Many conservatives really wanted Sarah Palin to make a run for the GOP nomination, wanted her to challenge Obama in the general election, so when she decided not to run we were disappointed. She is an outsider who is willing to take on the establishment. As an outsider and as a person who we trusted enough to want her to run for the presidency shouldn't we trust her insight and the opinions she has of the various political candidates? Sarah Palin praised Rick Santorum on Hannity last night. I know that Rick is a long shot in the GOP field of candidates but he has never wavered in his beliefs and is a principled individual. I am not saying that he is the perfect candidate. No one is perfect. There is no perfect candidate but Rick is a guy who believes in liberty, freedom, American exceptionalism, the sanctity of life, morality, proper role of the tenth amendment, that there is no right to do wrong, and that family comes first. He has great knowledge in foreign policy and his economic plan which promotes manufacturing jobs, jobs for the middle class, would give our economy a huge boost. I just hope that you would give Rick Santorum a second look.
“If voters start shifting gears and deciding they want ideological consistency, then they’re going to start paying attention to say, Rick Santorum.”
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sarah Palin. Show all posts
Pro-Life Sarah Palin: Not Just Talking the Talk but Actually Walking The Walk
Here a personal Thanksgiving Reflection by Sarah Palin which she dedicates to Trig. It is beautiful and awesome.
From LifeNews.com: On Thanksgiving, my family’s traditions will reflect the loyal, active, robust, big family life that shaped me. We’re so fortunate to be together to share the making of another year’s memory. In these late autumn days with temperatures dipping to 20-degrees below zero, we’ll brave Alaska’s biting cold to run and skate and ride – just because we can, and for that I am so thankful. Life in America’s Last Frontier is not an easy living, but it’s a good living. Here in Alaska, where I’m never without inspiration, an optimistic pioneering spirit still permeates, and harsh conditions force us out of self-centeredness and towards community – often in order to survive.
This need for selflessness – and the blessings that come with it – sharpened for me almost four years ago when I was given the gift of broader horizons, clarified priorities, and more commitment to justice and compassion for my fellow man who faces challenges and fears. I was granted this through a gift that arrived in a tiny, six-pound, awe-inspiring bundle. We named him Trig.
I know America’s potential for goodness, thus greatness, because I see it every day through my son. Nothing makes me happier or prouder than to see America’s good heart when someone smiles at my Trig. I notice it happens often in airports. Often a traveler passing by does a double-take when they see him, perhaps curious about the curious look on his face; perhaps my son momentarily exercises an uncontrollable motion that takes the passerby by surprise. Perhaps, as an innocent and candid child announced when she first met Trig, they think “he’s awkward.” But when that traveler pauses to look again and smile, and maybe tells me what a handsome boy I have, I swell with American pride. I am so thankful for their good heart. They represent the best in our country and their kindness shows the real hope we need today.
I am thankful that, as in so many areas of life, the bitter people who say bitter things about someone facing challenges are so outnumbered. There have been stinging criticisms, even from people still screaming that Trig should never have been born, but we know those critics may be the loudest and most malicious, but they’re not the majority.
To me, when individuals reflect the greater societal acceptance of someone facing challenges, they show the best of humanity – even by offering a simple pat on Trig’s head or a knowing smile shot our way. Conversely, when a society works to eliminate the “weakest links” (as some would callously consider the disabled) or “the unproductive” (as some would callously consider the very young and the very old), it eliminates the very best of itself. When a society seeks to destroy them, it also destroys any ability or need for sincere compassion, empathy, improvement, and even goodwill. And those are the very best qualities of humanity! Those are the characteristics of a country that understands and embraces true hope! America can be compassionate and strong enough as a nation to be entrusted with those who some see as an “inconvenience,” but who are really our greatest blessings. Through Trig, I see firsthand that there is man’s standard of perfection, and then there is God’s. Man’s standard is flawed, temporary, and shallow. God’s standard lasts an eternity. At the end of the day, His is what matters.
So, this Thanksgiving my family will bundle Trig up and grin while we watch him through ice-frosted eyelashes as he curiously takes in all that is around him in the crisp open air. I hope your Thanksgiving gives you the opportunity to find that reminder of what really matters, too. For me, my perfect picture of thankfulness is my perfectly awesome son. With him, all is well with my soul and I know I am blessed.
Is This What Progressives Mean by New Civility?
If it is, I don't want anything to do with it. Yep, I don't want any parts of their version of "civility" at all. Progressives showed up in Wisconsin (and other places) by all appearances looking like adults but acted totally out of character for adults. These "adults" had to be wearing some costumes or something because these peoples' actions and words were more in line with that of a 4 year olds words and actions. They acted more like irrational beings having a temper tantrum, who didn't know how to act like civilized human beings, as if they were raised in an alternate uncivilized society. Here are examples of progressives coming unhinged, acting like childish brats who aren't able to have their way, shouting vulgarities, who are shouting absurdities acting both nuts and angry while trying to disrupt a tea party gathering.
Why do these loons insist on crashing our Tea Party? Do you see tea party members go and try to disrupt pro-union or progressive events? I don't think so. Conservatives act like mature adults while progressives act like whiny children.
This man acts like a 2 year old.
Language Alert! This video has profanity and displays what is wrong with the entitlement mentality of the Left. And, the Left wonders why we call them unpatriotic? This is what happens when one is led to believe you can have your cake and eat it too.
