Standing at the Crossroads of History

By C. A. Bamford

Imagine a world without America. Imagine a world where there is no one to stand proudly and boldly in defense of liberty. To whom will those suffering under oppression or need turn for help? As Ronald Reagan so famously said, “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.”



Our nation is at a crucial crossroad. The presidential election of 2012 will be one of the most important in the history of our Republic. Our choice will determine our future, our children’s future, and that of the United States of America. Never have the stakes been so high. Never has the choice been so clearly defined. We face experience and accomplishment vs. empty rhetoric and unfulfilled promises; American exceptionalism vs. apologetic mediocrity. Will we remain the Greatest Nation on Earth, or will we become just one of many managed and regulated units in a homogenized, global community working for the good of a few and the freedom of none?

First, let us define what is meant by American Exceptionalism. It does not mean we think that we are better than everyone else. It is a statement that America is different than all other nations because of where we came from, who we are, and what we stand for. Our Founders believed that we were brought together on this continent by Providence. They believed that God had a hand in bringing together the people who made this nation. It is faith in the idea that in this nation, people of all races and creeds can unite around a universal belief in opportunity, shared values, and our natural rights and responsibilities under God.

As Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and the rest of our Founders knew, American exceptionalism is about human freedom and holding yourself to the highest standard of which you are capable. No other country on earth has ever tried such an experiment as this representative democracy governing the independent states according to the Constitution; the Constitution, which was openly and contentiously debated, and painstakingly crafted by the founders in order to protect our new country and to ensure the individual rights of all. America was indeed founded as, and has endured as an exceptional nation.

But if we mistakenly demand that the rewards of the sacrifice of blood, toil, and treasure that created this exceptional nation be given to all without regard; if we demand that shared wealth regardless of participation, not shared opportunity, is the right of all, then we will no longer be exceptional. If we cease to hold ourselves to the highest standards of which we are capable, then we will cease to be an exceptional nation and we will become no more than any other country, be it Greece, Venezuela or Iran.

Over the past two and a half years, the inept and incomprehensible policies of the current administration have brought us to the brink of disaster and have eroded and threatened to destroy those things we once held dear…self-reliance, honor, and freedom.

We know that Governor Sarah Palin believes we are an exceptional nation. President Obama has told us he believes that America is no more exceptional than Greece, Iran, or any other nation in the world. Governor Palin has proven that she is willing to sacrifice much of what she holds dear for this exceptional nation. President Obama has asked us to sacrifice for his vision of a fundamentally changed country; one that is no longer an exceptional nation. The difference in their vision for America is clear. Let us now compare their experience and leadership.


Experience and Accomplishments: Governor Palin

Private sector experience: Sarah Palin worked at local businesses, on fishing boats and canneries to pay her way through college. She and her husband, Todd Palin, own and operate an Alaskan commercial fishing business. Palin has written two books, both #1 NY Times Bestsellers which sold over 2 million copies. She is a political commentator for FOX News and hosted a highly rated TV series about Alaska on the Learning Channel. Palin is an in demand international speaker.

1992-1996 - Palin was elected by wide margins and served two terms on the City Council of Wasilla, Alaska

1996—2002 - Elected in 1996 with 75% of the vote in a 3-way race, Palin served two successful 3-year terms as Mayor of Wasilla. Under her stewardship, infrastructure was improved, property taxes cut.

Her policies to attract business into the area were so successful that the tiny town of Wasilla became the fasting growing city in the nation.Tens of thousands flock to Wasilla to shop in the stores Palin brought to town, thanks to her positive, pro growth policies.

1999-2002 - Mayor Palin was elected President of Alaska Conference of Mayors by her peers. She led dozens of other mayors in dealing with statewide issues, such as municipal revenue sharing, and advocating for local government control of important local issues.

2003-2004 - Appointed to and named Chair and Ethics Supervisor of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

2003-2005 - Palin served as one of three Director of Senator Steven’s Excellence in Public Service group devoted to advancing women in conservative politics.

2007 Assumed Chairmanship of Interstate Oil and Gas Compact

2006-2009 - Palin was elected Governor of Alaska, the second most powerful gubernatorial office in the country. Governor Palin, the youngest person and first woman to be elected governor of Alaska, earned bipartisan approval ratings of over 90% making her the most popular governor in America.

She co-wrote and signed into law the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA), negotiated with Canada on building a natural gas line from Alaska to the lower 48 states (an achievement that prior governors had attempted but failed to achieve for over 30 years), passed landmark bi-bipartisan ethics reform, cut billions in spending from the budget and put $5 billion into the state’s rainy day savings fund, and left her state with a $12 billion budget surplus.

She successfully fulfilled every one of her campaign promises, both as Mayor and as Governor. Her fiscally conservative policies earned Alaska a Aaa rating, the highest rating given.

As governor, she served as Commander in Chief of the Alaska National Guard, the only National Guard on 24-hour standby. Alaska's unique role as the first line of defense means as Governor, Sarah Palin has a top level national security clearance, and received regular briefings. Though never discussed, Palin's level of security is reportedly as high as ranking members of Congress' national security council membership, second only to the President.

She was also Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska Defense Force, a reserve military and police force that is a recognized militia by Homeland Security. It was the ADF that bravely defended Alaska during World War II, when the Japanese invaded the territory.

Governor Palin was a frugal budgeter as the Governor of Alaska. During her tenure, she cut spending 9.5% while also vetoing nearly half a billion dollars in spending, and she wisely did this during strong economic times.

Whitney Pitcher spells it all out here.


Governor Palin has nine years of Executive Experience, more than three times as much as President Obama. Twenty years of public service in total.


Experience and Accomplishments: President Obama

Private sector experience - Barack Obama’s education was funded by federal programs and unknown donors. He has published two best-selling books, and one unsuccessful children’s book. He has no other known private sector business experience other than a reported part time job at an ice cream shop during his teen years.

1992-96 - Lectured at the U of Chicago Law School.

From April-Oct 1992 Obama also directed ACORN's Illinois Project Vote, a voter registration drive that achieved its goal of 400,000 registered African Americans.
.
He and Michelle spent several months in Bali in 1992 working in vain to finish a book, which was later published in 1995 with the help of domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, who reportedly ghost wrote much of it.

1993-96 - Obama joined a law firm specializing in civil rights litigation, as an associate.

1995-1999- Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a "foundation" created and guided by terrorist Bill Ayers.

1996-2004 - Obama was a senior lecturer at U of Chicago, teaching courses in due process and equal protection, voting rights, and racism and law. He published no legal scholarship, and turned down tenured positions

1995-2004 - Obama announced his candidacy for the Illinois Senate in 95, and served eight years (97-04) while continuing to work part time at the university, He proposed no major legislation and voted “Present” 130 times.

1996-2004 - Was counsel from 96-04, with his law license becoming inactive in 2002. During the four years Obama worked as a full time lawyer at the firm, he was involved in 30 cases. He also continued to work part time for the university and as a State Senator.

2004-2008 - Was elected as a Democrat to the U.S. Senate in 2004, and began his fulltime campaign for the presidency in 2006. Introduced no significant legislation.

2009 - Obama elected President of United States. He began his campaign for re-election shortly thereafter. Under his administration, debt has tripled, the deficit widened, unsustainable spending, record unemployment has crippled the US economy.

Our AAA credit rating has been downgraded for the first time in our history. Onerous regulations have hampered energy exploration and development and are destroying our jobs creators, small businesses throughout the country. Government has become a bloated, uncontrolled entity that no longer answers to the people, but seeks instead to control and use them. Under his administration we have become a nation divided.

At the end of the 1970s, after three years of Jimmy Carter, America could not wait to vote for someone else. That someone turned out to be the greatest president of the 20th century. Ronald Reagan knew what he believed, was passionate about expressing it, and once in office, carried through with the goals he had articulated during the 1980 campaign.

When the history of the 2012 presidential election is written, what will we remember? That a conservative Republican challenged a socialist nightmare for the leadership of the country — and won? Or that the Republican Party nominated another squish who allowed the worst president in our history to follow through on his promise to "fundamentally transform the United States of America."

~Doug Patton

History will record whether we had to courage and wisdom to choose a leader who is passionate about America, and who has proven herself to be a fearless and effective fiscal reformer and advocate for the people she serves, or if we choose to continue to blindly follow those who are destroying our nation. America is indeed a blessed and exceptional nation.

