years old were extreme by modern standards, but Alaska still maintains a lifestyle that was pretty standard for much the world into the 20th century. If people survived, they had to do it pretty much on their own. There was no "going down the mall," because there was no mall. If you wanted meat, you had to go out and shoot something. If you wanted fish, you went out and caught it.
The suburban liberals -- and the left-leaning MSM that criticize Sarah believe she's "not like them." In a way, they're right. She's tougher and much more attuned to life on a fundamental level, one where family and community are very close to one another -- and dependent on neighbors not just for company but for survival.
A lot of modern people -- I'd include myself -- don't have great survival skills. If the electricity went off and the grocery closed down, we'd largely be helpless. We wouldn't have learned the basic skills that were almost second-nature to our ancestors -- and skills Sarah did develop as a child. Instead, we live on top of support system whose existence is one of which we're hardly aware. We're a lot less self-reliant than Sarah, her family, and many of the people in Alaska.
Part II: Sarah and The Media
One of the various disasters in the McCain Campaign was the effort to keep Sarah on a tight leash. I agree that we absolutely must "let Sarah be Sarah." Beyond that, she should never let the MSM use her as a punching bag. She need to fight back with ferocity (and so do her supporters).
Another disaster of the McCain Campaign: the pathetic belief that if Sarah had media interviews, it had to be with hostile people like Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric (called "the little rodent" by Don Imus). Yikes, why not throw in David Letterman and Bill Maher? Frankly, every time we put out a hand of friendship to those in the MSM (as my friend Roger Morrow observed) they try to chew it off.
Thus, Sarah should have interviews with Sean Hannity, Greta van Susteren (as she's doing several times), Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Wallace (maybe), and, I'd add, Deborah Norville of "Inside Edition." I'd add several more cable people who would be appropriate: Kyra Phillips, Betty Nguyen, and Heidi Collins of CNN. Norah O'Donnell of NBC would also be okay. Rush Limbaugh? If you're in GOP politics, I suggest being good buddies with Rush.
I'd also recommend some national talk radio people (Hugh Hewitt, Laura Ingram, Michael Medved, and a few others), as well as LOCAL political reporters who don't have an axe to grind. Top print journalists reporters like Bill Kristol and Fred Barnes (both ofThe Weekly Standard), Katie O'Malley (Human Events), Debra Saunders (San Francisco Chronicle) and Jack Kelly (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) would also be good.
There are also international journalists who like Sarah a lot, including my friend Mariko Fukuyama of Japan's Asahi TV, as well as some of the BBC "morning drive" people in London.
These aren't lighweights. In fact, they're the heavyweights. Sarah should be talking to such people rather than pretentious leftists like Couric.
Yeah, my strategy is to freeze out the MSM windbags completely. Any reporter who is going to play gotcha games should be ignored. This approach would allow us to begin re-shaping the way society defines the media. This strategy would have horrified the McCain Campaign, which was headed by incompetents and narcissists.
*The night of Sarah's speech at the Convention, Kyra Phillips was in Anchorage for CNN doing a friendly, informative interview with Sarah's older sister (Heather) and brother-in-law. Kyra "gets it," while most of her counterparts in the MSM don't get it -- and perhaps can't get it. Sarah makes them feel inferior, and since they are inferior to this women, their instinct is to attempt to destroy her.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Palin: "Veto That Stimulus Bill!"
A week ago, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) said the Stimulus Bill means "America's best days are behind it." On her interview with Greta van Susteren a week ago, Governor Sarah Palin said Obama should "veto the Stimulus bill" -- that is, HIS Stimulus Bill.
Today, Monday, Feb. 23, Obama is talking about "investing" the Stimulus money -- all of it borrowed, all of it repayable by taxpayers -- on behalf of the American people. He doesn't explain why he won't allow Americans to invest the money themselves. As usual, Obama is in the position of promoting bad economic policies while saying he's doing it on our behalf. Total cynicism? Absolutely.
Last Saturday on FOX, Ben Stein talked about the Stimulus Bill as little more than an effort to pay off Democratic voters -- and to buy the votes of new ones. Failed institutions, like GM and Chrysler, get rewarded -- mindlessly -- because the unions supported Obama. Huge amount of money get redistributed to states like Massachusetts (reportedly getting $9 billion), California, and Michigan, mainly because their electoral votes went for Obama. In contrast, Red states, generally much more responsibly governed than their "Blue" counterparts, get proportionately less.