This video is of liberals acting like unhinged lunatics. How immature...
Beck has some thoughts on the above incidences of outlandish behavior. He asks Are we Americans or are we turning into monsters?
Why do these loons insist on crashing our Tea Party? Do you see tea party members go and try to disrupt pro-union or progressive events? I don't think so. Conservatives act like mature adults while progressives act like whiny children.
This man acts like a 2 year old.
Language Alert! This video has profanity and displays what is wrong with the entitlement mentality of the Left. And, the Left wonders why we call them unpatriotic? This is what happens when one is led to believe you can have your cake and eat it too.
This video is of liberals acting like unhinged lunatics. How immature...
Beck has some thoughts on the above incidences of outlandish behavior. He asks Are we Americans or are we turning into monsters?
Sarah Palin Speaks on Various Issues with Judge Jeanine
I found this video at Motivation Truth of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin speaking on various issues such as energy, terrorism, Libya, Wisconsin, and support of Israel. She rocked! In my opinion, this was one of her best interviews.
Ed Koch Defends Sarah Palin's Use of "Blood Libel"
This is an excerpt of what Koch has written in Sarah Palin's defense:
While the charge of responsibility against Palin was dropped, the Scarborough crew continued to assail her for defending herself on her website where she stated that she had been the subject of a blood libel. Her critics were incensed that she should use the term "blood libel." That was the description given by Jews to the charge of Christian clergy who falsely accused Jews of killing Christian children in order to make matzos (unleavened bread) during the Passover holiday. That libelous accusation was intended by those using it to cause pogroms that killed and injured thousands of Jews. It started in the early centuries A.D. and continues to date, according to Wikipedia. That same charge - blood libel - is now repeated by the media in Arab countries to stir up the anger of the Arab street against the Jews in Israel. The libel continues to do damage.
Today the phrase "blood libel" can be used to describe any monstrous defamation against any person, Jew or non-Jew. It was used by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon when he was falsely accused of permitting the Lebanese Christian militia to kill hundreds of defenseless and innocent Muslim men, women and children in Lebanese refugee camps. The killings were monstrous and indefensible revenge for earlier killings by Muslims of innocent Christian civilians.
Time Magazine published a story implying that Sharon was directly responsible for the massacres. He sued the magazine. At trial it was determined that the magazine story included false allegations, but since Sharon was a public figure, he received no monetary damages.
How dare Sarah Palin, cried the commentators, use that phrase to describe the criticism of her by those who blamed her for creating the atmosphere that set Loughner off in his murderous madness. Some took the position that it proved their ongoing charges that she is not an intelligent person and probably did not know what the phrase meant historically. In my opinion, she was right to denounce her critics and use blood libel to describe the unfair criticism that she had been subject to.
Why do I defend Palin in this case? I don't agree with her political philosophy: She is an arch conservative. I am a liberal with sanity. I know that I am setting myself up for attack when I ask, why did Emile Zola defend Dreyfus? Palin is no Dreyfus and I am certainly no Zola. But all of us have an obligation, particularly those in politics and public office, to denounce, when we can, the perpetrators of horrendous libels and stand up for those falsely charged. We should denounce unfair, false and wicked charges not only when they are made against ourselves, our friends or our political party but against those with whom we disagree. If we are to truly change the poisonous political atmosphere that we all complain of, including those who create it, we should speak up for fairness when we can.
In the 2008 presidential race when Sarah Palin's name was first offered to the public by John McCain as his running mate, I said at the time that she "scared the hell out of me." My reference was to the content of her remarks, not to her power to persuade voters.
It was McCain who lost the presidential election, not Palin. Since that time she has established that she has enormous power to persuade people. A self-made woman who rose from PTA mother to Governor of Alaska, she is one of the few speakers in public life who can fill a stadium. Her books are enormous successes. Her television program about Alaska has been a critical and economic success. When Sarah Palin addresses audiences, they rise to their feet in support and applause. She is without question a major leader of the far right faction in the Republican Party and its ally the Tea Party.
I repeat my earlier comment that she "scares the hell out of me." Nevertheless, she is entitled to fair and respectful treatment. The fools in politics today in both parties are those who think she is dumb. I've never met her, but I've always thought that she is highly intelligent but not knowledgeable in many areas and politically uninformed. I don't believe she will run for president in 2012 or that she would be elected if she did. But I do believe she is equal in ability to many of those in the Republican Party seeking that office.
Many women understand what she has done for their cause. She will not be silenced nor will she leave the heavy lifts to the men in her Party. She will not be falsely charged, remain silent, and look for others - men - to defend her. She is plucky and unafraid.
While I disagree with her and I am prepared to oppose her politically, in the spirit of longed-for civility I say, Ms. Palin you are in a certain sense an example of the American dream: You have the courage to stand up and present your vision of America to its people. Your strength and lack of fear make America stronger and are examples to be emulated by girls and boys, men and women who are themselves afraid to speak up. You provide the example that they need for self-assurance."
SICKOS Want Sarah Palin Dead: Twitter Users Wish Death on Palin
H/T Breitbart
Palin Derangement Syndrome has come out of the woodworks in a major way since the shooting. The Left consists of some seriously disturbed individuals.
Vitriolic Rhetoric by WHICH Party and Against WHICH President?
