Tea Party
ACTION: Will You Attend An IRS Protest Tomorrow at 12 noon?
Tea Party Patriots are calling for protests at all IRS offices across the country…at 12 noon tomorrow — TUESDAY May 21st, 2013.
Will you attend one of these?
Currently, the Tea Party Patriots website appears to be down…which is either because of the large number of people trying to access the site for information on the protests…or it’s the federal government doing something suspicious to prevent people from easily getting this information. I know an article on Drudge Report today linked to a report in The Washington Examiner that then itself linked to Tea Party Patriots…so this could explain the high volume of traffic that may have crashed the site. Or, the Obama Regime could have just pulled the plug on that website. Here in 2013, after all that’s happened, I honestly can’t tell you for sure what’s up.
But the Tea Party Patriots’ Facebook page is still working…and you can find protest information there.
It’s really just a matter of figuring out where the IRS office is located near you…and then showing up there tomorrow at 12 noon. When you get there, no doubt you will quickly see other protestors.
The IRS Office in Chicago is at 230 S. Dearborn Street…downtown in the Loop. I found that information in seconds, just by typing in “IRS” and “Chicago” in Bing…and the address popped right up. To find your own local office, type in the name of your city and then “IRS” and you should be able to find it easily. The Tea Party Patriots went to the trouble of compiling this information for everyone, but with their website down (for whatever reason) you will need to look this up for yourself.
If you’ve never been to a protest before, I’d advise the following:
* Wear red, white and blue
* Try and grab some poster board and markers from the drug store and make yourself a sign with LARGE, printed lettering in a bold color like dark red or dark blue. Remember that people will need to be able to see your sign from a distance. The more clever the sign the more likely someone is to take a picture of it.
* Be clever and don’t use any profanity or anything that would make the Tea Party look bad…and remember that the Left and the Ministry of Truth that is our national media purposefully attend these events LOOKING for the one person in a crowd of 1,000 that is saying anything they can then blame on the entire group. It’s a sick game we’ve been playing for five years now that should be obvious to anyone paying the least bit of attention, but the media really has become the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party and these people truly are out to get the Tea Party or make its members look foolish.
* I think a good sign would say: SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FOR THE IRS! or INVESTIGATE THE IRS
If you have other ideas for signs, please share them in the thread below.
QUESTION FOR COMMENTS: Are you able to attend a protest tomorrow where you live? Maybe you could take your lunch break at this time if you live anywhere near an IRS office.
Want Good Government? Elect Good People
The political world was slightly abuzz this week with the passage of the so-called STOCK Act, which banned insider trading among elected members of Congress, as well as most of their staff. President Obama, of course, heralded this legislation as evidence of bipartisanship and a victory for his administration, blah blah blah.
Seriously?
Don’t get me wrong. I was not opposed to the passage of the STOCK Act. But it saddens and infuriates me that passage of such a bill is necessary to begin with.
Aren’t we really saying that our Congress cannot be trusted to know the difference between right and wrong, unless “wrong” is also specifically illegal? Think about the implications of that statement. Imagine how our society would function if everyone operated under the assumption that nobody could be trusted to “do the right thing” unless there was a law saying so. What a sad and terrible world that would be.
And just to be clear, congressional insider trading crossed party lines. This is something we ALL should be angry about, regardless of our political affiliation. I’m a fairly staunch conservative, but I would rather vote for a good and decent Democrat than a corrupt, lying Republican.
The real problem with our government is that we don’t elect good people to govern. Good people are not a guarantee of good government, but bad people are essentially a guarantee of bad government. We should give ourselves a leg up by ceasing to consider bad people to be our representatives.
Consider that every time there is a poll about least-trusted professions, lawyers rank in the top 5 (usually top 3) every single time. Yet roughly 40% of Congress is made up of lawyers. For some reason, we keep electing people we inherently do not trust to represent us in government. It’s madness.
It’s even more striking when you consider that less than 1% of the population is a lawyer by occupation.