It is now up to us to ensure that it remains so. One may again quote one of our greatest presidents:

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

~ Ronald Reagan

Must Read New Book: Reagan: What Was He Really Like

By Gary P Jackson

As someone who became an adult as Ronald Reagan was elected President, I have always loved and admired the man. Reagan was one of our greatest Presidents and the leader of the Conservative movement. Reagan's enduring spirit shines brightly, even today.

When I was offered the opportunity to read and review the new book from Curtis Patrick, Reagan: What Was He Really Like [Volume One], I jumped at the chance!

Curtis Patrick was Reagan's first advance man and a Special Assistant to Governor Reagan. He also worked on special projects and various task forces with Reagan during his presidential years.

There are hundreds of books that have been written about Ronald Reagan, but Reagan: What Was He Really Like [Volume One] is perhaps the most unique. Unlike most, this book doesn't deal with Reagan's time as President. Instead Patrick takes an in-depth look at Reagan during the time he was running for Governor of California, and takes us through 1968, and Reagan's first attempt at the Republican nomination for President.

The book is told first person by the people who were there. Patrick, allows the reader to feel like they are right there in the trenches with Ronnie, Nancy, and everyone involved. Every chapter features one or two people who made it all happen. Most of these interviews have never before been published.

Patrick also includes many never before published photos and hand written notes, as well as newspaper accounts and other cool items of interest.

It's wonderful to see a younger Reagan and his beautiful wife Nancy as they campaign.

This is the sort of book that one really doesn't want to put down. The stories are wonderfully engaging and you find out so much about Reagan, and what he was like as a man. You won't be disappointed.

Reading Reagan: What Was He Really Like [Volume One] it's easy to understand why Reagan had such a loyal following. He was a truly good man.

This is a must have book for anyone who wants to know more about Reagan, or just celebrate his life. All of the people featured have wonderful stories to tell about a man of incredible character and courage. Readers will enjoy all of the behind the scenes action that goes on as Reagan transitions from being an actor, to General Electric pitchman and TV host, to Governor of California, all told by the people who were there.

Curtis Patrick has done a wonderful job of of putting this all together for all of us to enjoy. Ronald Reagan is such an essential part of history, and this gives us great insight into him, as a man.

For more information check out Curtis Patrick's website: Reagan: What Was He Really Like

You can order the book from Amazon here.

Ronald Reagan Honored With Statue In London

By Gary P Jackson

Catching up on some Independence Day news. We reported earlier that a statue of Ronald Reagan was erected in Budapest, to celebrate the fall of communism. Over the 4th, Great Britain also honored one of our nation's greatest leaders:

As Fourth of July celebrations get under way across the United States, London will hold its own tribute to America's 40th President, Ronald Reagan, with the unveiling of a bronze statue outside the American embassy in Grosvenor Square.

Former president Reagan will stand alongside other celebrated US heads of state such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower and was considered important enough for Westminster City Council to break its rule specifying that ten years must pass after a subject's death before they can be immortalized in statue form.

Former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will be in London for the unveiling of the memorial, along with British Foreign Secretary William Hague. Baroness Thatcher, Reagan's closest foreign ally and one half of the 'Special Relationship' which came to epitomize the 1980s and contribute to the demise of the Cold War will probably be too frail to attend the ceremony celebrating the man she referred to as "the second most important man in my life."

The $1 million statue is the latest in a number that have been unveiled across the world, celebrating 100 years since Reagan's birth and in recognition of his contribution to the fall of Communism in Europe. Indeed a quote attributed to Lady Thatcher that "Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot" will be etched on the statue's plinth which will be displayed with a portion of the Berlin Wall.

Former special assistant to Ronald Reagan Mary Jo Jacobi told CNBC.com ahead of attending that ceremony that Reagan would have reacted to the tribute with humility.

"I think he would be moved and a bit perhaps surprised by it all because he was a very humble man. I do think that there was a very special place in his heart for Margaret Thatcher and for the United Kingdom, our closest ally in his view, so I think he would be particularly thrilled to have this statue here in London," she told CNBC.com

Jacobi, who has met every US president since Lyndon Johnson, said Reagan stands apart from subsequent presidents as he was able to articulate and execute a clear vision for the United States.

"He connected with the common person in the United States and in many parts of the world, and I think that that's a rare gift, we haven't seen it since. Bill Clinton was very good at empathy, President Obama was very good at articulating a vague notion of hope and change, but not a clear vision of what that hope and change would look like or feel like and that was the difference with Ronald Reagan," she explained.

Read more here.

It's wonderful to see all of these tributes to Ronald Reagan as we celebrate his 100th birthday this year. Reagan was truly one of this nation's greatest presidents, and thankfully was appreciated by the American people while he was still in office, something few presidents ever see. His leadership has inspired untold numbers of men and women to join the fight.

God bless Ronald Reagan, and God bless America.

New Reagan Statue in Budapest Celebrates Fall Of Communism

ASSOCIATED PRESS Sculptor Istvan Mate puts some finishing touches on his statue of former President Ronald Reagan, which will be unveiled in Budapest on Wednesday. The bronze statue will stand in the city’s Freedom Square.

By Gary P Jackson

As we continue to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth, and remember the positive impact we have world wide, her's yet another tribute to one of the most monumental accomplishments of Reagan's, the fall of the Soviet Union, and communism. as a major force.

From the Washington Times:

BUDAPEST — A larger-than-life (7 feet, 2 inches tall) bronze likeness of former President Ronald Reagan will stand in Freedom Square in this historic city - which he never visited, but which is the first in the former Eastern bloc to erect a statue in recognition of his role in dismantling the Soviet empire.

It will be unveiled by Prime Minister Victor Orban, leader of Hungary’s conservative government. The Hungarians, according to a recent government statement, "will always remember with gratitude the unchallengeable role played by the United States and President Reagan in bringing the Cold War to a conclusion, and for the fact that Hungary regained its sovereignty in the process."

The powerful work by Hungarian sculptor Istvan Mate captures the president in mid-stride, as though walking across Szabadsag (Freedom Square) to the Hungarian parliament a couple blocks away. Along with the issuance of Reagan commemorative stamps by the Hungarian post office, the statue marks the centennial of the 40th president’s birth. In Prague, the Czechs are naming a downtown street after him, but no statue.

Mr. Mate never met Reagan but he based his likeness on photos. The artist recently told the Associated Press that he had to work quickly to finish the statue in time. The commission came from the Orban government (with support from the California-based Reagan Foundation) after the center-right Fidesz party’s victory in the April 2010 election. The socialist government that had been in power for the previous eight years was hardly likely to have ordered such a tribute - particularly since there already is a bust of Reagan in Budapest, unveiled less than five years ago.

A large screen has been set up to show scenes from Reagan’s life during Wednesday’s unveiling, at which former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Edwin Meese, Reagan’s attorney general, were due to speak.

But some noted that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who famously hailed the former communist satrapies as "the New Europe" for supporting the Iraq War (as opposed to "the Old Europe," which did not), was not on the list of U.S. guests.

A statue to Reagan in Budapest is likely to irritate the Russians, but there has been no comment out of Moscow. The Hungarians have a history of angering the Russians. There was the abortive uprising in 1956, of course, and after the Cold War the Hungarians and other East Europeans angered the Russians by the alacrity with which they joined NATO, the old enemy.

It is not lost on ordinary Hungarians that the Reagan statue will have a far less popular neighbor in the shape of a 40-foot-high obelisk commemorating Soviet troops who died in Hungary fighting the Nazis during World War II. The Hungarians would like it moved to a less prominent location, but that would deeply offend Russia.

The week’s schedule of events in Budapest requires a delicate choreography of U.S. high-level visitors because the day following the unveiling Ms. Rice’s successor will also be in town. In Budapest for talks with Mr. Orban, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is also expected to attend the opening Thursday of an institute of human rights named after the late Rep. Tom Lantos, a California Democrat who was born in Hungary.

Make sure you check out Madeleine McAulay's essay The Fight for Liberty, Democracy, and Freedom about Ronald Reagan and the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Ronald Reagan Speaks At Liberty State Park

　

By Gary P Jackson

I thought it would be interesting to compare the speech the great Ronald Reagan gave in 1980 at Liberty State Park with the speech a recent Obama regime employee gave today, as he announced his bid for the Republican Party nomination.