Before I begin the main part of this post I am again sending my condolences to the loved ones of the victims who were killed in this violent massacre. My thoughts and prayers go out to all the victims who were hurt and their families as they recover from this horrific tragedy.
It is truly sickening in our country when politics enters into a national tragedy, and the Left tries to capitalize on a bloody situation to further their political gain. For the Left to make false accusations and try to make the connection between either symbols or fiery debate on issues and this shooting is extremely disturbing and unwarranted. The main reason I am writing this post is to correct misinformation by the Left.
The NY Times is one news outlet that is trying to connect opposition to the President's policies and fiery rhetoric as a cause for the shooting or playing a role in some way in this shooting. First, Jared Lee Loughner, the shooter, was NUTS!!! .... mentally unstable and to say that politics or fiery rhetoric made him do this evil act is journalistic malpractice in my opinion. Second, his political leanings were of a liberal anarchist and to try to connect the Tea Party, conservative commentators, or any conservatives to either him or this incident is absurd. Brian Lilley of Lilley's Pad points out that it is truly sick for people to try and connect this shooting with Sarah Palin when it is solely the lone gunman's responsibility for his committing this heinous act.
He also points out the spin being played by the liberal media. Just because I point out that Loughner has liberal leanings doesn't mean that that is that I'm attributing his actions to his politics. Brian Lilley shows two targeted maps of districts one used by Republicans and the other by Democrats. So, for Democrats and the liberal media to act as if Democrats have never done anything remotely similar to Sarah Palin while denouncing her political map and casting aspersions is despicable and hypocritical.
The New York Times article states: "But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats." The NY Times provides NO PROOF to back up their accusation. Does the NY Times have proof that a Tea Party member, or a conservative who listens to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or other conservative media played a role in any of the violent acts which took place right after the health care law was passed? Heck, it could have been a liberal trying to make conservatives look bad or simply a nut. So, I say to these liberal Commie journalists either prove it or retract a most irresponsible and unproven allegation.
When an administration's spending is way out of control, and government takes over health care, car companies, student loans, banks, Obama uses the EPA to bypass Congress and institute his Cap & Trade policies, he uses unconstitutional Czars to implement unconstitutional regulations, conservatives had/have every right to express anger. When DHS labels opponents of the Left's ideology as "right-wing extremists" how the heck are we supposed to respond? By heating up the rhetoric and stating the absurd - labeling conservatives "right-wing extremists" - those in the Obama administration have effectively made themselves enemies of half of the country. But, that was done on the Obama administration's own volition. And, these libs wonder why conservatives might get a little angry, expressing our righteous anger against this indignant, ignorant and radical administration. These libs are so clueless. I guess the temperature of the rhetoric should have been lowered during the Bush years and activists against both wars needed to stop using their freedom of speech to promote hatred, vile acts, and should have just fallen in line and been alright with all of the Bush administration's policies. Of course not, because the New York Times and the rest of the liberal media ONLY care about liberals freedom of speech. Here are some examples of the heated rhetoric by the anti-war Left which was directed toward President Bush. The ignorant, illegitimate Left wing Media were silent as a Church mouse when there was heated rhetoric under Bush. I am against THREATS TO ALL POLITICAL FIGURES.
FROM ZOMBLOG:
It is truly sickening in our country when politics enters into a national tragedy, and the Left tries to capitalize on a bloody situation to further their political gain. For the Left to make false accusations and try to make the connection between either symbols or fiery debate on issues and this shooting is extremely disturbing and unwarranted. The main reason I am writing this post is to correct misinformation by the Left.
The NY Times is one news outlet that is trying to connect opposition to the President's policies and fiery rhetoric as a cause for the shooting or playing a role in some way in this shooting. First, Jared Lee Loughner, the shooter, was NUTS!!! .... mentally unstable and to say that politics or fiery rhetoric made him do this evil act is journalistic malpractice in my opinion. Second, his political leanings were of a liberal anarchist and to try to connect the Tea Party, conservative commentators, or any conservatives to either him or this incident is absurd. Brian Lilley of Lilley's Pad points out that it is truly sick for people to try and connect this shooting with Sarah Palin when it is solely the lone gunman's responsibility for his committing this heinous act.
He also points out the spin being played by the liberal media. Just because I point out that Loughner has liberal leanings doesn't mean that that is that I'm attributing his actions to his politics. Brian Lilley shows two targeted maps of districts one used by Republicans and the other by Democrats. So, for Democrats and the liberal media to act as if Democrats have never done anything remotely similar to Sarah Palin while denouncing her political map and casting aspersions is despicable and hypocritical.
The New York Times article states: "But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats." The NY Times provides NO PROOF to back up their accusation. Does the NY Times have proof that a Tea Party member, or a conservative who listens to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, or other conservative media played a role in any of the violent acts which took place right after the health care law was passed? Heck, it could have been a liberal trying to make conservatives look bad or simply a nut. So, I say to these liberal Commie journalists either prove it or retract a most irresponsible and unproven allegation.
