Sarah Palin Strikes Back

Posted By Melissa Clouthier on October 24, 2009 in Pajamas Media

With her decision to endorse Doug Hoffman in NY-23, the former Alaska governor sends the GOP establishment a clear message.

“You wouldn’t believe how badly they treated her,” an insider friend told me of Sarah Palin not too long ago. I assumed this person meant the Republican establishment. One can only imagine what they’ve been up to.

So Thursday night the former Alaska governor posted the following on her Facebook page :

The votes of every member of Congress affect every American, so it’s important for all of us to pay attention to this important Congressional campaign in upstate New York. I am very pleased to announce my support for Doug Hoffman in his fight to be the next Representative from New York’s 23rd Congressional district. It’s my honor to endorse Doug and to do what I can to help him win, including having my political action committee, SarahPAC, donate to his campaign the maximum contribution allowed by law.

Our nation is at a crossroads, and this is once again a “time for choosing.”

Palin has been sending a couple messages recently. First, she has, since stepping down as governor, started to communicate with the people not through the press but around the press. In other words, she’s speaking directly to the people through social media. She has had a couple well-timed and well-placed op-eds that have helped define policy arguments. However, most of the time she’s talked to the people via social media. (It should be noted that she’s been silent on Twiiter for some time — something I hope she’ll change soon.) This has had the benefit of letting the press know that she does not need them. Rather than go the Obama route and deny what is perceived as the one “enemy” to her aims, Sarah denies nearly everyone. And why not? The press trashed her with risible lies. Why give a dying breed ratings when she can reach the people herself?

Second, Sarah Palin has a massive army fundraising for her. It has been interesting to contemplate how she’s going to use that power. The GOP power brokers have certainly seemed disinterested in having her run for president, but they are very interested in her money and endorsements. The only problem is that they have, to use a vulgar turn of phrase, pissed in their Cheerios. They underestimated her star power. They misjudged her almost as badly as the left did; they thought she was just some feather-headed lightweight who would be nice arm candy for John McCain. She’d win the women vote because women are so stupid; ovaries are enough to win them over was the idea. Turns out that Sarah Palin was formidable because of the strength of her ideals, not just because of the strength of her beauty. And don’t forget the strength of her spine. This gross miscalculation has put the Republican Party at odds with their one star candidate.

The Republican establishment made another miscalculation last year. They underestimated the resolve and force of the tea party movement. These folks are ticked. They are angrier at the Republican establishment than they are at President Obama and his Marxist minions. In fact, this trouble was brewing all through the presidential campaign and even before. It all started, really, with the notion of “compassionate conservative” — an idea both insulting and inherently false. Conservatism is compassionate. Conservatism is something to be proud of, not something to hide.

So the Republicans have seemed as stunned with the tea partiers as the tea partiers are stunned at their party. The grassroots folks have had it. They’re tired of being disrespected. They’re tired of being told to pipe down and go along to get along when the candidates the party picks stink and then lose.

That brings us around to the election in New York. Local party people decided that a liberal woman would be just the ticket. The national party decided to second and third that notion. They chose identity over ideology. (This is something the party looks inclined to do in California in two races, by the way.) Ironically, some have viewed Sarah Palin as a horrible candidate because identity politics was involved in her selection. Well, the old establishment might have wanted her for her ovaries, but they got more than they bargained for in Sarah Palin. She actually believes something.

With her decision to endorse Doug Hoffman, the conservative (not Republican) candidate, Sarah Palin sends the Republican Party a very clear message. She will be using her considerable fundraising ability to fund candidates who ideologically match what it used to mean to be a Republican. Since the Republican Party, from its toes to its nose, has difficulty identifying candidates with those credentials, she’ll help them do it.

The Republican Party has a choice. They can continue to antagonize those who vote them into office or they can start paying attention. They mistakenly buy the D.C. bubble philosophy that moderation is the way to find good candidates. What they’re seeing is a base willing to lose if the Republican Party doesn’t change its ways.

A friend on Twitter said to me last night: “Sarah Palin has the base, she has to find a way to reach out to the moderates and independents.” I retorted: “The Republican party might have the moderates and independents (which I question since those people chose Obama over the moderate McCain), they have to find a way to win the base.” The base won’t be discounted any longer and they have found their champion in a very powerful Sarah Palin.

UPDATE:
The "Obama College Thesis: 'Constitution is Inherently Flawed'" article posted on the Jumping in Pools website was labeled "satire" but careless reading caused Michael Ladeen to pick up the posting as serious journalism. A quick look at the number of articles labeled "satire" on Jumping in Pools makes you believe that Iowahawk and The Onion had cloned another blog.

- - - - - - - - - -

This post starts at the end ... well almost the end of the tale of Obama's Columbia college thesis entitled “Aristocracy Reborn,” the first ten pages of which were allegedly shown to Time Magazine's Joe Klein. Today Mr. Klein posted this denial on the magazine's Swampland blog page.

A report is circulating among the wingnuts that I had a peek at Barack Obama's senior thesis. It is completely false. I've never seen Obama's thesis. I have no idea where this report comes from--but I can assure you that it's complete nonsense.

The question before the house is whether or not we should believe Joe Klein after he repeatedly lied about his authorship of the Clinton political novel "Primary Colors."

Setting out to trace the source of the Obama thesis story, I was frustrated to find that the earliest posting of the story came from an unsubstantiated article by Brian Lancaster on August 25, 2009 in the Jumping in Pools blog. Pajamas Media blogger Michael Ladeen picked up the story on October 21 and apologized today. Rush Limbaugh carried the story on his program today, and after being made aware of the apparant hoax, advised his audience. Media Matters gloated in what they portrayed as his "fake but accurate" defense. This is the same organization which used fake quotes to smear Rush in order to prevent his acquiring a partial ownership of the St. Louis Rams. Karl Frisch of Media Matters, a far left organization sponsored by George Soros, admitted on MSNBC that they knew that two of the Limbaugh quotes used were "not accurate."

