Skip to comments.Sarah Palin's Charisma
Posted on 12/03/2010 1:38:02 AM PST by Scanian
Why does the left hate Sarah Palin with such screaming rage? Why do they lose their cookies at the very idea of our Sally?
Think about that for a second.
Here's a beautiful, strong, intelligent, articulate, healthy-looking, truth-telling political winner in the State of Alaska -- a gun-totin', sports-lovin', all-American woman, elected on her own merits against a corrupt establishment in Anchorage, AK.
All the feminists should be dancing and cheering, right?
On top of all that, she married a native Alaskan who actually loves his country. And she had kids. With him.
Weird, I know.
Plus, she is not embittered, alienated, or divorced.
And her children smile a lot.
Best of all, Palin does not seem to think that free abortion is the answer to the population bomb.
Puhhh-leeeze! I can hear all the metrosexuals sigh.
Oh, Gawwwdd! Is this "Father Knows Best" or what?
Watch those eyes rolling up to heaven.
Watch those hands flopping like dead fish.
Today, the New York Times is a lot more scared of Sarah Palin than it ever was after three thousand New Yorkers were burned to death on 9/11/2001.
After all, Sarah Palin could do some real damage.
Have you ever seen a more out-of-its-mind mob than the liberal media yowling at the moon over Governor Palin? I can't remember any. Well, maybe the Danish cartoon riots in Peshawar, Pakistan. Or the old Kluxers in Mississippi before the real Civil Rights movement.
The left has all the subtlety of a high-tech lynch mob, as Clarence Thomas said in 1991, when they went all-out to destroy his good name before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Clarence Thomas knows about lynch mobs from the old South, and nobody has labeled the media better. Mad-dog, foaming-at-the-mouth, baying mediot mob.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The significant part... (to me):
“Old Republicans like Karl Rove are running scared. I’m sorry to see it. Rove attacked Christine McDonnell in public the day before the last election, when he knew he could do the most damage. That makes him a back-stabber when it comes to the constitutionalist Republicans. Too many millions of conservatives are now noticing the selfishness of the old Republicans. If the old establishment stabs the constitutional Republicans in the back, we voters will take note and keep them out. Even Barbara Bush, the matriarch of the Bush clan, has destroyed our affection for her in a single public sneer. Ed Rollins has exposed his affinity for establishment Republicans. No longer. The voters are finally watching.”
Used to like Barbara Bush... Rove is desparately trying to recapture his altitude and is in a tailspin.
I can remember someone (uh oh, telling my age) who caused the same reaction as Sarah. The left and the republicans were foaming at the mouth then, before he served as our President, as they are now. I voted for him twice. God rest him in your love. Assure him America is still alive and kicking. And if possible, Thank him for me, Lord. Amen.
If you get a chance, and are not averse to his accent, check out Jackie Mason’s “Vlog” re. Christine O’Donnell on You Tube. He really lets Rove and Charles “Krautheimer” have it for being rough on O’Donnell.
Here is the URL: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheUltimateJew#p/u/2/NmSQSPHOYJo
Of course the democrat fascists are just like the press was back in the days of the Klan lynch mobs nationwide. They're the same sort of people dedicated to the same elitist goals, a nobility ruling over the "little people" and purifying the race through their eugenics programs. Its long past time we face the fact that there will never be a working two party system in this country as long as the democrat party continues to exist. The Democrat party is the party of:
Democrat led secession to avoid the ending slavery
Democrat led Civil War against in the Union
Democrat Andrew Johnson vetoes the Civil Rights Act of 1866
Democrat black codes ignore Civil Rights Acts of 1866 & 1871
Democrat Justices strike down the criminal provisions of the 1871 KKK Act
Democrat disenfranchisement of Black and Indian voters in former Confederate states
Democrat state blood laws define unconstitutional multiple classes of citizenship
Democrat sponsored and led creation of state eugenics laws 20s
Democrat FDR deepening economic depression with illegal programs
Democrat FDR attempts to expand the Supreme Court rather than obey Court rulings
Democrat FDR illegally imprisons Japanese, German, and Italian, citizens without due process
Democrat ignoring of the 1871 Act leads to Republican passage of 1964 Civil Rights Act
Democrat LBJ breaking into the SS trust fund for Great Society funding
Jimmy Carter unilaterally supporting the Ayatollah Khomeini and ignoring our treaties with Iran
Democrat led government unions ignore and even fight in court the effects of elections
Democrat creation of agencies and institutions to destroy private property rights
Democrat Fwank ridiculing the Bush attempts to increase regulation on Mortgage lending
Democrat Dodd ignoring regulations and blatantly manipulating markets on behalf of his donors
Democrat Hussein Obama and Congress nationalize financial and automobile industries
Democrat Hussein Obama violates law by refusing to accept loan repayments
Democrat Hussein Obama bypasses Congressional oversight by appointing czars
Democrat Hussein Obama establishes compensation limits on private businesses
Democrat congress conspires under color of law to deprive citizens of their right to life
Democrats advocate, sponsor, and illegally fund, the mass murder of primarily minority infants in pursuit of their long held eugenics goals.
