I’ve always felt that skill at articulating a persons thoughts meant more to members of the media who make their living using their verbal skills than it does to the rest of us who are usually more concerned with what people say than they are with how they say it.
I remember when Dan Quayle was ridiculed by the national media for correcting a student's correct spelling of "potato" to "potatoe" at an elementary school spelling bee in Tiverton, New Jersey in 1992. He later wrote in his memoirs that it was spelled that way on the card the school had given him and though he questioned the spelling to himself, he decided to trust the materials he had been given. The mistake propelled the national media into a frenzy as they had been trying to prove he was an intellectual lightweight since he was nominated for the position of Vice President at the Republican National Convention in New Orleans in 1988.
It wasn’t long before his name became a household joke throughout the land even though he iterated many common sense opinions such as his infamous Murphy Brown statement on his preference for families with parents who are married to each other over single parent families. (That was before the topic of gay marriage was even part of the popular lexicon.) Candice Bergen, the actress who starred as a single mother in Murphy Brown, objected to his assessment at first but later changed her mind and said he had been right. He also scored points when he lashed out against lawyers and America’s litigious culture
Moving on to a real honest to goodness dummy... When Al Gore became Vice President it became very clear to most people outside of the media elite that this guy was an empty suit. We knew he didn’t set any academic worlds on fire and was in fact dropped from Harvard. He also once remarked that he had invented the Internet. But the media didn’t see it that way I think because he appeared to be articulate and was referred to as a policy wonk when he should have been referred to as a policy dope.
I’ll never forget watching President Clinton and Gore on C-span enter Monticello, Thomas Jefferson’s home in Virginia and hearing Gore ask the guide who the three busts at the entrance of the mansion portrayed. And the gentleman slowly replied as though he was not expecting the question…”well that’s George Washington and that’s Benjamin Franklin” at which point an embarrassed Bill Clinton began walking away. But my personal favorite Algorism is that “a zebra does not change its spots”.
Yet such incidents went right over the heads of the media and instead they decided collectively they would portray George W Bush as the dumb one simply because he was a conservative. So when he said “nuclur” instead of “nuclear” and their personal favorite…”misunderestimate”, he fell into their hands and the template was set. Bush was dumb and that’s all there was to it. And it didn’t matter to them that he held a history degree from Yale; an MBA from Harvard; and was known to read a book a week in a friendly competition with his friend Karl Rove who shared his love and skill for reading. Yet as far as the media was concerned he was dumber than dumb. I mean he had to be, right? He believed in God, spoke with a southern accent, and admitted to being a conservative Republican, like another dummy that once resided in the White House whom the powers to be in the media didn’t consider very intelligent either, Ronald Reagan.
And now we come to Sarah Palin who is the daughter of a dedicated educator and athletic coach who moved his family to Alaska so they would appreciate the beauty and wonders of nature and the Great Outdoors. She also was the daughter of a librarian who developed a lifelong love for reading before she could barely walk, and went on to graduate from the University of Idaho with a degree in journalism and a passion for writing. Before long, however, she discovered she had a gift for leadership and problem solving as a small town mayor and later as governor of American’s largest state.
I have no doubt if she were a liberal , the media would have embraced her openly, but unfortunately for her she was a Conservative Republican, an evangelical Christian, and worse than that a supporter of the hated Tea Party movement,
So when she said “refudiate” instead of “repudiate” recently during a live interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, the media started laughing until it hurt, totally ignoring the substance of her commentary about the construction of a mosque near ground zero in New York which she considered a deplorable act in light of what has transpired there.
I couldn't agree with her more, despite commentary from Muslim clerics responding to criticism from the families of many of the 9/11 victims that it will bring people together. Are you kidding me? It’s just the Muslim community rubbing 9/11 into the faces of the “infidels” as they have been doing for centuries. During an earlier period in history, Muslims built one of the most sacred places in all of Islam, the Dome of the Rock, on top of the old Jewish Temple in Jerusalem while the Jews had been driven out of the land and we’re living in exile, so it’s not like they haven’t done something like this before.
Despite the substantive nature of her comments, the writers of propaganda at the former mainstream news outlets and the late night comedians have been having a field day “refudiating Sarah” and ignoring the abominable nature of the plans they are making for that sacred area of turf in the heart of Manhattan where two of the most magnificent buildings in the history of the world once stood and 3, 000 innocent civilians were killed by radical Islamic terrorists on September 11, 2001.