When an administration's spending is way out of control, and government takes over health care, car companies, student loans, banks, Obama uses the EPA to bypass Congress and institute his Cap & Trade policies, he uses unconstitutional Czars to implement unconstitutional regulations, conservatives had/have every right to express anger. When DHS labels opponents of the Left's ideology as "right-wing extremists" how the heck are we supposed to respond? By heating up the rhetoric and stating the absurd - labeling conservatives "right-wing extremists" - those in the Obama administration have effectively made themselves enemies of half of the country. But, that was done on the Obama administration's own volition. And, these libs wonder why conservatives might get a little angry, expressing our righteous anger against this indignant, ignorant and radical administration. These libs are so clueless. I guess the temperature of the rhetoric should have been lowered during the Bush years and activists against both wars needed to stop using their freedom of speech to promote hatred, vile acts, and should have just fallen in line and been alright with all of the Bush administration's policies. Of course not, because the New York Times and the rest of the liberal media ONLY care about liberals freedom of speech. Here are some examples of the heated rhetoric by the anti-war Left which was directed toward President Bush. The ignorant, illegitimate Left wing Media were silent as a Church mouse when there was heated rhetoric under Bush. I am against THREATS TO ALL POLITICAL FIGURES.
FROM ZOMBLOG:
A protester with a sign saying “Kill Bush” and advocating that the White House be bombed, at the March 18, 2007 anti-war rally in San Francisco.
Unfortunately place and time weren't documented.
“Save Mother Earth, Kill Bush” says this sign from a November 20, 2003 protest.
Original source unknown.
A recommendation that Bush should hang, from an October 27, 2007 protest in Los Angeles.
"Bush is the disease, Death is the cure,” says this protester at an anti-war rally in San Francisco.
This man calls for “Death to...Bush” at the March 18, 2007 anti-war rally in San Francisco.
A sign saying "Bush — the only dope worth shooting,” at the March 15, 2008 anti-war rally in Los Angeles.
Bush being burned in effigy, at a November 3, 2004 post-election anti-Bush rally in San Francisco.
Bush being beheaded by a guillotine, at an Obama campaign rally, Denver, October 26, 2008.
An effigy of Bush being killed, at the April 10, 2004 anti-war rally in San Francisco.
The anti-Israel conspiracy site nogw.com hosts this pdf file which describes a mock trial and execution of George Bush for a bizarre litany of purported crimes; included in the document is this image of Bush being hanged at the trial.
Then Sen John Kerry responded in such a way to Bill Maher in October of 2006 on the HBO show Real Time which could have been construed as a threat:
Maher: You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.
Kerry: Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.
Full transcript here.
The we have Kilborn:
On August 4, 2000, when Bush won the Republican nomination (but before he was president), Craig Kilborn on CBS’s The Late Late Show with Craig Kilborn ran a graphic of the words “SNIPERS WANTED” under George Bush as he gave his acceptance speech. Although CBS belatedly apologized five days later, Kilborn was never investigated, questioned or punished, and continued to host the show for four more years.
Now the progressives or liberals reaction to this horrible tragedy is to take away even more of our rights. TCL has posted information on Congressman Brady's plan to introduce a bill against inflammatory language. Who decides what is considered inflammatory speech? What is considered inflammatory to one person may not be considered inflammatory to another person. Matt of Conservative Hideout exposes Leftist hate. Maggie at Maggie's notebook has posted on Blaming the Tea Party and Sarah Palin for Giffords shootings.
Bill Lilley says that:
"We can’t let the acts of what appears to be a crazed gunman, one described by classmates as crazy and a left-wing pot-head not a right wing Tea Partier, change the way we speak to each other.
Should any of us seriously be talking about blowing away our enemies? No."
The gunmen is a 9/11 Truther.
It seems like a greater number of threats and violent acts occur during economic downturns. If there are indeed more threats happening under Obama than under Bush it may have something to do with the fact that under most of Bush's presidency the unemployment rate was around 5.5 % and the unemployment rate now is presently at 9.4% and this brings the nut jobs out.
Freedom of speech is precious and is a right afforded to we the people by the Constitution and we cannot let progressives use one horrific tragedy to limit our first amendment right to free speech.
Young Grizzly Slams Olbermann for 'Worst' Person Label
Olbermann, the lie teller, who practices hypocrisy quite often accuses Bristol Palin of hypocrisy since she is a spokesperson for abstinence education and just happens to be a teen mother. I say, don't worry Bristol at least your not like Olbermann who promotes the murder of countless innocents all out of selfishness. He promotes the immorality of both men and women who claim to need a sex fix and engage in a one night stand while not taking responsibility for his or her actions. And, no the woman or man taking responsibility does not consist of propping up, being complicit in or partaking in the act of murdering a separate human being in the mother's womb. Taking responsibility for one's fling in the hay is doing as Bristol Palin has done and is still doing - having the child, taking care of the child by working hard to provide for her son Tripp, and loving her son with all her heart. Murder - abortion- is NOT LOVE!!! Murdering an innocent defenseless unborn human being is one of the coldest, cruelest, evil acts a person could do. So you can take that and stuff it where the sun don't shine Mr. Know-It-All, selfish, arrogant Olbermoron!!!
Here is Bristol Palin's response to Keith Olbermann as posted on The Blaze:
Recently, a left wing commentator named Keith Olbermann attacked me for being a spokesperson for abstinence education and for being an Ambassador for the Candies Foundation, which promotes teen pregnancy awareness and prevention education. He went so far as to call me “the worst person” he knows, apparently, for my efforts to educate teenagers about the real world risks of premarital sex.