Democrat HB3200 ignores Eskra v. Morton and creates titles of nobility
Democrat Hate Crime legislation which creates unconstitutional new classes of citizens
Americans can no longer ignore the criminal anti-Constitutional nature of and purpose of the democrat party. As can be clearly seen by the repeated democrat establishment and attempts to establish multiple classes of citizenship throughout its history, the democrat party is now and always has been dedicated to a single goal. That single goal is to undermine, destroy, and replace the Republic created by the Constitution of the United States with a totalitarian Nobility that demotes the majority of citizens to the status of slaves. Any who may doubt that fact in spite of the democrat party history need only look at how effectively democrat created welfare plantations accomplish exactly the same thing that reconstruction era black codes did.
Not only must this continuing criminal enterprise known as the democrat party must be disbanded, those guilty of RICO Act violations, those guilty of sedition, and those guilty of treason, must be tried. All who are convicted must be incarcerated among the general population in federal prisons. Obama and the entire democrat infrastructure need, to paraphrase Bull Halsey, fought until democrat is only spoken in hell.
And Goldwater before him.
Establishment Pubbies are unsurpassed in their snootiness. Except, maybe, for establishment liberal Dems.
That was good. Thanks.
you are sooooo correct. Right on target, FRiend. Have a Great Day and Be Safe.
“Establishment Pubbies are unsurpassed in their snootiness. Except, maybe, for establishment liberal Dems.”
They gave us Nixon and they gave us Bush Sr. and W - we should discontinue the practice of combining someone like Reagan with a Bush. Because then in 8 years it’s ‘their turn’.
They gave us Dole - I would have preferred to lose with Forbes or Kemp. :-) Forbes is what the new Republican Congress needed at the time. I’d vote for him now.
Then we got McCain... ‘nuf said.
While I’ll hold Reagan as an exception that ‘got it’ - I don’t trust any former Democrat - from the Dixiecrats, to the Yellow Dogs to Robertsons and the Neo-Cons. They all eventually cave it seems.
Thank you. I’ll be heading to the hospital in a few minutes to get another head MRI. The last one looked much better. All prayers are appreciated! I credit them for still being here, flailing away.
It is too bad that American History is no longer taught in this country, or maybe the old adage is true, “ the victors get to write the history.
There was no secession to avoid ending slavery. The southern states withdrew, legally, from the Union for the same reasons the Colonies went to war with England, taxes.
When Lincoln was elected President, he and the Congress immediately enacted the Morrill Tariff more than doubling the import tax rate from 20% to 47%. Though Southerners made up not 30% of the population, they paid 80% of all tariffs collected.
There weren’t even a handful of factories in the South at the time. Their’s was a agricultural economy. They sold cotton to England and France and bought the finished goods they required in return as the Industrial Revolution in Europe made these products much cheaper than those made here in Northern factories. No IR here for years to come.
After the South withdrew, the only way to collect those taxes was at the point of a bayonet, forcing the Southern States back into the Union.
The irony is that after the War was over, the Industrial Revolution did arrive at our shores and would have rendered the institution of slavery useless as the machines that were developed were much more effective, profitable, and much cheaper to maintain.
most satisfying and excellent piece.
The snootiness of the establishment Republicans should be reduced a bit by the complete failure of the 6 years when they were in control with Bush II and the Republican Congress. Corruption, sex scandals, massive growth in government, war, and then rejection by the voters and minority status in Congress. Then their partners in “bipartisanship” the radical left continued to grow government and we had a crash and an economic depression. Good job, establishment! Go Romney! Go McCain! Go Murkowski! Eat well well we struggle.
Maybe they REALLY don’t care about the people.
“The snootiness of the establishment Republicans should be reduced a bit by the complete failure of the 6 years when they were in control”
It is just the nature of the beast and has little to do with political accomplishment.
Spiro Agnew spoke about an “effete corps of impudent snobs,” meaning anti-war libs. But the phrase could just as easily be applied to the so-called “Rockefeller wing” of his own party and the GOP establishment in general.(Of course, Spiro was arguably a part of that crowd himself.)