Imagine if a panel of 100 people were chosen to represent “The teams of the NFL”, and 40 of those people were all employed by the Green Bay Packers. Would anyone consider that panel to be inherently objective? Would anyone consider that panel to be representative of the NFL as a whole? Would anyone deny that if, say, the New England Patriots had 40 representatives instead, that any recommendations made by the panel might be different?
Some other fun facts:
- 3 of the 4 most “progressive” presidents in our history were lawyers (Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Barack Obama)
- The only president to ever resign was a lawyer (Nixon)
- 85% of the Democrats currently in the Senate are lawyers
This is not to disparage all lawyers. Indeed, some of the most high-quality people I know are lawyers, and I’m sure some of the lawyers in Congress are great people. But overall, it should come as no surprise to any of us that people who make money from the practice of law would continue to pass laws that help them and others in their profession make more money. Talk about a conflict of interest!
We, as a society, MUST become more selective about those who are chosen to represent us. We must elect good people. If we do not, we are doomed. I think this is one of the main ideas behind – and best results of – the TEA Party movement. Another election is coming up. Let’s carry on the trend.
The Simpsons Malign the Tea Party: Season 23, Episode 10 — Politically Inept, With Homer Simpson
It’s been several years since I watched The Simpsons on a regular basis — mainly because the show became far too Leftist for my tastes. Even the Halloween episodes are largely mean-spirited and unfunny now (and those used to be the highlights of the year). It’s impressive the show’s still on the air and I do get nostalgic about it because I remember being in grade school and seeing the first Simpsons animated shorts air after commercial breaks on The Tracey Ullman Show (back when Tracey Ullman herself was funny, supermodels ruled the world, Pepsi was crystal clear, and 2012 seemed like a lifetime away in a very distant and unimaginable future).
On January 8th, 2012, The Simpsons aired the 10th episode of its 23rd season, entitled “Politically Inept, With Homer Simpson” – where Matt Groening and his crew malign the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Christians, conservatives, and Republicans. One of the biggest mistakes the GOP makes is to ignore Hollywood, especially in an election year. Though The Simpsons is now watched only by dozens of people (and, perhaps, an equal number of circus animals) and is no longer as culturally relevant as it was back in the days when teenaged boys struggled to decide whether their sideburns would be Dylan or Brandon-esque, it’s still a useful window into what The Tolerant Left thinks is important to lampoon about conservatives. Because it takes so long to animate an episode, The Simpsons’ jokes are stale and most references are dated…but it’s still clear The Tolerant Left despises and fears the Tea Party and works overtime in its attempts to malign it.
This should be a clarion call to the GOP: what The Tolerant Left fears most it mocks…and whatever it mocks is the thing Republicans need to embrace harder and do much more of because Leftists forever telegraph their greatest points of weakness.
Here’s a summary with screengrabs of “Politically Inept, With Homer Simpson” so you can know what attacks The Simpsons directed against Tea Party Americans without ever having to watch the episode for yourself (in case you never wanted to subject yourself to 22 minutes of your life you can’t ever get back):
Read the rest of this entry »
Is Debbie Wasserman Schultz still blaming the Tea Party for the Gabby Giffords shooting?
For some unknown reason…this morning I stumbled onto the Media Matters website. I think I was following a link that I found on the Fox site about Debbie Wasserman Schultz and before I knew it…I was there. I’ve never been on this site but…let me tell you…it’s worth visiting if you need a good chuckle. Do any of you watch “The Five” on Fox? I watched it yesterday and one of the topics was about DWS and how she is a complete disaster for the DNC but a great asset to Republicans. Four of the five (not Bob Beckel) were laughing about the fact that every time DWS opens her mouth, it turns people away from the Democrat party. It was a really funny segment. Anyway…one of the things discussed was the comment she made this week while she was speaking in New Hampshire. An audience member asked her about the lack of civility in Congress and DWS’s answer contained remarks about the Tea Party. The left is highly insulted that Fox is claiming that DWS is (once again) blaming the Tea Party for the Gabby Giffords shooting. Media Matters claims that her statement was taken out of context.