Accusing me of hypocrisy is by now, an old canard. What Mr. Olbermann lacks in originality he makes up for with insincere incredulity. Mr. Olbermann fails to understand that in order to have credibility as a spokesperson, it sometimes takes a person who has made mistakes. Parents warn their children about the mistakes they made so they are not repeated. Former gang members travel to schools to educate teenagers about the risks of gang life. Recovered addicts lecture to others about the risks of alcohol and drug abuse. And yes, a teen mother talks about the benefits of preventing teen pregnancy.
I have never claimed to be perfect. If that makes me the “worst person in the world” to Mr. Olbermann, then I must apologize for not being absolutely faultless like he undoubtedly must be.
To Mr. Olbermann let me say this: you can attack me all you want. But you will not stop me from getting my message out about teen pregnancy prevention. And one day, if you ever have a daughter, you may change your mind about me.
Bristol Palin
Mark Levin Releases Email Address of Sarah Palin's Creep Stalker Next Door Neighbor Joe McGinniss
Over the years, I have noticed just how insensitive liberals can be toward conservatives when a liberal violates a conservative person's space or privacy rights, crosses the line in a "joke" (David Letterman), targets the person's family, stalks the person and their family, and the lame stream media has even resorted to being hypercritical of Sarah Palin. On the other hand, when something miniscule happens to a liberal the lame stream media and liberals become overly sensitive and act like a bunch of Sarah Bernhardts. Over at The Daily Caller, Jim explains why a professional writer took "Sarah Palin is the girl next door" a little bit too literally. He also fends off the liberal sharks' claims that she is overreacting. She is not overreacting. This is a most serious matter that is not to be taken lightly. Mark Levin took a stand and decided that he wasn't going to put up with Palin's stalker, Joe McGinniss, flinging his crap at Palin anymore, he decided two can play that game, and he announced Joe McGinniss' email address live on air. The transcript of Mark Levin is here. If anyone wants to send her stalker a message, here is Sarah Palin's stalker's email -- JoeMcGinniss@gmail.com. I decided to take the liberty to defend Sarah Palin and let this sicko know exactly what I think of him and his actions.
Here it is:
H/T Beforeitsnews
Here it is:
H/T Beforeitsnews
New York Times Columnist, Paul Krugman, Says Death Panels are Going to Save 'a lot of Money'
Sarah Palin was right!! -- Death Panels are in the health care law.
The Liberal New York Times commentator Paul Krugman says the so-called "death panels" established by President Obama's trillion-dollar nationalized health-care plan will end up saving "a lot of money" for the government.
WND columnist Jane Chastain recently wrote on this very subject:
"This bill sets up an Independent Medicare Advisory Board, which is to recommend cuts for the sole purpose of limiting the amount of resources going to Medicare patients. Some have called it a 'Death Panel,'" she wrote.
"You may think this is harsh, but if this bill passes, many seniors will die prematurely because the recommendations of these unelected bureaucrats will go into effect. Congress is not required to act on them!"
"Obama … wants Granny to believe that she will be able to receive that operation or treatment that could save or extend her life. Nothing could be further from the truth! There is a reverse incentive in this bill that actually penalizes Granny's primary-care physician if he or she is in the top 10 percent of doctors who refer patients to specialists. This puts a wedge between Granny and the doctor she trusts to act in her best interest."
Richard Poe, a New York Times best-selling author, documented in a previous report for WND how the government's plan to cut health care costs will do just that: cut health care for somebody.
"The only question is whose," Poe wrote. "The numbers make clear that most of these cuts will have to come at the expense of those who need health care the most – the elderly, the disabled and the gravely ill."
He cited Obama's confirmation that, "Older, sicker societies pay more on health care than younger, healthier ones."
"He is right," Poe wrote. "According to a 2006 study by the Department of Health and Human Services, five percent of the U.S. population accounts for nearly 50 percent of health care spending in America. Who are those five percent? Most are people over 65 years of age with serious, chronic illnesses.
"By contrast, the study notes, half of the U.S. population 'spends little or nothing on health care… with annual medical spending below $664 per person.' These, of course, are mostly healthy young people – people without serious, chronic illnesses," Poe wrote.
"Obviously, Obama will not meet his cost-cutting targets by reducing care to healthy young people. They are already spending next to nothing. It is the old, the dying and the chronically ill whose health care he will cut. The numbers make this clear," Poe said.
Some of those "old, the dying and the chronically ill" appear to be catching on. According to a report from Fox News, an estimated 60,000 members of AARP, which endorsed "Obamacare," have turned in their cards, cancelling their memberships, in recent weeks.
Poe elaborated on his concerns about the president's plan.
"How will Obama cut costs? His June 13 radio speech gave some hints. Obama said his plan would provide 'incentives' to doctors to 'avoid unnecessary hospital stays, treatments and tests that drive up costs,'" Poe wrote.
"And what sort of treatment does Obama consider 'unnecessary?' In an ABC News special June 24, he implied medical treatment might be wasted on elderly people with grave illnesses, citing his own grandmother as an example," he said.
"Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," Obama concluded.
Poe also documented how such health care limits already are being used overseas, including the United Kingdom where "British elders are routinely denied treatment for cancer, heart disease and other deadly illnesses."
Further, such "death" boards already are operating in Oregon, where officials with the state Health Plan agreed to refuse a patient life-extending cancer drugs, but volunteered to pay for her to commit suicide.