Instead of focusing on how much sense her commentary made and the bizarre nature of the proposed project, the mainstream media, which doesn’t really exist anymore, has decided to focus on the former Governor of Alaska mispronouncing a single word during a live television interview as can be seen in the following video, to let us all know once again that they believe she is ….well, dumb, as if we didn’t know they felt that way already.
Jul 18, 2010
This past week the nation's and the state of Massachusetts's latest Senator Scott Brown voted “yes” on a financial reform bill that Rush Limbaugh said no conservative anywhere would vote yes for causing much discussion and a sense of grave concern for the future as Obama expects to send even more radical legislation through before the next congressional term begins. Additionally White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs revealed this week that the administration is expecting that the Republicans will regain control of the House at the very least, which almost caused an insurrection in the House against the Administration and Gibbs.
Earl Sholley, Republican candidate for Congress from the Massachusetts 4th Congressional District said that he wasn’t surprised by the Brown vote which brought to mind the first conversation I had with Sholley at the Shawmut Diner in New Bedford, MA this past February in which he pointed out that Scott Brown was really an independent and had a history in the Massachusetts State Senate of voting with Democrats regularly, which explained many of the complements from former colleagues he received after his stunning victory in the Massachusetts special election last January. At the time it occurred to me that Sholley was giving me some inside knowledge, like a tip for a gambling option that would be discovered the first time Brown voted on a piece of legislation that Republicans largely abhorred, which he was confident would occur soon.
And this week Sholley’s prediction came true when Brown became the third member of a trio including Maine Republican Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins that not only cleared the way for a final vote of the Dodd/Frank Financial Reform Bill but established him as a definite power player on Capitol Hill. It’s good to know that if Sholley is successful in defeating Congressman Frank, he will be wise and shrewd enough to understand the difference between the sometimes difficult political path of adhering to conservative values in Massachusetts and defecting to the easier, wider road traveled by so many Republican in Name Only politicians over the years like Arlen Specter, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins and John McCain. We can only pray that Scot Brown’s legacy doesn’t include taking this well travelled but ineffective road to real problem solving and making things worse than they already are at a time when Republicans are poised to regain control of both houses of Congress. During this prelude to the up and coming elections this November, we need them to be wise enough to understand as Limbaugh further stated in his diatribe against RINO Republicans last week that Obama is already planning to blame the new majority of Republicans in the House for everything bad that has happened up until now.
In fact it seems to me that Vice President Joe “Bite Me” Biden of General McChrystal fame may have confirmed the scheme Sunday on the ABC News program “This Week’ when he vowed that Barack Obama’s governing party will “shock the heck out of everybody”. He went on to say that he believed the Obama administration would get credit from voters for helping guide the economy out of recession and passing key legislation on health care and financial reform.
Of course what we’re about to see is a massive revisionist campaign on Obama’s first two years in office that will try to convince us that up is down and down is up, and of course the Republicans are still the party of no and will be even more obstinate than ever if they regain control of the House and do nothing but take up oxygen.
So, I ask you, how will Brown and the other RINO's, or "Independents" if you prefer be able to criticize Obama and Democrats for passing very bad Financial "Reform" legislation that omitted dealing with the thorny Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dilemma as well as adding up to 400 billion to the deficit when he voted for it himself. His instincts of course will be to defend his decision. And that's the problem as I see it because Republicans need to be united against Obama’s policies at this time and shout from the highest mountain top during the remainder of the year and during the next session prior to the 2012 elections how harmful for the country they have been. Limbaugh said we can not simply assume that the American people will figure out Obama has been in office long enough to be responsible for the sad state of affairs the country is in even though it will be tempting to do so for a party that has historically displayed a tendency to avoid unpleasant confrontations.
And he went on to say that we have a great opportunity to contrast conservatism with Obama’s policies and his extreme radical leftist ideology. No matter what you want to call this leftist ideology…Marxism…Socialism…Liberalism…Statism; there’s never been a greater chance to draw a contrast. But we can’t let these so called moderates like Scot Brown, Olympia Snow, or Susan Collins take control of the message or the agenda or it will be all over. If those people gain control, and it leads to the selection of a Presidential nominee, like Scott Brown himself perhaps, who wants to go moderate-center-of –the –road, then it’s all over.