Here’s the transcript of the question….
AUDIENCE MEMBER: The American people are losing faith in Congress. [inaudible] because of the lack of civility. What do you think can be done to bring that faith back and then we can start thinking that they’re doing their job instead of just fighting with each other?
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, as someone who spent 19 years as a member of a legislative body, I really agree with you, that we need to make sure that we tone things down, particularly in light of the Tucson tragedy from a year ago where my very good friend, Gabby Giffords, who is doing really well by the way, and I know everybody is so thrilled, as I am, to hear that, making tremendous progress.
But the discourse in America, the discourse in Congress in particular, to answer your question, very specifically, has really changed.
And I’ll tell you, I hesitate to place blame, but I have noticed it take a very precipitous turn towards edginess and a lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement.
After the 2010 elections, when you had the Tea Party elect a whole lot of their supporters to the United States House of Representatives and you had town hall meetings that they tried to take over and you saw some of their conduct at those town hall meetings, you know, in the time that I’ve been in my state legislature and in Congress, I’ve never seen a time that was more divisive or where discourse was less civil.
It’s one thing — I’ve always had people come to my town hall meetings, for example, and say that they don’t agree with me on something. And that’s fine. And you know, that’s what those town hall meetings are about, they’re for civil discourse and give-and-take. And I learn something when I hear from a constituent who doesn’t share my view, and hopefully they do also because we’re listening to each other and there’s a back and forth.
What the Tea Party has done is they have taken it to a different level, and so when they come and disagree with you, you’re not just wrong, you are the enemy. I mean, that’s really a place that politics in America shouldn’t go. And you know, when they disagree with you on an issue, you’re not just wrong, you’re a liar. Rather than just have a difference of opinion, accusations like that get hurled, and it brings the entire discourse down to a level that I think none of us want to see remain there.
So, I have done my part. I’ll tell you that President Obama, you’ve seen, he’s tried so hard to get the Republicans to work with him, to bring them to the table, to try to get them to compromise and find common ground, but when you have someone like Mitch McConnell, for example, the minority leader of the United States Senate, say at the outset of this Congress that his number one goal is not turning the economy around, not creating jobs, but to defeat Pres– Barack Obama, well, then how are we going to reach compromise if that’s the goal that drives them and all their decisions? Because then — we won’t.
Because if that’s their goal, then anything that they do to compromise gives President Obama a win, a success, and makes it less likely in their minds that they would defeat him. Unfortunately, I think what has driven the Republicans in Congress is their interest in only one job, Barack Obama’s, when Democrats have been fighting for American jobs.
And that’s the difference. And that’s going to be the choice that people have to make.
So…what do you think? She doesn’t come right out and say “The Tea Party is responsible for Gabby’s shooting.” but I believe that the insinuation is there. There is one thing that is obviously missing in her statement. Not one time does she mention the Occupy Wall Street movement and their monstrous behavior. Not one time does she mention the Wisconsin teachers union thugs and their monstrous behavior. Not one time does she give an example of any case of violence or uncivil behavior from the Tea Party.
Greg Gutfeld has such a way with words so I think I’ll let him sum it all up…
GUTFELD (co-host): So, in my mind, which is made of felt and potatoes, Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the best thing to happen to Republicans since Ronald Reagan. Seriously, I’ve had wedgies less irritating than her. And that can only chafe the Democrats. Case in point: Once again the DNC chair links the Tea Party to the Tucson mass murder. So, Frizzilla, I bet you think the discourse in America, the discourse in Congress in particular, has really changed. [Fox News, The Five, 1/12/12]
So true!
Todd Palin gives Newt a Thumbs-Up
Todd Palin has thrown his hat in the ring…for Newt Gingrich. It may not be as explosive as an endorsement from Sarah but it’s the next best thing and some people are saying that Todd may be speaking for the entire Palin family so it could go a long way in helping Newt’s numbers…especially in South Carolina.