He reported Barbara Wagner of Springfield, Ore., was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2005. Chemotherapy and radiation put her cancer into remission. But the cancer returned in May 2008.
Wagner's doctor prescribed Tarceva, a pill which slows cancer growth. There was a good chance it might extend her life by a few weeks or even months.
At age 64, Wagner had two sons, three daughters, 15 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. Every moment she could spend with her loved ones was precious, he noted.
But Oregon's health commissars nixed the plan. Her Tarceva treatment would cost $4,000 per month. Wagner was going to die anyway, so why waste the money?
Wagner received a letter stating that the Oregon Health Plan would not approve any treatment for her "that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of the disease …" However, if Wagner opted for physician-assisted suicide, Oregon would be happy to pick up the tab, said the letter.
Physician-assisted suicide is legal in Oregon and costs only about $50.
H/T WorldNetDaily
The Liberal New York Times commentator Paul Krugman says the so-called "death panels" established by President Obama's trillion-dollar nationalized health-care plan will end up saving "a lot of money" for the government.
WND columnist Jane Chastain recently wrote on this very subject:
"This bill sets up an Independent Medicare Advisory Board, which is to recommend cuts for the sole purpose of limiting the amount of resources going to Medicare patients. Some have called it a 'Death Panel,'" she wrote.
"You may think this is harsh, but if this bill passes, many seniors will die prematurely because the recommendations of these unelected bureaucrats will go into effect. Congress is not required to act on them!"
"Obama … wants Granny to believe that she will be able to receive that operation or treatment that could save or extend her life. Nothing could be further from the truth! There is a reverse incentive in this bill that actually penalizes Granny's primary-care physician if he or she is in the top 10 percent of doctors who refer patients to specialists. This puts a wedge between Granny and the doctor she trusts to act in her best interest."
Richard Poe, a New York Times best-selling author, documented in a previous report for WND how the government's plan to cut health care costs will do just that: cut health care for somebody.
"The only question is whose," Poe wrote. "The numbers make clear that most of these cuts will have to come at the expense of those who need health care the most – the elderly, the disabled and the gravely ill."
He cited Obama's confirmation that, "Older, sicker societies pay more on health care than younger, healthier ones."
"He is right," Poe wrote. "According to a 2006 study by the Department of Health and Human Services, five percent of the U.S. population accounts for nearly 50 percent of health care spending in America. Who are those five percent? Most are people over 65 years of age with serious, chronic illnesses.
"By contrast, the study notes, half of the U.S. population 'spends little or nothing on health care… with annual medical spending below $664 per person.' These, of course, are mostly healthy young people – people without serious, chronic illnesses," Poe wrote.
"Obviously, Obama will not meet his cost-cutting targets by reducing care to healthy young people. They are already spending next to nothing. It is the old, the dying and the chronically ill whose health care he will cut. The numbers make this clear," Poe said.
Some of those "old, the dying and the chronically ill" appear to be catching on. According to a report from Fox News, an estimated 60,000 members of AARP, which endorsed "Obamacare," have turned in their cards, cancelling their memberships, in recent weeks.
Poe elaborated on his concerns about the president's plan.
"How will Obama cut costs? His June 13 radio speech gave some hints. Obama said his plan would provide 'incentives' to doctors to 'avoid unnecessary hospital stays, treatments and tests that drive up costs,'" Poe wrote.
"And what sort of treatment does Obama consider 'unnecessary?' In an ABC News special June 24, he implied medical treatment might be wasted on elderly people with grave illnesses, citing his own grandmother as an example," he said.
"Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," Obama concluded.
Poe also documented how such health care limits already are being used overseas, including the United Kingdom where "British elders are routinely denied treatment for cancer, heart disease and other deadly illnesses."
Further, such "death" boards already are operating in Oregon, where officials with the state Health Plan agreed to refuse a patient life-extending cancer drugs, but volunteered to pay for her to commit suicide.
He reported Barbara Wagner of Springfield, Ore., was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2005. Chemotherapy and radiation put her cancer into remission. But the cancer returned in May 2008.
Wagner's doctor prescribed Tarceva, a pill which slows cancer growth. There was a good chance it might extend her life by a few weeks or even months.
At age 64, Wagner had two sons, three daughters, 15 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. Every moment she could spend with her loved ones was precious, he noted.
But Oregon's health commissars nixed the plan. Her Tarceva treatment would cost $4,000 per month. Wagner was going to die anyway, so why waste the money?
Wagner received a letter stating that the Oregon Health Plan would not approve any treatment for her "that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of the disease …" However, if Wagner opted for physician-assisted suicide, Oregon would be happy to pick up the tab, said the letter.
Physician-assisted suicide is legal in Oregon and costs only about $50.
H/T WorldNetDaily
In Defense of Sarah Palin
This is an excellent article explaining how some conservatives, many of whom are elitists, actually do not espouse the same conservative beliefs as either Reagan or the conservative citizens in America do today. These so-called conservatives seem to be failing the William F. Buckley test.
IN DEFENSE OF SARAH PALIN
By NORMAN PODHORETZ
Nothing annoys certain of my fellow conservative intellectuals more than when I remind them, as on occasion I mischievously do, that the derogatory things they say about Sarah Palin are uncannily similar to what many of their forebears once said about Ronald Reagan.