Those folks are the country club Republicans who have a severe superiority complex due to income, education, background, and “breeding.” They could run the Party into the ground by pushing useless candidates and siding with the Dems as often as not and couldn’t give a flip about the consequences. Not as long as they are represented by scions of the “best people,” such as the Bushes.
They are just one branch of the moldy “ruling class” and are in their death throes as far as their control of the GOP is concerned.
But don’t mind me, I’m still mad about the treatment that Goldwater got from them back in the ‘60’s and Reagan in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s.
That was a major element but saying it was the reason for their leaving the Union is every bit as revisionist as the leftists who put it all down to class struggle or other angles they particularly like. Had slavery not been an issue for the elites in the South there would have been no Civil War. The Confederacy was not an 1860s TEA party any more than Jim Crow laws were just minor regulations.
have a nice day
This reeealy upsets liberals.
“Rough” is expected. What the Pillsbury Dough Boy and Charlie did was character assassination, venom and pure hatred. Never before has ANY GOP candidate been so vilified as Christine O’Donnell. Until Governor Palin runs for and is elected President, that is.
Load up (metaphorically) and get ready to fire back (again metaphorically) against the attacks. INCOMING! RETURN FIRE!
So you are saying that slavery was THE reason for the war? I would be very grateful to you if you could substantiate that statement. I can find no documented evidence that the War of Northern Aggression was initiated by the institution of slavery, onerous as that institution may have been.
Your reasoning is more than a little revisionist itself, wouldn’t you agree.
Have a nice day yourself
I'm curious where you get this number.
Tariffs are essentially a sales tax. They are paid by the importer, who passes them on down the chain, where they are eventually paid by the consumer.
Do you seriously contend the South consumed 80% of imported goods on which tariffs were paid? If so, where did you get the number?
No more than taxes were THE reason for the war.
SO, you main concern with a list of what democrat fascists have done to this country is that they not be given credit for starting the Civil War, right?
Fine, a guy named Daryl started it over the price of four barrel carbs and my great grand daddy helped him out because new rear ends cost too much also. Happy?
Bingo, but can we keep our ballot boxes safe ???
Most of my figures come from government documents from the period as well as many private collections of various family documents either held by the family and viewed with permission or housed in many museums across the South.
Tariffs are are a sales tax. If you are making furniture in NH, you don’t need to buy tables and chairs from France. If you have a foundry in PA, you don’t buy stoves from England. When nearly all of the shipping is owned by Yankee traders in Mass. those products from Europe never make it to the dock in NY.
If you don’t buy anything, you don’t pay any sales tax.
A quick look at the available figures on population will show you that I’m correct about the distribution of people across the country at the time. Representation in Congress being allotted by said population shows the South being at a severe disadvantage as a voting block.
I would go on but time is pressing me. The research is quite easy to do, hell, I did it.
I know people bristle at comparisons to Reagan, but I don’t care, I’m going to make one:
She will be another Reagan.
In some ways, better.
YES. They have lost power to someone who is a genuine, real and normal person with character and values which come from a set of principles which will not be shaken or set aside with celebrity. They have viciously persecuted her but she just gets stronger with every blow. She is a threat to their power and they hate her for it. Before John McCain chose her for his running mate, I had heard that she chose to have her precious Down’s Syndrome baby. From that point I knew that she was unique and special in the world of politics. That baby is another reason the left hates her. She is an example of life and not death. To carry that idea further, she wants America to survive and live..The left wants our Republic dead.
My dad didn't remember that much of him, but my Grandparents used to tell me "Ronnie" stories at a point in time where he was best-known for his TV, "B"-Film and "Bonzo" appearances as a "local boy made good." Apparently he was instrumental in the rescuing of some flailing, choking kid one summer, and everyone in town knew he was headed for "bigger things."
Gee, when I took AP American History, we read the Georgia Ordinance of Secession, which begins: "The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property...
Nothing about taxes. The whole thing is about "that property".
Now, I am more sympathetic than many to the enormous difficulties which arose for our Southern brethren out of their cohabitation with a large and generally hostile population of African-descended persons. Certainly we in the North, in the methods we chose to ameliorate the difficulty of living with a much smaller population of African-descended persons did not distinguish ourselves.
I think the Great Emancipator, or Great Constitution Destroyer (as you will), said it best: "One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war..."
"That property" was the problem. Of that, there can be no doubt.
I’ve read that with out the tariffs, North East industrialists would be out of business as the then super factories of England could produce and deliver equipment cheaper. Further, this would cost Wall Street investors who financed the North East factories. New England/New York economy would collapse.