I am still baffled by the silence of the Tea Party. I read several articles today that said that the Tea Party wasn’t well organized on a national level and was fractured on who to throw their support behind. Most felt like Herman Cain was the man but, obviously, many were disappointed by how that turned out. There isn’t one central “leader” of the movement so different Tea Party groups are supporting different candidates. Some like Rick Santorum…some Rick Perry…some Newt Gingrich but none are publicly behind Mitt Romney. Perhaps the Tea Party, at this moment in time, will function best on a local level…helping to elect conservative candidates to the House and Senate. Who knows?
I think that having at least one Palin behind Newt will draw in some of the Tea Party crowd…hopefully.
I really like Todd Palin….a lot.
Sarah Palin on the GOP Field
Very interesting comments by Sarah Palin on the GOP field going into Iowa.
Note: Clicking on the image will take you to a blog post on the Washington Post’s website, because the embed wasn’t working for this clip. Don’t read the blog post unless your blood pressure is too low this morning.
Bill Whittle’s Voter’s Guide to Republicans
Hat tip to Indy for sharing.
This would be an excellent piece to share with your Lefty friends on Facebook.
Obama To Get Indefinite Detention Powers Against U.S. Citizens
H/T Sodahead
Last week I wrote about a couple of traitorous additions to the Defense Authorization bill written in secret by John McCain (RINO-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI).
According to the ACLU and DownsizeDC.org, among other watchdog organizations, sections 1031 and 1032 of the bill give Obama—and every future president, if there are any—“the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world….The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.”
And (SURPRISE!) it turns out that Obama asked for that power himself.
How nice of our favorite backstabbing Constitution-shredding s0-called “Republican” John “Benedict Arnold” McCain to oblige him (may he rot in HELL, after losing a brutal primary fight that bankrupts him.)
But McCain wasn’t alone in his treachery.
Sen. Lindsey “Rights for Illegals, but Not American Citizens” Graham said about it on the Senate floor: “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”
It is a sad commentary on Mr. Graham–a co-sponsor of the bill–that one can’t predict if that was praise or criticism without looking at the replay. Turns out, Senator Graham thinks it’s awesome that one person the the U.S. government can pick up a phone, make a call, and make you disappear, without charges, without trial, forever.
More gullible and/or partisan members of the DNC-controlled media have been trying to insist for the past two weeks that the law doesn’t apply to Americans here, in America. And The White House was claiming that Obama was going to veto the bill if it applied to American citizens (now, not so much.) But…
“Another sponsor of the bill – Senator Levin – has also repeatedly said that the bill applies to American citizens on American soil, citing the Supreme Court case of Hamdi which ruled that American citizens can be treated as enemy combatants:
‘The Supreme Court has recently ruled there is no bar to the United States holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant,’ said Levin. ‘This is the Supreme Court speaking.’
Levin again stressed recently that the bill applies to American citizens, and said that it was president Obama who requested that it do so.”
I’ve tried to find out what happened to the bill in Conference Committee, but the general consensus in the Liberty blogosphere this evening seems to be that the bill is just as bad coming out of committee as it was going in.
This evening at 6:58 p.m., 90 Democrats and 193 Republicans voted AYE to give the most corrupt president in U.S. history the power to kidnap and detain Americans anywhere in the world, forever, just on the basis of his opinion that they’re terrorists.
I’m kind of at a loss for words here, which may be appropriate, since technically anything I say can now be used against me by the president of the United States.
The bill now heads back to the Senate. Now may be a good time to pick up the phone and let your Senators know what you think.
UPDATE: Here’s the web page you can use to contact your Representatives.
Thoughts? Comments? Last words? Condolences?
How did YOUR Reprehensibles Representatives vote?
“Isolationist” is the new “Polarizing”: A Foreign Policy Primer
As a marketing copywriter, I am paid to influence my readers’ behavior (i.e., make them buy my clients’ stuff.) It’s my job to know how to do this, and I’m pretty good at it.