"Pay to Play"
To use Illinois terms, states like Maryland and Massachusetts "played" the game Obama's way, so they get paid. As Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts told CNN's John King on Sunday, people in that state "want bridges and highways.' It never seemed to occur to him that if people in a state want something, they should ante up and pay for it themselves.
As Gov. Palin told the Republican National Convention, experience had taught the people of that state a valuable lesson. Yes, something like the "Bridge to Nowhere" would provide some benefits to the state (easier transportation, construction jobs), but it would come at a high cost to the nation. Thus, as she said, "If we need a bridge, we'll build it ourselves."
That classic American concept of self-reliance has little meaning to people like David Axelrod and Obama. People who are self-reliant are immune for the kind of vote-buying traditional in places like Chicago.
The problem with bailouts isn't that they don't provide short term help to some states and individuals. The problem is that they do great damage to the productive members of society, essentially punishing them for BEING productive. They -- we -- don't get "bailed out." In fact, the "water" -- the tax bills -- threatens to come up to our eyeballs.
To our credit, we don't want to be bailed out. We refuse to engage in what John McCain called "generational warfare," where our children and grandchildren pay the bill so that we can pretend we're better off than in fact we are.
By all means, let's help people who -- through no fault of their own -- are in trouble. But let's not help those who have no intention of helping themselves. Remember, our country's motto is "In God we trust" -- and not "gimme, gimme, gimme."
A society where no one is allowed to fail eventually becomes one where no one is able to succeed.
We sometimes hear how "complicated" the economic situation is, but that's just plain false. As people like Louisiana's Bobby Jindal and Alaska's Sarah Palin know, life and economics are fairly simple.
For example, you don't buy a house -- or have a lifestyle or spend money -- that you can't afford. You make sacrifices. You don't assume that the economy will never take a nosedive. You don't expect that someone else is going to pay your bills. You don't spend every last cent you have coming in. You don't have children and then assume that "society" (i.e., the taxpayers) will pay for their upbringing.
America is a country for free people. It is not a country for people who are perpetually dependent on government.
Does Obama understand such basic facts of life? Why should he? He's "The Affirmative Action Kid."
Yes, he talks about his "student loans," but he went to an expensive prep school in Hawaii and then to three of the costliest schools in America -- Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard. What percentage of his educational costs did Barack Obama pay? Of course, he hasn't released such facts -- nor will he ever. A good assumption is that he paid a relatively small amount.
From all avialable evidence, other people financed Barack Obama's education. He got mostly a free ride. It was an early version of his economic policy, where Other People's Money (OPM) is made available to help out Obama's chosen few. It all fits the definition of socialism, which is not so much an economic policy as a vote-buying scheme.
However, what happens when the productive members of society get tired of financing the unproductive? Unfortunately, it looks as if we're all going to find out the answer to that question . . . in the form of diminished economic growth, reduced opportunities, higher inflation, and less personal freedom.
Today, Monday, Feb. 23, Obama is talking about "investing" the Stimulus money -- all of it borrowed, all of it repayable by taxpayers -- on behalf of the American people. He doesn't explain why he won't allow Americans to invest the money themselves. As usual, Obama is in the position of promoting bad economic policies while saying he's doing it on our behalf. Total cynicism? Absolutely.
Last Saturday on FOX, Ben Stein talked about the Stimulus Bill as little more than an effort to pay off Democratic voters -- and to buy the votes of new ones. Failed institutions, like GM and Chrysler, get rewarded -- mindlessly -- because the unions supported Obama. Huge amount of money get redistributed to states like Massachusetts (reportedly getting $9 billion), California, and Michigan, mainly because their electoral votes went for Obama. In contrast, Red states, generally much more responsibly governed than their "Blue" counterparts, get proportionately less.
"Pay to Play"
To use Illinois terms, states like Maryland and Massachusetts "played" the game Obama's way, so they get paid. As Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts told CNN's John King on Sunday, people in that state "want bridges and highways.' It never seemed to occur to him that if people in a state want something, they should ante up and pay for it themselves.
As Gov. Palin told the Republican National Convention, experience had taught the people of that state a valuable lesson. Yes, something like the "Bridge to Nowhere" would provide some benefits to the state (easier transportation, construction jobs), but it would come at a high cost to the nation. Thus, as she said, "If we need a bridge, we'll build it ourselves."
That classic American concept of self-reliance has little meaning to people like David Axelrod and Obama. People who are self-reliant are immune for the kind of vote-buying traditional in places like Chicago.