Why did so many non slave owning, and most likely never to be able to own a slave, Southerns fight? Why did so many southern white laborers, in many ways their labor value suppressed by slave labor, why did they support and fight for their state?
Who cares what started the Civil war?
Damn the first man that brought a slave into this country. Damn him to hell.
Because they were Southron patriots, and because they didn't cotton to a Yankee Army invading their homes and ripping up their institutions?
Any white southern non-slaveholder had a vital interest in containing the violent and potentially violent African population which lived among them. The South did not practice Northern-style segregation. Africans were, at least in the Deep South, everywhere.
The North never gave, and has never given to this day, a coherent theory of race relations (a/k/a "diversity") which could persuade any sentient white Southerner exactly how what would happen AFTER emancipation would or even could be good for him and his family.
The southern white laboring non-slaveholder had every reason to fight.
In retrospect, it was perhaps not such a good idea.
Ask a white South African how developing a society based on Bantu labor worked out in the end.
“Damn the first man that brought a slave into this country.”
Do you mean that slave ship captain that came under conviction and became a Christian and wrote “Amazing Grace”?
You forgot Dem filibuster of Civil Rights Act led by Senator Al Gore Sr. of Tennessee.
True, the NH furniture maker does't buy chairs from France, but he very well might buy a stove from England. The foundry-owner would use his own stove, but he would be as likely to buy a French table as a SC plantation owner.
The significant majority of northerners had nothing to do with industry, they worked in agriculture, just like almost all southerners. This was especially true in the West. Please explain how an Iowa corn farmer was in any different position with regard to tariffs than a Texas cotton planter.
If you're going to quote a precise figure like 80% as fact, you can't just retreat back into vague generalities when asked for documentation. Or suggestions your readers do their own research to verify your claims. Not and retain any credibility.
I'm perfectly well aware you're just repeating something other southern revisionists have posted, with no backup whatsoever for your numbers. You posted it because it sounded good and you thought it would help you make your case. My point is that you can't really expect me or anyone else to take your claims seriously when you do so.
The important thing, though, is that we end up with democrat spoken only in Hell.
I find it quite interesting that many of the same people around here who object to protective tariffs for the America of the 1850s think similar measures would be just wonderful today.
My question was not whether protective tariffs existed but rather the claim that southerners paid 80% of all tariffs, which could only be the case if they purchased 80% of the products on which tariffs were paid. This seems unlikely, to put it mildly.
BTW, protective tariffs became a political issue after the War of 1812, when the military and political drawbacks of near-total dependence on imports vulnerable to British blockades became obvious. The most powerful proponent of protective tariffs for most of the period in question was Henry Clay, a Kentucky slaveowner.
What generally gets missed in most of these discussions about northern “oppression” of the South is that for the entire first half of the 19th century there WAS no North, as a self-concious political block.
There was a (north)East and a (north)West. The West, being almost entirely agricultural, was generally allied with the South, between them controlling the government as against the still mostly agricultural but increasingly urban and industrial East.
The South created the North by aggressively pushing expansion of slavery and driving the West into the arms of the East. The Republican Party was formed in protest against the unwillingness of the existing parties to resist this expansion.
The southern strategy of trying to force expansion of slavery down the throat of the northern people turned out to be a very bad idea.
In some of the comments on that article, people were campaign her to Goldwater with the idea that the same thing that happened to Goldwater would happen to Palin. The big difference between then and now in the nature of the media available to people. Back in Goldwater’s day, the MSM was the ONLY game in town. The left controlled the message! Not so these days. Sarah has the ability and the technical capability to by-pass the media and go VFR direct to We the People! The left knows this and that’s why they and the RINO GOP establishment have all the knives out! But it won’t work - We the People are onto their game!
Every time a conservative with potential gains prominence, the country club crowd will try to slap him/her down.
True, the media game has changed but the viciousness of the Ruling Class continues. They still think they can find a way to control: view their reactions to the tea parties and Christine O’Donnell.
I am not sure he was the first. But damn him.
Some mistakes cannot be made up for by writing a Gospel hymn.
Her courage is what they fear most
"Courage is the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees all others." Winston Churchill
Great information for shutting up liberals. I copied and pasted it. You should write an op-ed in the WSJ or another notable publication.
I'd like to see some documentation on this one. My understanding is that most of the eugenics laws were bipartisan, promoted by "progressives" of both parties, before "progressivism" became entirely or even mostly associated with the Democratic Party.
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
Feel free to read the entire document. When you find the sentence that mentions taxes, let me know.