So when other writers are attempting to do the same thing–make their readers behave in certain ways, to further a political agenda–it’s laughably easy for me to recognize.
One of the Democrat-Controlled Media’s favorite slurs against Sarah Palin is that she’s “polarizing.” And it has been wildly successful. A Google search of the words “Sarah Palin polarizing” returns About 18,900,000 results.
When applying labels like “polarizing,” the goal of a propagandist is to subconsciously create a sense of unease or fear. Why? The emotion of fear creates a primal biochemical reaction that interrupts one’s ability to think rationally. So fearful people are much easier to manipulate.
Most propaganda campaigns also involve setting up an “other” purported to be unlike ourselves, whom we can hate and separate ourselves from. It’s a way of encouraging a “mob” mentality, as demonstrated most recently by the OccuPooper protests. (Their “other” is “Wall Street.”) Taken to extremes, this kind of propaganda reaches its “heights” when its used to literally dehumanize groups of people (such as Jews in Germany, or intellectuals in Maoist China).
The propaganda campaigns run by DNC surrogates in the media contain both of these elements–inducing fear, and splitting the bloc of voters who are likely to vote against Obama.
The DNC-controlled media did a masterful job of this with their successful attacks against Herman Cain, who was merely accused of engaging in behavior that is completely acceptable, if not encouraged, among members of the Democrat elite.
The DNC propaganda machine was also remarkably effective in labeling Sarah Palin as “polarizing.” Sarah Palin isn’t running, unfortunately, so the Democrat-Controlled Media has focused its propaganda machine on the GOP candidate most able to beat Obama in the general election, according to the latest poll: Ron Paul.
Except in Dr. Paul’s case, the DNC propaganda machine is pushing the “isolationist” meme instead of the “polarizing” meme. But the goal is the same: to cause fear, and brainwash voters into believing that they have to go with a “safe” choice like Mittens Romneycare. (Notice how often Gingrich and Romney are referred to as “safe” choices by the agenda-driven media–it really is an appeal to the unconscious biological drive to move away from fear.)
So today’s lesson in combating media bias is about the difference between “isolationism” and “non-interventionism.”
Most people reading this haven’t had any serious education in American history or philosophy, because we went to government schools staffed by members of the NEA. It’s up to us to educate ourselves so we can sift through media bias and hope to uncover what’s really happening and what the real issues are.
Most of us have never read George Washington’s Farewell Address, nor do we understand its significance.
For perhaps the first time in world history, the leader of a country voluntarily gave up power in an organized and peaceful transition. But he warned his countrymen to be wary of future attempts to seduce them into trading their liberty for the illusion of “security.”
“The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you….But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth…
In his Farewell Address, George Washington also advised the new Nation how to deal with other countries. Washington’s foreign policy view was that the United States’ prosperity and power would rise, not as the result of British-style militarism, but out of our morality and righteousness, in addition to our dedication to Liberty:
“Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct…It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.”
In other words, Washington expected the United States to be the “shining city on the hill,” a country that led by example, and a beacon to freedom-loving people around the world.
Washington pointed out that “permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others,” should be avoided, because
“The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.”
Washington pointed out that heated public opinion either in favor of, or against, another country could lead U.S. leaders to make policy decisions that would ultimately hurt their constituents: the very people whose opinions they were hoping to cater to.
It’s impossible to deny that Washington’s warnings to maintain positive but neutral international friendships have gone unheeded; and it’s equally impossible to deny that we’ve paid the consequences in blood and treasure. As Washington said,
“Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.“
Maintaining positive commercial relationships, freedom of travel, diplomatic relationships, cultural relationships and friendship with other nations–while remaining politically aloof from their internal affairs–is what George Washington advocated.
This kind of foreign policy position is called “non-interventionism.” It’s what Ron Paul advocates, and has advocated for at least 30 years.
In contrast, proponents of interventionism believe that the United States military and spy agencies, as well as economic sanctions and trade restrictions, can and should be used to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries.