President Reagan shows how it's done. The former Obama employee shows how it's not.

You can read a complete transcript of President Reagan's speech here.

Ronald Reagan: A Republican In Democrat Country

By Gary P Jackson

The humor of Ronald Reagan is timeless. Here he tells a joke about the days when Republicans were scarce in some parts of the country. That was the days when the country club set ruled, before Renaldus Magnus created an entire generation of people we still refer to as "Reagan Democrats" with his Conservative revolution.

Sadly, with the GOP elites in charge of the party again, there may come a day when Republicans are scarce once more. Only this time, it won't be democrats in charge, and it won't be a Republican making the speech. The GOP has one chance left to get it right.

CNN Poll: Sarah Palin Most Like Reagan 80% Agree With On Issues 79% She Represents Our Values

By Gary P Jackson

CNN released an interesting poll on Sunday:

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted June 3-7, with 1,015 adult Americans, including 433 Republicans and independent voters who lean towards the GOP, questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points

Interesting, In a poll asking about Republicans, CNN polls 582 democrats and 433 Republicans and independents. This is typical for left wing organizations to oversample democrats, but very odd when they are polling about Republican candidates. Even the radical left Daily Kos' polster, PPP only samples Republicans and Republican leaning indies when polling about the Republican primaries.

That said, the results of this poll is telling if you are a Palin supporter. Now on their website, CNN spins all of this as a big win for Mitt Romney, knowing most readers won't dig through the internals. But once you do that, you find a different story. While it's true, most think Romney is positioned best to beat Obama, the answer to other questions tells a completely different story.

For example, most surveyed think Sarah Palin is most like Ronald Reagan, the gold standard for leadership. 79% think Sarah Palin best represents their values, while only 68% say the same of Romney. 80% agree with her on issues they care about. Only 64% say the same thing of Romney. Another interesting point is 70% say Sarah Palin is NOT your typical politician. Just 41% can say that about Romney.

This is before any debates and any real campaigning has taken place. This poll clearly shows that Sarah Palin is more in touch with the American people than any other politician in the mix. Considering the polling sample here, once the campaigning starts, we feel confident she'll be able to easily make the case she can beat Barack Obama. After all, she's been the only one consistently going after him since 2008.

The results:

30. Thinking about the complete list of candidates who may be running for the Republican nomination,

please tell me whether you would describe any of them as another Ronald Reagan –- that is, someone who inspires in you the same amount of confidence and enthusiasm that you feel when you think about how Reagan handled his job while he was president?

31. (IF YES) Who do you feel that way about? QUESTIONS 30 AND 31 COMBINED

Sarah Palin 16%

Rudy Giuliani 15%

Mitt Romney 13%

Herman Cain 7%

Michele Bachmann 5%

Newt Gingrich 5%

Ron Paul 5%

Tim Pawlenty 2%

Jon Huntsman 1%

Rick Santorum 1%

Someone else (vol.) *

No opinion 2%

IS NOT A TYPICAL POLITICIAN

Sarah Palin 70%

Rudy Giuliani 53%

Ron Paul 51%

Mitt Romney 41%

Newt Gingrich 40%

REPRESENTS VALUES OF REPUBLICANS LIKE YOURSELF

Sarah Palin 79%

Rudy Giuliani 74%

Mitt Romney 68%

Newt Gingrich 64%

Ron Paul 53%

GENERALLY AGREES WITH YOU ON ISSUES YOU CARE ABOUT

Sarah Palin 80%

Rudy Giuliani 75%

Mitt Romney 64%

Newt Gingrich 61%

Ron Paul 56%

For more information click here.

Ronald Reagan: These Are The Boys Of Point-du-Hoc

By Gary P Jackson

President Ronald Reagan's Address at the Ceremony Commemorating the 40th Anniversary of the Normandy Invasion, D-day, at Point-du-Hoc - June 6, 1984.

Let us never forget the heroes who freed an entire continent from tyranny.

George Will Makes The Comparisons Between Sarah Palin and Ronald Reagan Complete

By Gary P Jackson

The comparison's between Sarah Palin and Ronald Reagan are quite natural. Sarah herself is a great student of Reagan, quotes him often, and has the same common sense approach to governing. Like Reagan she's a no-nonsense leader who gets things done. It's her adherence to solid conservative principles that has earned her the admiration of supporters from coast to coast.

Of course, while it's gratifying to look at all of the valid comparisons of the two great leaders, one must also look at how both were portrayed by the corrupt media, the democrats, and establishment Republicans. Here is where you find the comparisons absolutely stunning.

Both Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin started out as sportscasters. Reagan did radio, Sarah did TV. In fact, she wanted to work for ESPN. The elites trashed Reagan as a "B-movie" actor who once co-starred with a chimp. Never mind Reagan also played one of Hollywood's most iconic and enduring characters, " George Gipp" in the 1940 classic "Knute Rockne All American." No matter, being an actor, was a sure sign Reagan wasn't fit to be President. Might as well forget his decades of political activism on behalf of Conservatism, or his time as Governor of California. Doesn't matter, he was an actor thus "unserious"

The elites have used the same tact against Governor Palin, a woman with 20 years of public service that includes city councilwoman, Mayor, Chairman of Alaska's oil and gas regulatory commission, and Governor. All of this is negated because she starred in, and was executive producer of, a nature-travel-adventure series on The Learning Channel [TLC] and her oldest daughter was a contestant on ABC's Dancing With The Stars, at least according to the left, the media [but I repeat myself] and the GOP elite.

Sarah Palin, like Ronald Reagan, isn't "serious" because she, like Ronnie, is talented and good on camera. OK. Such is the logic of the "smart" people.

Clark Clifford, former Secretary of Defense for LBJ called Reagan an "amiable dunce." In the 21st century, such civility is dead, so our "betters" just call Sarah Palin "stupid"! Even among the hoity-toity, the level of discourse has fallen greatly. At least in the old days, someone would insult you with a little style and flair!

The media along with the Republican elites all cringed and made fun of Ronald Reagan when he referred to the Soviet Union as an "Evil Empire" and even his own staffers lost their minds when he said these world changing words:"Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Former Carter and Mondale staffer [and faux conservative] Charles Krauthammer said Sarah Palin should "leave the room" after she coined the term "death panels" to describe government health care rationing, and the board of unelected government drones who would determine who should live and die.

Sarah Palin used the term "death panels" in a lengthy policy piece, where she called out Obama's health care adviser Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who has written extensively about the need to ration care, giving priority to those who were deemed "productive to society." She has been proven 100% correct on the facts. My personal guess is Krauthammer was just miffed because he wrote thousands of pretty words trying to make a similar point, and no one noticed.

The way he continually attacks her and proclaims she isn't "smart," makes me think Krauthammer, the former Carter adviser and Mondale speech writer, is miffed a housewife from Wasilla is better at turning a phrase than he is. Of course, Chuck is a genius, he chose to work on the losing team against Reagan .... TWICE.

The media also laughed at Sarah when she inadvertently created the new word "refudiate." They had a cow when she playfully tweeted that Shakespeare created new words too. Funny thing happened though. British MEP Daniel Hannan, a political superstar and his own right, and a self proclaimed "Shakespearean obsessive" wrote at the time:

Sarah Palin, never misunderestimate Shakespeare

I am thoroughly taken with Sarah Palin’s neologism. People often incorrectly use the word "refute" to mean something like "deny" or "reject", only stronger. We could do with a new word to fill this gap and, since both "refute" and "repudiate" are already occupied with their actual meanings, neither can be pressed into service. "Refudiate" occupies the space perfectly, and deserves to become part of every politician’s vocabulary.

The handsome Alaskan politician is quite right to say that Shakespeare came up with countless new-fangled words – including "countless" and "new-fangled". Among his coinages, as far as we can tell, are accommodation, assassinate, denote, dislocate, equivocal, eventful, hobnob, inauspicious, lacklustre, laughable, perplex, raw-boned, submerge, time-honoured, unmitigated and zany.

Read more here.

Oh, and the New Oxford American Dictionary named "refudiate" it's "word of the year" saying:

From a strictly lexical interpretation of the different contexts in which Palin has used ‘refudiate,’ we have concluded that neither ‘refute‘ nor ‘repudiate‘ seems consistently precise, and that ‘refudiate‘ more or less stands on its own, suggesting a general sense of ‘reject.’ "

I wonder how many words our "betters" in the media and the GOP establishment can say they've created a new word, let alone say it was recognized as word of the year in a major dictionary?