Therefore it seems to me that the time for preparing future members of congress and incumbents for this soon-to-come period in which the President of the United States stops blaming George Bush for his problems and begins blaming the Congress that he no longer controls is now. The campaign season presents a wonderful opportunity to educate the American people as Rush said that during Obama’s administration we have been watching the absolute purposeful destruction of capitalism and the American private sector. We’ve never seen it happen like this and it’s happening all around us, and its Obama’s policies that are to blame for it. And these candidates and incumbents must have the courage to lay it on the line with their opponents, not for the purpose of winning an election but for the purpose of communicating this vital message to the American people for the good of the country i.e.to save the country from total destruction. So attention all political candidates running for office…let the debates and a great national dialogue begin! Our children’s future depends on it.
Jul 4, 2010
Last week we witnessed a disturbing though certainly not a surprising event in our nation's capital when President Obama’s nominee for the United States Supreme Court, Elena Kagen refused to answer directly the question posed to her by Senator Tom Coburn during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings about whether or not she believed in rights that are inherent to us. Though falling short of an emphatic denial, this evasive maneuver might better be described by saying she conspicuously declined to affirm such a belief. In any event it left me feeling that Republicans must demand a filibuster so they can take the time to educate the American people as to who this woman is by allowing the Congressional staffs to thoroughly investigate the significant paper trail she has accumulated. We know they would do this if her nomination was from a Republican president. Remember Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts.
Denying natural rights and natural law during the week in which we celebrated the signing of the Declaration of Independence struck me as a distortion of the deeply held beliefs of the signers of this sacred document, which clearly states “we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It also strikes me as a betrayal of their intentions which obviously was that they and succeeding generations would be able to live in the freedom our creator intended for us, which has been the rallying cry of man since the dawn of time, though history shows that most have walked the earth as slaves or subjects of an oligarchy. In fact, recently we saw photo evidence of an early draft of the Declaration of Independence in which the word “subjects” was crossed out and replaced with “citizens”. .
The founding fathers never intended for the Constitution to be the source of citizen's rights. Our rights are derived from our very existence as human beings created in the image of God,not from the government or even the Constitution. Rather, one of the original specific purposes of the Constitution was to protect those "unalienable rights" from an over reaching tyrannical government. The basic rights of the individual can never be abrogated for the sake of the majority or security threats from a rebellious and angry populous, which characterizes the mindset of the statist as well as every tyrant that has ever lived, which is why the Bill of Rights was inserted in the first place as an additional safeguard. Furthermore the historical record shows that the Constitution would not have been ratified with out the inclusion of these protections against a repressive government which they had learned firsthand that one should always be on guard against even with weapons in hand as shown in the Second Amendment which granted the Right to Bear Arms, point blank, with no strings attached and please don’t bring up militias because we're all part of a citizen's militia, at least we're suppose to be.
When Elena Kagen stated to Senator Tom Coburn “I don’t have a view of what are natural rights independent of the Constitution” she revealed the fundamental misunderstanding quite often found on the left and amongst progressives concerning the relationship between the Constitution and its’ citizens. The Constitution is not the source of our rights. Our rights preceded the Constitution.
Although they granted certain powers and rights to the Federal government in areas such as National Defense and coining money etc they were explicit in enshrining the primacy of individual rights in the 9th amendment which states “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”, and in the 10th Amendment demonstrating that the federal government was never intended to become the monstrous regulatory beast it is today by saying: “The powers not delegated to the United States Constitution, nor prohibited by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people"
Later she watered down her statement somewhat when she said “I’m not saying I do not believe there are rights pre-existing The Constitution and the laws, but my job as a Justice is to enforce the Constitution and the laws” which sounds close but does not go as far as saying she believes “unalienable rights” exist, which is what makes the Constitution special. The citizens are the original author and have rights which are inherent and cannot be ignored while the state serves the people and not the other way around. If Elena Kagen does not believe in this most basic element of the Constitution, then how is this nominee who has never served as a judge qualified to determine whether something is Constitutional or not from the highest court of the land.