In an outstanding piece called America’s Tradition of Non-interventionism, Chris Leithner notes that non-interventionism was America’s foreign policy for most of our existence. We minded our own business unless there was a national security threat so dire it could convince members of Congress to declare war and send their constituents to fight and die for their country.
And that’s why the Founders put the power to declare war into the hands of the House of Representatives–to ensure that the government wouldn’t embroil the People in unnecessary, unjustifiable wars.
Leithner says,
“Yet presently in America, as for most of the past half-century, few things provoke more indignation, ridicule and denunciation from political, academic and journalistic élites (as opposed to consumers and taxpayers) than scepticism towards America’s interventionist foreign policy.”
In 1982, American troops invaded Lebanon. Ronald Reagan was vilified for “cutting and running” after withdrawing U.S. troops from Lebanon in 1983 after suicide terrorist attack on a Marine barracks that killed 231 Americans. And yet, in his autobiography, Reagan admitted,
“In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.”
Pat Buchanan earned the propagandist label of “isolationist” during the 2000 presidential campaign. I recall being afraid of Buchanan’s views at the time, though I confess I did zero independent research and just accepted what the TV told me about Buchanan. (I’m embarrassed to admit this now.)
It’s chilling to read Pat Buchanan’s warnings against interventionist foreign policy. Just a year before September 11th, Buchanan predicted the future with startling accuracy:
“How can all our meddling not fail to spark some horrible retribution … Have we not suffered enough – from PanAm 103, to the World Trade Center [bombing of 1993], to the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam – not to know that interventionism is the incubator of terrorism? Or will it take some cataclysmic atrocity on U.S. soil to awaken our global gamesmen to the going price of empire? America today faces a choice of destinies. We can choose to be a peacemaker of the world, or its policeman who goes about night-sticking troublemakers until we, too, find ourselves in some bloody brawl we cannot handle.”
Now, the United States has 700 bases in 120 foreign countries and we’re at war (undeclared, but no less deadly) in four? five? conflicts. Clearly, for at least 60 years, America’s foreign policy has been one of interventionism (the last Constitutionally-waged war was World War II.) In the past 60 years, our military and intelligence agencies been involved in warfare and/or regime change in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Central America, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya…and I’ve probably left out a few.
So now we know what interventionism is, and we know what non-interventionism is.
So, what is isolationism? According to Wikipedia, isolationism is “the policy or doctrine of isolating one’s country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc.”
In most instances, isolationist regimes seem to also have an element of authoritarianism, necessary to keep its citizens from traveling to and trading with other countries. Probably the best current example of an isolationist regime is North Korea. (Isolationism also typically involves poverty, as protectionist trade policies are also often involved.)
Why is “isolationism” an excellent label for a propagandist?
First, most government-school graduates like me are ignorant of world history, American history, and philosophy. They don’t know what isolationism is, but it sounds scary. And lonely.
No one wants to be frightened and alone, and that’s the subliminal emotional baggage attached to the label of “isolationism.”
The “isolationist” label is also powerful because for a single word, it’s “loaded” and easy to use in conversation. In this way, it’s similar to the propaganda word “racist.” (That word comes with over 300 years of baggage.)
And finally, propaganda words like “racist” and “isolationist” are powerful because they cause conversation (and thought) to stop. That’s why “racist,” in particular, is such a go-to word for The Left.
Labeling Ron Paul an isolationist isn’t accurate by any stretch of the imagination. Even the most cursory examination of his foreign policy positions–easily available in his book on the subject, A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship
But labeling Ron Paul an “isolationist” isn’t about accuracy; nor is it about having a sincere discussion of foreign policy differences among the GOP candidates. It’s propaganda: it’s about manipulating emotional reactions and shaping voting patterns. Just like labeling Sarah Palin “a polarizing figure.”
The DNC-controlled media’s #1 job in the GOP nomination process is to ensure the nomination of John McCain II–a squishy reach-across-the-aisle so-called “moderate” who has no chance of winning against Obama. Everything they do is in furtherance of this goal. These candidates get the most airtime; they get the most debate questions, and they get the most deference from the DNC operatives who read the “news.”