This brings us to George Will, a sincerely pompous ass, who once wrote an entire column in the Washington Post called "Demon Denim" bemoaning the fact Americans love to wear blue jeans and how it has destroyed the world, .... or something.

This " man of the people" is a real piece of work. The typical Beltway elitist hack. Will passes himself off as a "conservative" but nothing could be further from the truth.

Mark Levin recently said this of George Will and Charles Krauthammer:

George Will missed the Reagan Revolution not only in 1976 but as late as 1980. In the 1979 Republican Presidential Primary, his first choice was Howard Baker, his second choice was George H. W. Bush, and his third choice was Reagan.

Not until days before the 1980 general election did he write on November 3, 1980 that Reagan deserved election.

For all his wonderful columns, the Republican electorate better understood the needs of the nation and the excellence of a potential Reagan presidency than Will. It is hard to believe he was so wrong about a matter of such great import, despite Reagan’s presence on the national scene for many years.

Charles Krauthammer was not only wrong about Reagan, as late as 1980 he was a speech-writer for Vice President Walter Mondale. Krauthammer, like Will, not only missed the significance of the Reagan candidacy, but was putting words in the mouth of a terribly flawed politician from a philosophical perspective.

So much for either's ability to pick winners or know what the hell they are talking about when it comes to politics.

On Memorial Sunday Will, perched in all of his pomposity over at ABC, went on yet another crying jag and upped the ante by proclaiming we should be very worried about a President Sarah Palin, because, you know, she'll have the nuclear codes and might just blow us all up! Whitney Pitcher talks about the jackass and his nutty statement here.

This is nothing new for fear mongers among America's Ruling Class. In 1964 LBJ's team ran the now infamous "Daisy" ad with the young girl picking a daisy apart as a sinister voice counted down to a nuclear launch. The ad proclaimed Barry Goldwater would destroy the world with nukes. America was so outraged, the ad only ran once.

Now I can't find examples of George Will saying it, but plenty of GOP hacks were saying that not only would it be a disaster to let Ronald Reagan have the nuclear codes, the more insane were claiming Reagan would have us in a nuclear war with the Soviet Union within days of taking office!

Folks, this is called desperation. They threw everything they had at Reagan and couldn't stop him. They are throwing everything they have at Sarah Palin, and not only can they not stop her, hell, she's getting stronger!

We've talked about A.B. Culvahouse here before. Long time readers will remember Culvahouse was a Reagan adviser and chairs one of Washington's most prestigious law firms. We first talked about Culvahouse after everyone was falsely claiming the McCain campaign never vetted Sarah. Just picked her and went with it. Such is the pathetic laziness of the media, and those who read and believe that sort of nonsense.

Of course the facts were quite different. She was highly vetted by Culvahouse and his team. Culvahouse and Sarah have a history too, His firm represented Exxon-Mobil, and Palin had been on the opposing side. He knew first hand how tough she was.

In April of 2009 Culvahouse spoke at the National Press Club. Mark Silva wrote at the time: [emphasis mine]

Arthur "A.B.'' Culvahouse, a prominent Washington attorney who served as White House counsel to President Ronald Reagan during the president's final two years and led Sen. John McCain's search for a running mate - a search that included a "long list'' of 26 candidates - told the tale today of picking Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

After the vetting of all the candidates, and paring them to a short list, McCain asked Culvahouse for the "bottom line'' on Palin.

""I said, 'John, high risk, high reward,''' Culvahouse said today. "His response - 'You shouldn't have told me that. I've been a risk-taker all of my life.'''

Culvahouse was addressing the Republican National Lawyers Association today at the National Press Club, and C-SPAN was running a camera.

"There were three rules,'' Culvahouse said of himself and McCain. "He was the decider. There was no one between him and me.... There was no one who was going to say, 'This one is on the list, this one is off the list'... Third... he could not pick anyone that I had not vetted.''

[ .... ]

They considered many.

"We had 26 people on the long list. It was a blind basis... They did not know they were on the list,'' said Culvahouse, who had a staff of 30 lawyers helping him who wrote 50-page reports on the candidates.

"Gov. Palin told us everything - everything except the pregnancy (of) her daughter was on the written questionnaire,'' he said of Palin, who discussed teenage daughter Bristol's pregnancy privately. "She told me there was one issue she wanted to talk about. We knew everything going in.''

Palin "has lots of presence. She fills up a room,'' said Culvahouse, noting that some of his most cynical colleagues also were impressed with her.

Culvahouse, commenting on the later, damaging interviews that Palin gave to CBS News anchor Katie Couric, suggested that the wrong impression had come from those sessions - such as the idea that Palin was not familiar with Supreme Court rulings.

"She clearly did... My law firm represents Exxon in the Valdez matters,'' he noted. "Until she became governor, Gov. Palin was a plaintiff in that case...''

They asked her why she wanted to be vice president -- "the question Judge Bork was not prepared to answer -- why he wanted to be on the Supreme Court,'' said Culvahouse, who also handled Bork on the Hill.

They asked her if she is prepared to use nuclear weapons in the defense of the American homeland, he said, and they asked her if, say Osama bin Laden should be spotted, but taking him out would result in many other casualties, would she take the shot?

"She knocked those three questions out of the park,'' he said.

"She would have been a great vice president... She wouldn't have been ready on Jan. 20,'' he allowed, but then most people wouldn't, save for Dick Cheney when he joined George W. Bush's ticket in 2000.

"Qualifications in this town meant someone with a great resume,'' Culvahouse said today. "As John... directed me, it was someone who had the capacity to be president.''

.

Here's video of Culvahouse at the National Press Club:





So you guys tell me. Who's opinion would you trust: A guy who missed Reagan's brilliance not once, but twice, or someone who professionally vets candidates for Vice President of the United States, and handles Supreme Court Appointees?

I will give Georgie some credit though. With the fear mongering over nuclear weapons, the comparisons between Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin are pretty much complete!

I bet Ronnie and Maggie would agree [that George Will is the "amiable dunce"]!

Video courtesy: C4P

President Ronald Reagan's 1984 Memorial Day Speech

President Reagan's Remarks at Memorial Day Ceremonies Honoring an Unknown Serviceman of the Vietnam Conflict on May 28, 1984.

By Gary P Jackson

Each Memorial Day we remember those who gave their lives in order to protect all we hold so precious. Throughout the history of the United States brave men and women have fought to maintain our God given Liberty and Freedom. Far too many have died in the service to our cause, as they have not only protected our nation, but helped to free people world wide who also sought Liberty and Freedom.

I am always in awe of every man and woman who serves. In the world we live in today, it's inspiring to see these brave citizens who honor our nation with their sacrifices, so the rest of us can enjoy the life we do.

There are never enough words to express the gratitude we all owe these men and women, or the families of those who have sacrificed their lives for us all.

The above video of Ronald Reagan is particularly meaningful. He speaks about the soldiers of Vietnam, who served their nation honorably, but didn't get the appreciation they deserved when they returned home. This is, and will always be one of our nation's great injustices.

Though we can never bring those lives lost back, we can make sure we thank our members of the military at every opportunity. As a nation we are truly blessed to have such fine men and women among us.

May God bless all who serve and all who gave their last full measure of devotion.

Sarah Palin Hires New Foreign Policy Adviser: More In Line Line With Her Doctrine

Now some of these principles may sound familiar and a few of them were first expressed back in 1984 in Pres Reagan’s cabinet. They were designed to help us sharply define the when and how we should use force. And they served us well in the Reagan years. Times are much different now but I believe that by updating these time tested principles to address the unique and changing circumstances and threats that we face today they’ll serve us well now and into the future. Remember Reagan liked to keep it simple yet profound. Remember what he said to the enemy. "We win you lose. "

And some may argue that well today in a world where we are dealing with terrorists organizations rather than of cold war adversaries these principles are outdated. On the contrary, these principles are timeless.

They will allow us to effectively and forcefully defend our vital national interests and those of our key allies in the age of terrorism. We must vigorously defend ourselves but at the same time we must not wear down our armed forces with never ending and ever increasing commitments.