It's hard to imagine now, but 31 years ago, when I first announced that I was supporting Reagan in his bid for the 1980 Republican presidential nomination, I was routinely asked by friends on the right how I could possibly associate myself with this "airhead," this B movie star, who was not only stupid but incompetent. They readily acknowledged that his political views were on the whole close to ours, but the embarrassing primitivism with which he expressed them only served, they said, to undermine their credibility. In any case, his base was so narrow that he had no chance of rescuing us from the disastrous administration of Jimmy Carter.
Now I knew Ronald Reagan, and Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan. Then again, the first time I met Reagan all he talked about was the money he had saved the taxpayers as governor of California by changing the size of the folders used for storing the state's files. So nonplussed was I by the delight he showed at this great achievement that I came close to thinking that my friends were right and that I had made a mistake in supporting him. Ultimately, of course, we all wound up regarding him as a great man, but in 1979 none of us would have dreamed that this would be how we would feel only a few years later.
What I am trying to say is not that Sarah Palin would necessarily make a great president but that the criteria by which she is being judged by her conservative critics—never mind the deranged hatred she inspires on the left—tell us next to nothing about the kind of president she would make.
Take, for example, foreign policy. True, she seems to know very little about international affairs, but expertise in this area is no guarantee of wise leadership. After all, her rival for the vice presidency, who in some sense knows a great deal, was wrong on almost every major issue that arose in the 30 years he spent in the Senate.
What she does know—and in this respect, she does resemble Reagan—is that the United States has been a force for good in the world, which is more than Barack Obama, whose IQ is no doubt higher than hers, has yet to learn. Jimmy Carter also has a high IQ, which did not prevent him from becoming one of the worst presidents in American history, and so does Bill Clinton, which did not prevent him from befouling the presidential nest.
Unlike her enemies on the left, the conservative opponents of Mrs. Palin are a little puzzling. After all, except for its greater intensity, the response to her on the left is of a piece with the liberal hatred of Richard Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush. It was a hatred that had less to do with differences over policy than with the conviction that these men were usurpers who, by mobilizing all the most retrograde elements of American society, had stolen the country from its rightful (liberal) rulers. But to a much greater extent than Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush, Sarah Palin is in her very being the embodiment of those retrograde forces and therefore potentially even more dangerous.
I think that this is what, conversely, also accounts for the tremendous enthusiasm she has aroused among ordinary conservatives. They rightly see her as one of them, only better able and better positioned to stand up against the contempt and condescension of the liberal elites that were so perfectly exemplified by Mr. Obama's notorious remark in 2008 about people like them: "And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
CONTINUED HERE
IN DEFENSE OF SARAH PALIN
By NORMAN PODHORETZ
Nothing annoys certain of my fellow conservative intellectuals more than when I remind them, as on occasion I mischievously do, that the derogatory things they say about Sarah Palin are uncannily similar to what many of their forebears once said about Ronald Reagan.
It's hard to imagine now, but 31 years ago, when I first announced that I was supporting Reagan in his bid for the 1980 Republican presidential nomination, I was routinely asked by friends on the right how I could possibly associate myself with this "airhead," this B movie star, who was not only stupid but incompetent. They readily acknowledged that his political views were on the whole close to ours, but the embarrassing primitivism with which he expressed them only served, they said, to undermine their credibility. In any case, his base was so narrow that he had no chance of rescuing us from the disastrous administration of Jimmy Carter.
Now I knew Ronald Reagan, and Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan. Then again, the first time I met Reagan all he talked about was the money he had saved the taxpayers as governor of California by changing the size of the folders used for storing the state's files. So nonplussed was I by the delight he showed at this great achievement that I came close to thinking that my friends were right and that I had made a mistake in supporting him. Ultimately, of course, we all wound up regarding him as a great man, but in 1979 none of us would have dreamed that this would be how we would feel only a few years later.
What I am trying to say is not that Sarah Palin would necessarily make a great president but that the criteria by which she is being judged by her conservative critics—never mind the deranged hatred she inspires on the left—tell us next to nothing about the kind of president she would make.
Take, for example, foreign policy. True, she seems to know very little about international affairs, but expertise in this area is no guarantee of wise leadership. After all, her rival for the vice presidency, who in some sense knows a great deal, was wrong on almost every major issue that arose in the 30 years he spent in the Senate.
What she does know—and in this respect, she does resemble Reagan—is that the United States has been a force for good in the world, which is more than Barack Obama, whose IQ is no doubt higher than hers, has yet to learn. Jimmy Carter also has a high IQ, which did not prevent him from becoming one of the worst presidents in American history, and so does Bill Clinton, which did not prevent him from befouling the presidential nest.
Unlike her enemies on the left, the conservative opponents of Mrs. Palin are a little puzzling. After all, except for its greater intensity, the response to her on the left is of a piece with the liberal hatred of Richard Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush. It was a hatred that had less to do with differences over policy than with the conviction that these men were usurpers who, by mobilizing all the most retrograde elements of American society, had stolen the country from its rightful (liberal) rulers. But to a much greater extent than Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush, Sarah Palin is in her very being the embodiment of those retrograde forces and therefore potentially even more dangerous.