The problem with bailouts isn't that they don't provide short term help to some states and individuals. The problem is that they do great damage to the productive members of society, essentially punishing them for BEING productive. They -- we -- don't get "bailed out." In fact, the "water" -- the tax bills -- threatens to come up to our eyeballs.
To our credit, we don't want to be bailed out. We refuse to engage in what John McCain called "generational warfare," where our children and grandchildren pay the bill so that we can pretend we're better off than in fact we are.
By all means, let's help people who -- through no fault of their own -- are in trouble. But let's not help those who have no intention of helping themselves. Remember, our country's motto is "In God we trust" -- and not "gimme, gimme, gimme."
A society where no one is allowed to fail eventually becomes one where no one is able to succeed.
We sometimes hear how "complicated" the economic situation is, but that's just plain false. As people like Louisiana's Bobby Jindal and Alaska's Sarah Palin know, life and economics are fairly simple.
For example, you don't buy a house -- or have a lifestyle or spend money -- that you can't afford. You make sacrifices. You don't assume that the economy will never take a nosedive. You don't expect that someone else is going to pay your bills. You don't spend every last cent you have coming in. You don't have children and then assume that "society" (i.e., the taxpayers) will pay for their upbringing.
America is a country for free people. It is not a country for people who are perpetually dependent on government.
Does Obama understand such basic facts of life? Why should he? He's "The Affirmative Action Kid."
Yes, he talks about his "student loans," but he went to an expensive prep school in Hawaii and then to three of the costliest schools in America -- Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard. What percentage of his educational costs did Barack Obama pay? Of course, he hasn't released such facts -- nor will he ever. A good assumption is that he paid a relatively small amount.
From all avialable evidence, other people financed Barack Obama's education. He got mostly a free ride. It was an early version of his economic policy, where Other People's Money (OPM) is made available to help out Obama's chosen few. It all fits the definition of socialism, which is not so much an economic policy as a vote-buying scheme.
However, what happens when the productive members of society get tired of financing the unproductive? Unfortunately, it looks as if we're all going to find out the answer to that question . . . in the form of diminished economic growth, reduced opportunities, higher inflation, and less personal freedom.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Sarah Palin: Beautiful American Woman
ON TONIGHT'S INTERVIEW WITH GRETA: I loved it when Greta asked Piper about her $1200 check, and she puts her hands palms up. Also, Piper, "Well when People magazine was here . . .a mother moose and two babies came right across the lawn " Bears in the front yard in Juneau . . .I wonder if they'll bring Northern Exposure back . . . It captured the culture of Alaska better than anything I've seen. (My brother was there for two years in the Air Force.) I wish I could have listened in on the phone call with Hillary today . . .
Read down to see current column. Another one will be up about Tuesday noon. First thought on the Greta interview on FOX: Sarah was wonderful. Will she run for President in 2012? Are there polar bears in Alaska? Thanks to Tanya Crews for the remarkable picture of Sarah in Scranton, PA.
Sarah Palin, Greta van Susteren
There's no bigger "fish" than the presidency, and Sarah Palin just might "catch" it in 2012.My next column regarding Sarah Palin's run for the presidency will be up late Monday, soon after the important interview with Greta van Susteren on FOX. In the meantime, talk a look at the "What Sarah Must Do" column on http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com/.
The material below is from Marnie Delano of NY state, who post at: http://pumatruthisgold.blogspot.com/.
The dust begins to settle with the emergence of a lazy November Sunday, one of the first in a long time. Election day over, we now begin to awaken from the surreal series of events that drove us all to work ourselves to exhaustion, abandon our lives, homes, families, friends, interests, and obligations to pitch one last stand for American Democracy. Although the outcome was not to our liking, it does not mean that we failed. On the contrary, we learned some very valuable lessons--life changing, heartrending AND heartening--that will serve us well as we gather and regroup to organize for the ongoing, open-ended Phase III of this nascent Movement. Now that we have time to assess our accomplishments objectively and put ourselves and our Movement into perspective, we can all rest knowing that we did our best and accomplished nothing less than a miracle, given the short time we've been working and the urgency of our task.
Yes, it has been as devastating as it has uplifting; energizing as it has exhausting. But each day, events continue to unfold, ideas continue to emerge, plans continue to form and objectives continue to solidify. We are, as the Colonies once did, finding our way toward a huge, well oiled machine of organized, interactive coalitions who share the common goals of eradicating sexism, media bias, and voter fraud, one day at a time.
After all...time is all we've got...and it's on our side now.
--Posted By truthisgold to TruthIsGold at 11/10/2008 01:10:00 AM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