I believe that America though must never retreat into isolation. the world would be less safe and less free without our leadership. And we must never forget that America has a responsibility to lead. To Whom Much is given much is expected. We can not be the world’s policeman granted or the world’s ATM but we can lead by example. By our words and when necessary by our actions. We must, we will remain the world’s abiding beacon of freedom.

~ Sarah Palin May 2, 2011

Anyone who has followed Sarah Palin for any length of time knows she is very much a Reagan Conservative, and that includes her outlook on foreign policy. Reagan had a solid, but simple plan for dealing with America's enemies. "We win, they lose!"

Now obviously the nuts and bolts of this sort of doctrine are more complex, but what Reagan meant, as does Sarah, is very simple: If America is going to engage in war, we are going in with the focus and determination to win that war. We are not going in as the world's policeman.

Another way of saying this is "Peace through strength."

Reagan won the Cold War, without getting into a shooting war, by convincing the Soviet Union the United States, if engaged, would do whatever it took to win that war. Period. The Soviets were bankrupting themselves trying to keep up with Reagan's efforts to rebuild and strengthen the U.S. military, that was gutted by Jimmy Carter. The Soviets knew Reagan meant business, and knew there was a line they could never cross. We've not had such a straightforward, strong, and concise foreign policy doctrine since those days.

Sarah has long talked in the same manner as Reagan. Though the corrupt media is doing it's damnedest to say otherwise today, Sarah has not changed her foreign policy stance. What she has done, with her speech in Colorado Monday night, as she gave tribute to our troops, is lay out everything she has been saying since her days as a vice presidential candidate, into one sophisticated doctrine. The five requirements needed before she would engage in military action. It's reasonable, forward looking, and concise. Simple and elegant. In case you missed her speech, we have the transcript along with video here.

With that said, Sarah has hired a new foreign policy adviser. Someone more in line with her doctrine.

Her former team Randy Scheunemann and Michael Goldfarb of Orion Strategies have been replaced by Peter Schweizer, a writer and fellow at the Hoover Institution who blogs regularly at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Peace. Schweizer has written two definitive books on the way Reagan handled the Cold War: Victory and Reagan's War

J.E. Dyer offers her thoughts:

Many volumes could be written on the distinctions between the prevailing ideas on the use of force overseas, but this passage of Palin’s speech, combined with her taking on Peter Schweizer as an adviser, argues for a more Reaganesque than progressive-activist view.

[ .... ]

To call something "neocon" now is not to put it in the context of any consistent thread in policy. Bush 41, for example, used force for regime-change in Panama in 1989, but didn’t use it to regime-change Saddam in 1991. He restricted himself to evicting Saddam’s forces from Kuwait. He also dispatched military force to supervise the delivery of aid to Somalis, with no intention of resolving the chaotic political situation there – this last enterprise an open-ended use of force on the progressive-activist model.

Reagan used force to regime-change Grenada, ironically in the middle of dealing with the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, which was a consequence of improperly scoping the purpose and requirements of force in a particular situation. Again, the latter (the Marine barracks debacle) is more characteristic of the progressive-activist model – which is what is currently developing in Libya.

Bush 43 used overwhelming force for regime-change in Iraq, and induced regime-change in Afghanistan with less than overwhelming force, but both were cases of politically justifying absolute regime-change and pursuing it without temporizing. Unifying Afghanistan under new rule has proven to be the insoluble problem in the aftermath, although the regime-change of Iraq has been much more heavily criticized throughout.

Which of these episodes were the result of "neocon" policies? There are plenty of people today who call the Libya intervention "neocon," because it is expeditionary and related only indirectly to US security. Samantha Power and Susan Rice wouldn’t thank those pundits for calling their humanitarian intervention a "neocon" operation.

Schweizer is a fan of Reagan’s approach, which had no compunction about trying to undermine oppressive governments, but did so by supporting freedom movements where they were indigenous, and arming the insurgents under Soviet occupation in Afghanistan. The commitment of US force was a matter of coming to blows very rarely under Reagan: besides invading Grenada, Reagan conducted a reprisal against Libya in 1986 after the Berlin nightclub bombing, and another one against Iran in 1988 for mining the Persian Gulf and inflicting mine damage on USS Samuel B Roberts (FFG-58). The US armed forces had a high and very active profile during the Reagan years, but the actual use of force was considered necessary very seldom.

[ .... ]

As is typical of her, Palin is talking in the terms on which we need to be carrying on the public discussion of national security, our national interests, and interventions overseas. There has been a very long and extensive national dialogue on these topics over the last 100 years; we have never settled most questions as if there were a single answer. Palin – alone among potential GOP candidates – is harking back to the philosophical discussions launched by presidents and candidates like Reagan, Goldwater, Adlai Stevenson (agree with him or not, he launched a substantive debate that colored Democratic positions for the next 40 years), Wilson, and Theodore Roosevelt.

I believe people intuit the need for this debate, as overseas interventions seem to be stalemated in Afghanistan and Libya, and the world begins to behave as if there is no US power. Palin apparently recognizes the need to talk about fundamentals – and love her or hate her, I don’t see anyone else out there doing it.

In her last sentence, Dyer says it all. While the Ruling Class is telling us how "dumb" Sarah Palin is, and how "brilliant" the flavor of the week candidate they are shilling for is, Sarah Palin, who we are told is "totally unserious" and should "leave the room" or "go study up" is not only leading the national debate, she's doing it alone, at least among the so-called "presidential hopefuls." You know, the "thought leaders" among us. The ones who are doing nothing right now but playing politics. As Sarah herself has said: "If it wasn't for double-standards, they would have no standards at all!"

Sarah has been leading the national debate on fiscal policy, social policy, energy policy, and foreign policy for quite some time now. Sarah Palin has proven through he 20 years in public service that she is a non-nonsense leader who understands how things work, and how to get things done.

At this point, she is taking things to the next level, She's refining her policies, not changing them. She's laying out her policies for the American people understand and reflect on. Some of these other candidates, including leftovers from the 2008 presidential contest, have yet to even attempt to do this.

I agree with Sarah, that it's way too early to be running for president, but my goodness, if you've been out there for five or six years, and don't have a coherent and concise set of policies, a solid policy of governance, just how serious are we supposed to take you?

Something else the Palin Doctrine does, with limited use of military intervention, it also addresses our fiscal problems. We are broke and we can ill afford to borrow money for willy-nilly military adventurism with no clearly defined goals. That's essential when we have a $14 trillion debt.

No one knows if Sarah will run for President, even though all of the signs are there that she will. I do know this, having followed her since before she was John McCain's choice of running mate, Sarah Palin is the leader this nation needs if we are ever to get back on the right track again.

How The GOP Establishment And The Media Are Trying To Stop Sarah Palin From Running For President

By Gary P Jackson

The Republican Establishment has always been hostile to the Conservatives who make up the solid base of the party. Oh, they'll take your money, and your vote, but past that, you need to sit down and shut up. They know better than us rubes.

The elites REALLY hated Ronald Reagan. To the GOP country club set, Reagan was a "B movie actor" an "amiable dunce" and someone who was not "intellectually curious." Sounds familiar, doesn't it!

It's the default position they take on everyone who isn't one of them.

How often do we find the GOP establishment sounding like the far left, when they talk about solid Conservatives?

By the way, the above comments were the nice things they said about Reagan. Both the GOP and the left were screaming that if elected, Reagan would start a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The fear mongering was incredible.

The establishment pretty much pushed George H.W. Bush on Reagan as his running mate, and even then, that wasn't good enough for the liberal leaning country clubbers, who ran former congressman John Anderson as a third Party candidate.

In fact, this is why, despite an electoral college blowout, Reagan only received 50.1 percent of the popular vote in 1980. Though it wasn't even close, one has to wonder if the GOP elites real agenda was to bleed off enough votes to give Carter a second term, rather than see Reagan, a real reformer come to power.

Nothing has changed with the establishment either. In the spring of 2009 Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney and others went on a ridiculous "listening tour." Speaking for the group, Bush proclaimed the era of Reagan was over, that it’s time for the Republican Party to give up its "nostalgia" for the heyday of the Reagan era and look forward, even if it means stealing the winning strategy deployed by Democrats in the 2008 election.

Clueless. Utterly clueless. They held their first meeting at a pizza joint in Arlington, Virginia. The National Council for a New America (NCNA) didn't last long. When you can't even get people to show up when you have pizza and beer ....