I think that this is what, conversely, also accounts for the tremendous enthusiasm she has aroused among ordinary conservatives. They rightly see her as one of them, only better able and better positioned to stand up against the contempt and condescension of the liberal elites that were so perfectly exemplified by Mr. Obama's notorious remark in 2008 about people like them: "And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
CONTINUED HERE
Sarah Palin: Politician & Comedian
Please, watch the first 30 seconds of the video for a surprise. Then, you can fast forward to minute 13:45 and watch the Sarah Palin interview from there. She was awesome!!
Sick "Humor" is Apparent as Family Guy Targets Sarah Palin's Beautiful Baby
A H/T goes to MAINFO
There are some cast members of Family Guy that disagree with Seth MacFarlane's
“I know it’s satire but, personally, that [joke] bothered me, too…I know that you have to be an ‘equal-opportunity offender,’ but there are some things that I just don’t think are funny.”
Beat The Elites
I would much rather have an every(wo) man like Sarah Palin than an arrogant elitist like Barack Obama running this country.
The elitist mentality breeds both selfish and closed-minded people. This notion has spread rampantly through four year colleges and universities, and even to community colleges across this country. Elitism does not allow for free thought. It calls for a communistic fall in lockstep behind one another mentality that does a huge disservice to the students trying to gain a good, well-rounded college education. This has become prevalent within Catholic colleges today. I attended Franciscan University in Steubenville, OH and even though overall it is better than most Catholic liberal-arts colleges the philosophy of elitism, and specifically liberal elitism has infiltrated it from within to some degree.
Some professors there, as an enormous amount of other colleges call for “social justice” and call for compromise. But, in the elitist version of compromise it is crystal clear that they sacrifice their ideals, principles, and values for the sake of appearing neutral, nice, persuasive, or compromising with others.
This elitist mentality has branched out to jobs all over the world. A bunch of selfish owners, managers, and leaders have been bred all over this country. While in some professions it is self-evident that certain types of training are necessary, there are many jobs or professions where many people, like myself, are more than willing to learn a different computer program or a different line of work but because of office politics or elitist selfishness people are unwilling to help a person learn a new computer program or a different line of work. These owners or managers want a ready-made perfect individual instead of helping to give a person a step up.
Yet, These same selfish owners and managers would rather the government take care of individuals instead of helping them in a much more productive manner that could benefit the company, employee, and this country.
We need to return to being more community-oriented like in the early 20th Century. We must bring our societyback to promoting a sense of values, morality, and Godly principles instead of accepting the elitist mentality of selfishness, arrogance, and moral compromise.
Palin Populism by Michael Knox Beran:
Sarah Palin takes on the pathology of the elites.
BILL O’REILLY: Do you believe that you are smart enough, incisive enough, intellectual enough to handle the most powerful job in the world?
SARAH PALIN: I believe that I am because I have common sense, and I have, I believe, the values that are reflective of so many other American values. And I believe that what Americans are seeking is not the elitism, the kind of spinelessness, that perhaps is made up for with some kind of elite Ivy League education . . .
— The O’Reilly Factor, Nov. 21, 2009
No sooner had I lighted on this exchange than the familiar words of Faust — familiar, at any rate, to us Ivy Leaguers, for whom he is something of a patron saint — were on my tongue:
Habe nun, ach! Philosophie,
Juristerei und Medizin . . .
I have, alas, studied philosophy,
Jurisprudence and medicine, too,
And worst of all theology
With keen endeavor, through and through —
And here I am, for all my lore,
The wretched fool I was before.
I was, as I say, trilling Goethe when it occurred to me that Governor Palin had a point. Perhaps the Ivy League business has been a little overrated.
Everyone knows that many stupid people possess degrees from fancy schools. Many smart people don’t have them. But in a big country, it isn’t easy to distinguish the wheat from the chaff. We are obliged to rely on things like academic degrees — and on the relative prestige of the institutions that grant them — to a much greater degree than was the case in the past.
This was evident in the comparisons that were drawn between President Obama and Governor Palin in the summer of 2008. His intelligence was never questioned. Hers was, repeatedly. Undoubtedly his two Ivy League degrees (from Columbia and Harvard) helped him. Her want of prestigious education hurt her: It made it easier for those who didn’t like her to say she was stupid. This presumption of stupidity was in the air before the interviews with Charles Gibson and Katie Couric. Those interviews resembled ambushes, orchestrated by people who were already convinced that she was a moron. Had Obama — who cherishes his teleprompter — been ambushed in this way, his intelligence would have been questioned too.
Degree fetish might be a necessary evil in a big country where there are lots of candidates for jobs and no easy way to rank them. But if in the future the only means of obtaining intellectual credibility in America should be through an accumulation of degrees, the country will almost certainly become stupider.
Degree fetish fosters a standardization of the intellect: Everyone is obliged to jump over the same hurdles to get their intellectual passports. If standardization has its virtues, particularly in the hard sciences, its promise in the humanities is much less obvious; Edmund Wilson was probably right when he said that literae humaniores have suffered from the Ph.D. fetish.
But the greatest evil of degree fetish is the arrogance it nourishes, an intellectual snobbishness that stifles nonconformity and homespun intelligence. Whitman suffered this condescension. So did Lincoln, and so did Reagan. Emerson, the Harvard man, said that Lincoln was a “clown.” Clark Clifford, speaking ex cathedra for the Washington establishment, called Reagan an “amiable dunce.” CONTINUED
H/T goes to NRO
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