Any truly conservative candidate–and especially, any candidate with a real chance at winning–is the subject of relentless propagandizing (see Sarah Palin and Herman Cain.)
The DNC-controlled propaganda machine has successfully eliminated these two possibilities.
Until very recently, their “Ron Paul’ playbook consisted of pretending he didn’t exist, which has become harder and more comical as he has risen in the polls. As they’re forced to abandon this “blackout” strategy, look for the continuation of two back-up strategies to turn Ron Paul and his supporters into an “other” to alienate Ron Paul from the conservative voting bloc: endless questions about a mythical, and consistently-denied third-party run (questions that no other candidate ever gets, not even Jon Huntsman, the one candidate who has said that he WOULD run as a third-party candidate); and labeling Ron Paul as an “isolationist.”
Since Ron Paul massively outstrips all other candidates (including Obama) in donations from active-duty military, these foreign-policy attacks may be easier to fend off. That leaves only the “third-party” propaganda option open.
Sarah Palin on Ron Paul Media Blackout, CBS Debate
H/T LambdaChi.org
The Democrat-Controlled-Media’s bias against GOP candidates who can beat Barack Hussein Obama is getting more apparent every day.
The most blatant recent example was the CBS/National Journal debate in South Carolina, where GOP Frontrunner Ron Paul was allowed to speak for only 89 seconds during the televised hour of the debate, receiving just one question. And Michelle Bachmann’s campaign was inadvertently copied on an email from CBS “News” prior to the debate, in which CBS “News” Political Director John Dickerson admitted that Michelle Bachmann “is not going to get many questions” in the debate (though she did get far more time than GOP Frontrunner Ron Paul).
This effort at media manipulation was so transparent that it became a story unto itself. The best exposé was probably this editorial in the New York Sun.
“A controversy has erupted over the fact that in the CBS debate on foreign policy Congressman Ron Paul got only 90 seconds….We’re not with Dr. Paul on all of his liberty campaign; as a general matter, he’s far too loath to levy the war on terror. But we have covered him on and off for more than 30 years and have come, even when we disagree with him, to respect him, particularly for his tendency to reach deep into the Constitution. He has done this on foreign policy in several important ways, starting with a bill he introduced in Congress within days of the outbreak of the war that erupted on September 11, 2001.
The bill was the first bid in generations to unleash one of the most important of the constitutional war powers, the letter of marque and reprisal, which is an instrument for bringing private parties into the war. The thinking that went into Dr. Paul’s bill deserves a hearing in any debate in which the GOP contenders are going to be grilled on foreign policy….”
The media blackout was even the topic of discussion the next morning on Fox News:
http://youtu.be/PqvvzqB3jsI
In an appearance with Greta van Susteren on Fox News, GOP Frontrunner Sarah Palin notes that Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum have all been the subject of media blackouts. And she also encourages GOP Frontrunner Ron Paul to keep educating Americans about economic issues:
http://youtu.be/gv1Tn8iSwFg
I have a fantasy that involves Sarah Palin running as Ron Paul’s VP…because the Democrat-Controlled media would tear itself apart in an effort to destroy the ticket.
On the one hand, the Democrat-Controlled Media’s strategy to marginalize Ron Paul’s campaign demands that they downplay the huge crowds he draws at events, the fact that GOP Frontrunner Ron Paul is polling in the top 2 in Iowa and New Hampshire, the constant wins at straw polls, the fact that he’s #3 in fundraising among GOP candidates, and the #1 recipient of donations from active duty military.
However, we all know that the Democrat-Controlled Media is obsessively fascinated with Sarah Palin (remember the bus tour?), and is bent on destroying her. How could they give Sarah Palin enough coverage to destroy her, on the one hand, while simultaneously maintaining radio silence about the top of the ticket on the other?
The more I think about it, the more I love the idea of a Ron Paul/Sarah Palin ticket…