By the way, as if to put an exclamation point on the Bush/Romney lunacy, it was the return of Reagan ideals, and Reagan principles, that saw Conservative Republicans win a historic election in November of 2010. They took back the House in a big way, gained in the Senate, moved into Governor's mansions nationwide, and saw an unprecedented shift in state legislatures, as over 650 democrats lost their jobs to Republicans. Some states went Republican for the first time since Reconstruction. [after the Civil War]

It seems the country clubbers' reports of Reagan's demise were greatly exaggerated.

So .... what we see happening to Sarah Palin is nothing new. It's just the "good old boys" doing what they always do.

With that said, the GOP elites fear Sarah Palin as much, if not more than the left does. They certainly fear her more than they did Reagan, something I once thought impossible.

Sarah Palin has proven she has no patience for corrupt, go along, get along, business as usual Republicans.

In Alaska she took on the entire Republican Party, which was swimming in corruption. Serious corruption. The FBI was marching politicians off to prison months after Sarah took office as Governor. Even GOP party chair Randy Ruedrich was hammered, and paid the largest fine in Alaska's history. As a result, the Alaska GOP refused to put Governor Palin's photo on their website. Childish and petty, but that's the elite mindset.

Despite the sniping and nonsensically attacks, both the GOP and the media know that Sarah Palin is a strong, capable leader, and if elected would shake things up, and change Washington forever. She will mess up the elites' little playhouse.

In a follow up to his Top Ten Signs Sarah Pain Is Running, Tony Lee has the Top Ten Ways GOP Establishment and Mainstream Media Try to Dissuade Sarah Palin From Running For President.

Now if you follow these things closely, none of this is new to you, as you see it all the time in the news. And if you read the comments sections on many websites, you'll see this sort of nonsense parroted by fans of the RINO crowd.

It's really interesting to watch. You'll never hear Sarah Palin, or any of her supporters say a candidate shouldn't run for office.

Well, except for Trump, but that's just me.

Oh, we may think they are unqualified, or a disaster waiting to happen, but no one will tell them not to run. Competition is good. It makes the best candidates better. Keeps them sharp.

On the other hand, the Republican establishment is flat out saying Sarah Palin shouldn't even run. As former Carter and Mondale staffer, and faux conservative Charles Krauthammer once said: "She needs to leave the room."

This was during the debate on ObamaCare, right after she coined the term "death panels." That was only the turning point in the entire debate, and she has been proven right a thousand times over, but since she's not from the right side of the tracks, little elites like Charles dismiss her, just as he did Ronald Reagan during his time.

Let's look at just a few of these:

1. Be a kingmaker (or queenmaker)

As noted by the likes of Grover Norquist and many other pundits and establishment Republicans, Palin, their reasoning goes, would best serve the party as a kingmaker. What they are essentially saying (try to follow the logic) is that Palin's endorsement should be the gold standard but her candidacy would not be appreciated. Even more ironic is that should Palin run, it diminishes the kingmaking capabilities of the traditional and spoiled cast of characters who are used to getting their brass rings kissed every four years.

This one probably pisses me off the most, though there are several more running for that "honor."

As pointed out, the logic behind this one is insane. In 2010 Sarah Palin's endorsement was the only one actively sought, and the one that brought great success. She endorsed over 100 candidates in local, state, and national races, over 60 of them won.

Most notably were candidates like South Carolina's new Governor, Nikki Haley. Haley was stuck in dead last, fourth place, even after establishment candidate Mitt Romney endorsed her. Sarah came in, made her endorsement in person, and Nikki was immediately the front runner, and of course won big. Plenty more stories like that from 2010.

So how is it that someone, who's endorsement is the gold standard, isn't worthy of endorsing herself, and making a run?

Here's how I look at it: Anyone who NEEDS a kingmaker is not fit to be king, and anyone who can BE a kingmaker CAN be king him or herself. In Sarah Palin's case that goes double.

There was a variation of this when the GOP was throwing Michael Steele under the bus. All of a sudden the elites thought they had found the "perfect" job for Sarah! A way to use her significant managerial talents, and fund raising ability, and keep her tied up so she couldn't run for President. There was column after column written proclaiming Sarah was the absolute perfect person to become RNC chairman. We had a different idea.

It's pretty insulting, when you really think about it. The elites want Sarah to do all the heavy lifting, then get out of the way so they can reap the benefits. They are just too cowardly to say what they are thinking: They'd rather she be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen makin' sandwiches!

After she's done all of their work for them, of course.

3. You're too divisive

Another argument is that Palin would be too divisive to win a general election. And the only thing those who say this cite are polls released over a year before any voter of importance started paying attention to the election. In these early polls, there is probably some type of Palin effect (or a reverse-Bradley/Wilder effect), as Sheya at Conservatives4Palin noted, where voters either do not want to tell pollsters they support Palin for fear they would sound stupid or are withholding their potential support until she announces her candidacy, if she indeed does.

Further, as Pollinsider noted, Palin always has a strong floor, which potentially helps her in the primary (if the GOP primary has many entrants) and the general election (2012 may be a "base" election like 2004 where turnout matters, so the floor that Palin starts off with would give her significant advantages over other candidates who do not have that built in floor).

Ronald Reagan was "divisive" too. He was so divisive he won two landslide elections! In fact, Reagan was a mere 0.18 percent away from winning all 50 states in 1984.

Polarizing is another word they use. Like Barack Obama isn't polarizing?

We live in a polarized nation. You have the extreme left, and Conservatives. The mushy middle, those sainted, sacred moderates, that we are constantly told we must pander to, are almost non-existent these days. At this point you either want to return to First Principals and the constitutional republican form of government created by our founders, or be part of the "Glorious Communist Revolution" the democrat party is selling. There simply is no other choice. No middle ground.

The fact is, Conservatism, real conservatism, works every time it's tried, and solid Conservatives win elections. Especially presidential elections. All one needs is an articulate candidate who can actually walk the walk.

That would be Sarah Palin.

Here's the truth about polls, especially this early. They are at best meaningless. At this point in the 2008 race the whole world just knew the contest would be between Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. As late as mid-1980, Ronald Reagan was 31 points down to Jimmy Carter. Reagan carried 44 states and Carter a mere 6.

What polling now is really about, is the media's attempt to set a narrative. If one digs deep into the internals, it's easy to spot the methodology used to get the results desired. You can manipulate samples and questions to achieve any result you want. One simply can't take these as any sort of "snapshot" of reality. The only polling that matters is the one taken on election day.

Another thing Sarah's detractors put out there is her approval ratings. I lived through the Reagan era, and the attacks on him were vile. Just nasty and very hateful. I remember editorials about Reagan's age, complete with illustrations of Reagan in the morgue, implying he would die as soon as he took office, so why bother.

One could find Reagan was portrayed as an evil genius and a senile old man, in the same article! A lazy dunce who couldn't do anything and an evil warmonger who couldn't wait to destroy the world.

It was sickening.

They were NOTHING compared to the vitriol we see thrown at Sarah Palin though. Nothing is off limits . Sarah, her husband, and her children are all "fair game" to this bunch. The left and their media partners have thrown everything at her including the kitchen sink, so yeah, her numbers may be a tad low. As Sarah herself has said many times: "If I believed everything I read about me, I wouldn't like me either!"

Many detractors use these sort of things to say she's "damaged goods" and we need to pick a candidate the media will like. Problem with that is, if we pick a candidate the media will truly like, he'll be a democrat!

Republicans were fooled in 2008, as they usually are. John McCain, bless his heart, was the media darling. He was every left wing commentators favorite Republican. "If only John McCain would run for President," they loudly proclaimed. "He is a republican we could support!" That lasted until he got the nomination, of course, then the long knives came out.

The New York Times endorsed McCain in the Primary with glowing stories, then as soon as the nomination was secured, started running bogus reports that John had been having an affair with a lobbyist. Sickening, but that's how they work.

The media always sets the narrative the Republicans must choose a "moderate" candidate or risk losing those precious little darlings. Of course, the Republican establishment always buys into this nonsense, as do way too many GOP voters.

Barack Obama is the most far left radical ever to run for President, let alone be elected. Somehow I missed all of the articles from the "concerned" media warning the democrats about the need for a "moderate" candidate.

Why Republicans continue to fall for this media nonsense is beyond me.

In 2007-2008 it was common knowledge the left was holding their fire on Mike Huckabee because they knew he would be an "easy kill" in the general election. Nothing has changed by the way, Huckabee is still an "easy kill" which is why you see the left treating Huckabee nicely now, and the Daily Kos' official pollster, PPP, always manages to find just the right sample to make Huckabee the front runner in their polls.

If Sarah Palin was such a disaster, in the minds of the left, they wouldn't spend every waking moment trying to destroy her! Same goes for the little elites in the Republican Party. Indeed, the left would be propping her up and hoping we'd be "dumb" enough to make her the nominee!

As for the GOP, if she was THAT bad, she'd get destroyed in the primaries and that would be the end of that.

The other problem with those who think Sarah Palin is somehow "damaged" is this: She has been absolutely hammered by the left and weasels in the GOP since September of 2008, and she's still standing tall.

In a way it's a good thing, as Sarah is the most vetted candidate in the history of the Republic! At this point her detractors have nothing else to attack her with. They are down to recycling old attacks from years ago, that didn't work the first time around.

In a way, the haters have inoculated Sarah and made her all but bullet-proof to any attacks.

Put another way, Sarah's numbers have gone as low as they can. They have no where to go but up, and that's what a campaign is for. BTW, people should never forget that among Republicans, Sarah still has higher approval numbers than anyone else, and it's Republicans who decide who their nominee is.

Now let's look at a what would happen to a "media approved" candidate:

Everything would be just peachy until they got the nomination, then all hell would break lose, especially since the media would be trying to protect their messiah, Barack Obama.

They would go to any length to destroy anyone who dare try and take Obama down. But instead of having years to prove they're not the Anti-Christ, the poor hapless Republican nominee would have six months, tops, to prove they weren't the devil reincarnate.

Good luck with that.

This media approved candidate would also have to have a spine of steel and set of core principles to match. Of course, if they were that sort, they wouldn't be "media approved" in the first place.

The fact is, Sarah Palin is the one leader who never panders to the media and actually seems to relish the fact she's not in their good graces. She understands if that bunch was loving her, she'd be doing it all wrong.

Sarah has proven she can beat the media at their own game.

Read all of Tony Lee's Top Ten, spot on assessment here.

The GOP establishment are just as much to blame for the mess this nation is in as the hard left. They have been little more than enablers to extremists. In many cases, they actually agree with them.

You got guys like Romney, who created socialized medicine in America before the left could pull it off, and Tim Pawlenty who is jealous he didn't beat Romney to it! Oh, and don't get me started on Pawlenty's embrace of the global warming fairy tale.

Then there is Newt Gingrich. He's taken being an enabler of the left to a whole 'nuther level!

With "friends" like these, who needs enemies!

The media and the GOP establishment have been working night and day to stop Sarah Palin. They wouldn't be putting out the effort if she wasn't a threat, and you better believe Sarah Palin is a serious threat to business as usual in D.C.

And that's a very good thing!

I started working on this piece before Sarah Palin gave her game changing speech in Madison, Wisconsin, interviewed with Sean Hannity,and hammered Obama on Libya .... twice.

There's a new talking point out there now.

It seems, according to those "concerned" GOPers, that Sarah Palin isn't making the required pilgrimage to Iowa like every good little candidate should.This is a sure sign, they point out, that she isn't up to the task of running.

Besides she'd give up all of the money she's making. Might as well sit this out and "anoint" some feckless loser who'll get slaughtered by Obama in the general election.

After all, it's bound to be someone's "turn."

These people obviously never actually listen to the woman, or are so used to empty rhetoric from their bunch, they don't understand Sarah Palin doesn't do empty rhetoric.

If "Game On!" wasn't plain enough, maybe what Sarah has said over and over since then will help. Sarah has made a point of saying it's way too early for anyone to start running for President. In her mind, there is simply more important things to do, especially since the election is 18 months down the road.

Here's a message to the left wing media and those GOP elites:

If Sarah Palin decides to run, and we're almost certain she will, she will win the Republican nomination and the presidency, handily, and there isn't anything you can do about it.

Mark Levin On Sarah Palin, Ronald Reagan, and "Intellectual" Elites

Mark Levin was on fire Monday morning, releasing a scathing refudiation of Republican "intellectuals" and their complete inability to recognize and understand Conservatism and it's principles. Levin rightly points out that George Will, an elitist if there ever was one, never got what Reagan was about. I'm sure it had something to do with the fact Reagan often wore blue jeans, a no-no in Georgie's world.

Krauthammer has long been a disappointment. He's intelligent, for sure, but often quite wrong when it comes to basic issues. Oh, Charles can be brilliant at times, especially on complicated issues. But when it comes to the every day meat and potatoes issues, Charles just doesn't get it. Of course, what does one expect from someone who not only worked for President Jimmy Carter but Walter Mondale, as well, when he ran against Ronald Reagan!

Calling Charles Krauthammer a "Conservative" is like calling David Frum, David Brooks, Kathleen Parker, and Peggy Noonan "Conservatives."

The American people are well past allowing our "betters" to continually tell us how we should think, and who we should vote for.

The hate for Sarah Palin

The corporate hate for Sarah Palin at Politico is obvious. The latest is here

But if you google Politico and Palin, the evidence of a Politico agenda is overwhelming. And the manner in which Politico's editors pursue their hate-Palin agenda is to cherry-pick the individuals they quote to make the point they want made.

A couple of quick things:

1. As I demonstrated last week, remarkably George Will missed the Reagan Revolution not only in 1976 but as late as 1980. In the 1979 Republican Presidential Primary, his first choice was Howard Baker, his second choice was George H. W. Bush, and his third choice was Reagan. Not until days before the 1980 general election did he write on November 3, 1980 that Reagan deserved election. For all his wonderful columns, the Republican electorate better understood the needs of the nation and the excellence of a potential Reagan presidency than Will.

It is hard to believe he was so wrong about a matter of such great import, despite Reagan's presence on the national scene for many years.

2. Charles Krauthammer was not only wrong about Reagan, as late as 1980 he was a speech-writer for Vice President Walter Mondale. Krauthammer, like Will, not only missed the significance of the Reagan candidacy, but was putting words in the mouth of a terribly flawed politician from a philosophical perspective. I certainly do not begrudge, but in fact encourage, liberals becoming conservatives or Democrats becoming Republicans.

Reagan was a Democrat who famously changed parties. But I do not believe that individuals touted by a left-wing "news" site as two of the leading conservative intellectuals, who stunningly opposed Reagan's candidacy while both were of mature age and mind, are necessarily reliable barometers in this regard. The "non-intellectual" voters knew better.

3. It is apparent that several of President George W. Bush's former senior staffers are hostile to Sarah Palin, including Karl Rove, David Frum, and Pete Wehner, to name only three. Pete is a good friend and a very smart guy. That said, Bush's record, at best, is marginally conservative, and depending on the issue, worse. In fact, the Tea Party movement is, in part, a negative reaction to Bush's profligate spending (including his expansion of a bankrupt Medicare program to include prescription drugs). And while Bush's spending comes nowhere near Barack Obama's, that is not the standard.

Moreover, Bush was not exactly among our most articulate presidents, let alone conservative voices. I raise this not to compare Bush to Palin, but to point out only a few of the situational aspects of the criticism from the Bush community corner. (If necessary, and if challenged, I will take the time to lay out the case in all its particulars, as well as other non-conservative Bush policies and statements. No Republican president is perfect, of course, but certainly some are more perfect that others, if you will.)

This is not to say the folks cherry-picked by Politico are without accomplishment and merit. They clearly are accomplished. But that's not the point. Most were not involved in either the Reagan Revolution or the Tea Party movement, and were not, to the best of my knowledge, early outspoken supporters of either.

What is necessary is a fulsome debate on each candidate's substance and policy positions. Most of these Politico stories are little more than excuses to attack Palin, intended to damage her early on in case she should decide to run. This has been going on for some time now. If she is as weak as some think, why the obsession? Why the contempt? Moreover, Palin has used social media and other outlets to comment substantively on a wide range of issues and policies. In fact, she has spoken on a wider array of issues than Youtube governor Chris Christie, popular among most of these folks, and her positions have, for the most part, been solidly conservative.

(Christie's positions on numerous issues important to conservatives are all but ignored by some of those complaining about Palin; indeed, the same could be said of potential presidential contenders Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitch Daniels, among others.)

My purpose in mentioning Christie here is to juxtapose the demands by "the intellectuals" on one politician versus another. Their inquisitiveness seems influenced by their political bias. That's not unusual, but it requires underscoring lest their opinions be viewed or promoted as objective.

As a Reaganite pre-dating Reagan's 1976 candidacy, the contempt for Palin does, in fact, remind me of the contempt some had for Reagan, especially from the media and Republican establishment, although no comparison is exact. I've not settled on a favorite would-be presidential candidate, but I also know media hit-jobs when I see them. I am hopeful more conservatives will begin to speak out about this or, before we know it, we will wonder why we are holding our noses and voting for another Republican endorsed by "the intellectuals" but opposed by a majority of the people.

Ronald Reagan was vilified by the Republican elites. It was very much like the attacks and petty sniping we are witnessing now against Sarah Palin. As is always the case, the Republicans fought harder against the Conservative, Reagan, than they did Carter!

What they are doing to Palin is nothing new. The fact is, the GOP country club set has always held true Conservatives in great contempt. Those who reflect the feelings and aspirations of the Republican Party base of voters, those true Conservatives are always attacked, ridiculed, and otherwise slandered by the cucumber and mayo sandwich crowd.

The problem with the Republican Party, the elites, is they would rather lose elections than lose power. The Republican Party, pre-President Reagan, was totally content to sit back and be the minority party, allowing the democrat party to run roughshod over the entire nation. They were happy to just sit at the table and have some power. Settling for what ever table scraps they were allowed by the democrats was fine with them.

It wasn't until 1994 that Conservative Republicans prevailed, and ended 40 years of Democrat control of Congress. This was a natural extension of the Reagan Revolution. Sadly, once in office, many of those Republicans became just as entrenched and out of touch as the democrats they replaced. More worried about staying in office than running an efficient government.

Now the elites have carved out their little zones of power, and are not about to give them up. Not about to change the way they do business.

The Tea Party as a whole, and Sarah Palin in particular, is a direct threat to these entrenched little elites. That's why these elites fight so hard. Things must change. Government is broken. It's a disaster. The nation itself is staring into the abyss. We have a debt we may never be able to pay. We have an energy crisis, an economic crisis, and a national security crisis. "More of the same" is not going to cut it. Things must be shaken up, and a new path chosen.

The problem with choosing new paths though, is many of those on the old path are left behind. And these little elites don't want to go along with the new path, especially if they lose their influence and power.

Sarah Palin represents a real threat to the Ruling Class, in both parties. She is not a "business as usual" type of leader. She's well known as someone who "shakes things up." Her lengthy record of leadership as a Mayor, energy regulator, and Governor shows that she doesn't waste time doing things as they've always been done, just "because" and she doesn't suffer fools well. This is bad news for the elites, because they are a foolish bunch.

British Historian Paul Johnson: "I like that lady—Sarah Palin. She's great. I like the cut of her jib."

Brian M Carney recently interviewed eminent British historian Paul Johnson for the Wall Street Journal. Among other things, Johnson talks about the tea party movement and Sarah Palin.

Pessimists, he points out, have been predicting America's decline "since the 18th century." But whenever things are looking bad, America "suddenly produces these wonderful things—like the tea party movement. That's cheered me up no end. Because it's done more for women in politics than anything else—all the feminists? Nuts! It's brought a lot of very clever and quite young women into mainstream politics and got them elected. A very good little movement, that. I like it."

Then he deepens his voice for effect and adds: "And I like that lady—Sarah Palin. She's great. I like the cut of her jib."

The former governor of Alaska, he says, "is in the good tradition of America, which this awful political correctness business goes against." Plus: "She's got courage. That's very important in politics. You can have all the right ideas and the ability to express them. But if you haven't got guts, if you haven't got courage the way Margaret Thatcher had courage—and [Ronald] Reagan, come to think of it. Your last president had courage too—if you haven't got courage, all the other virtues are no good at all. It's the central virtue."

Read the entire interview here.

Flashback Sarah Palin, Sportscaster

This is a neat little video our friends over at iOwnTheWorld.com unearthed for All Palin February. It's shows a young Sarah Heath talking sports. I'm not sure of her exact age here, but she has to be in her early 20s. She does quite well for someone so young.

In her book, Going Rogue, Sarah wrote that her dream back then was to go to work for ESPN. It looks like she would have been good at it too. Thankfully, she decided to take a different path. ESPN's loss is our gain.

Interesting to note, one of Ronald Reagan's first jobs was working as a radio sportscaster.

The video was put together by the loons at the now defunct Air America, which is why you see the "boom goes the dynamite" guy inserted over and over. Not sure how the liberal mind works, but I guess those pitiful creatures thought this video was some kind of "gotcha" or something. If anything, this serves as a reminder why Air America went belly up.

Enjoy.

How Ronald Reagan Handled Libya

Ronald Reagan addressed the nation from the Oval Office April 14, 1986 and announced the results of an air strike on Libya, after the bombing of a Berlin discotheque that was a favorite of American service men.

Reagan didn't fool around with Gadaffi. He acted swiftly to send a message.

Here's the time line of the events and how Reagan reacted:

Operation El Dorado Canyon

******************************

On April 5, 1986, a bomb exploded in a discotheque in Berlin frequented by United States service personnel. Of the 200 injured, 63 were American soldiers; one soldier and one civilian were killed.

————————–

On the late evening of 15 April and early morning of 16 April 1986, under the code name El Dorado Canyon, the United States launched a series of military air strikes against ground targets inside Libya.

It is the purpose behind the mission…a mission fully consistent with Article 51 of the U.N. Charter

————————————————-

Gadaffi ordering an attack on Americans "to cause maximum and indiscriminate casualties." Another communications source, an intercepted Libyan message outlined the attack being planned in West Berlin

—————————–

All except one of these targets were chosen because of their direct connection to terrorist activity. The single exception was the Benina military airfield which based Libyan fighter aircraft. This target was hit to preempt Libyan interceptors from taking off and attacking the incoming US bombers. It should also be noted that the French Embassy in Tripoli and several of the neighboring residential buildings also were bombed inadvertently during the raid; they were not targeted.

———————————-

Mission planners decided, as part of the effort to attain tactical surprise, to hit all five targets simultaneously. This decision had crucial impact on nearly every aspect of the operation since it meant that the available US Navy resources could not perform the mission unilaterally. The only two types of aircraft in the US inventory capable of conducting a precision night attack were the Navy’s A-6s and the Air Force’s F-111s.

The Navy had two aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean at the time planning for the raid: The America and The Coral Sea. Each had ten A-6 aircraft, but these were not the total of 32 aircraft estimated as required to successfully hit all five targets with one raid. The closest F-111s were based in the United Kingdom (UK); and use of these UK based aircraft dramatically affected the scope and complexity of the operation.

Planning was even further compounded when the French refused to grant authority to overfly France. This refusal increased the distance of the flight route from Great Britain to Tripoli by about 1300 nautical miles each way, added 6-7 hours of flight time for the pilots and crews, and forced a tremendous amount of additional refueling support from tanker aircraft.

—————————————

The size of the strike force’s final configuration was immense and complex. Approximately 100 aircraft were launched in direct support of the raid:

========================================

Air Force

28 KC-10 and KC-135 tankers

5 EF-111 Raven ECM (Electronic Countermeasure) aircraft

————–

Navy

14 A-6E strike aircraft

12 A-7E and F/A-18 Electronic warfare and jamming aircraft which undertook air defense suppression for the mission

Several F-14 Tomcats which took up the long range Combat Air Patrol (CAP) responsibilities

4 E-2C Hawkeye airborne command and control and warning aircraft

==========

The actual combat commenced at 0200 (local Libyan time), lasted less than 12 minutes, and dropped 60 tons of munitions. Resistance outside the immediate area of attack was nonexistent, and Libyan air defense aircraft never launched. One FB-111 strike aircraft was lost during the strike. The entire armada remained in the vicinity for over an hour trying to account for all aircraft.

As stated above, the French refused to allow the United States access to their airspace, which resulted in an additional 2300 miles of travel to and from the targets, caused extra in-flight refuelings, and the loss of one strike fighter and her crew. No doubt due to fatigue, our boys accidentally dropped a bomb on the French embassy in Tripoli. Oops.