Source verification and substantiation is important, especially on the internet. Dymphna, a blogger over at Gates of Vienna takes verification of assertions very seriously.

Earlier this month I received several essays from ... one of our readers. They make for fascinating reading, but the writer provided no links for his assertions. We discussed this in subsequent emails and he did send me a few references, but no actual bloggeresque-type links.

When he said in one email, “This essay is sweeping in purview. Documentation is readily available but would become onerous if complete”, I left this aside to think about it. Now I’ve thought about it, done a little research (Google is your friend, mostly), and here we are. Like many non-bloggers, our author is not accustomed to the necessity for links to one’s assertions so the two references above were the best he could give me. I did a very brief search on ... [the subjects].

Well, ... we've been blogging long enough to know that when you post on controversial subjects and you don't provide links, those who oppose your pov will appear in the comments with flame-throwers in hand. There will be more heat than light.

When we were newbies, Bill Quick was willing to advise us. One of the things he said was "provide links to your information". So we do. I realize that the MSM "journalists" don't do that, but otoh, we never want to be mistaken for journalists.

As a postscript, and in order to at least ameliorate the carelessness of the of the right wing blogesphere, the rush to accept the posted thesis article "because it was plausible," is easy to accept when Obama's own words exactly reflect his negative attitude toward our Constitution. The Tea Party of Northern Colorado blog points out that the language in the apparent hoax is virtually the same as Obama's words on PBS in 2001.

Here’s a passage from “Aristocracy Reborn”:

... the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.

You would perhaps expect this pablum from a post-modernistic Ivy League undergraduate up to his gills in multiculturalism and (as he says on page 100 of his autobiography) “Marxist Professors, structural feminists, and punk-rock performance poets.”

Here, however, is Barack Obama twenty years later, in 2001:

The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society…. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution … that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change…. I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through courts… The Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day … The Framers had that same blind spot … the fundamental flaw of this country.

Believe it or not, we are not yet done with Obama's senior thesis at Columbia. As a result of right wing inquires made during the presidential primaries comes this TNR blog post, dated 7/24/08, on the missing senior thesis that Obama wrote at Columbia (conveniently, neither Obama nor Columbia could find a copy). The paper supposedly was "an analysis of the evolution of the arms reduction negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States.”

This important commentary and question from economist Russ Roberts at Cafe' Hayek.

This is the weirdest story of the year:

A top White House economist says spending from the $787 billion economic stimulus has already had its biggest impact on economic growth and will likely not contribute to significant expansion next year.Christina Romer, the chair of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, said Thursday that the $194 billion already spent gave a jolt to the economy that contributed to growth in the second and third quarters of the year. She told a congressional panel that by the middle of next year, the impact of the stimulus will level off.

So if the biggest impact has already happened and the effect is going to level off, can we have the other $593 billion back, please?

Telegraph (UK) blogger Janet Daley, a liberal American emigrant, attacks the British Government:

The government is trying to terrify you. That is the only possible interpretation of its latest television advertising campaign on the supposed dangers of global warming. Whether or not you accept the scientific premises behind the “bedtime story” advert which is now to be investigated by the Advertising Standards Authority after attracting over 350 complaints from the public, there is no question that it is propaganda in the strict technical sense of the word.

That is to say, it is an attempt by the state to manipulate opinion and evoke emotional reactions without offering argument or evidence for its case. It accepts uncritically the most extreme rendition of the anthropogenic global warming narrative as if it were entirely uncontentious and presents it in the most sentimentally evocative possible way (ie as a threat to one’s own children and to defenceless creatures generally). It uses the techniques once associated with totalitarian societies not to persuade (which is what advertising properly does) but to coerce: to create fear and guilt. And to what purpose? Without offering constructive argument or serious explanation of the options, we can only assume that this is a campaign designed to browbeat the public into accepting any new restrictions or “green” taxes which government may choose to impose. Fortunately, it seems that ordinary people still have the independence of mind to know when they are being bullied.

At least there is an agency in the UK to address complaints against false government propaganda. In America, we have to put up with the twisted themes of the EPA and the DOE adverts using Ad Council radio and TV spots.

Don Surber reports on information released today by Republicans serving on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee released a chart on how the $787 billion stimulus has worked so far.

Not very well.

49 of the 50 states — and D.C. — had net loss in jobs.

Only North Dakota had a net gain of jobs — 1,800.

If his term ended tomorrow, Barack Obama would be the first president since Herbert Hoover to have a net loss in jobs during his presidency.

Interestingly, Obama has projected a 3,460,000 job gain by December 2010 but with only 13 months to go there is a net loss of jobs totaling (2,708,600). Surber has a breakout by state on his blog.

How's that Hope-N-Change working for you?

Take me to your whiners. A raging controversy over an "Illegal Alien" Halloween costume which denigrates no particular nationality and actually is supposed to represent a Roswell space alien has sent Hispanics and the liberal press into conniption fits. The "Illegal Alien Adult Costume," in question is manufactured by Forum Novelties.

"He didn't just cross a border, he crossed a galaxy!" according to the costume's description. "He's got his green card, but it's from another planet!

In an interview with Univision's Jorge Ramos, RNC Chairman Michael Steele spoke for the majority of Americans on the subject of illegal aliens saying although you can dress it up any way you want, but undocumented immigrants are still here illegally.

RAMOS: Why do you refer to undocumented immigrants as illegal aliens? I’ve spoken with John McCain and Barack Obama, to give you two examples, and they don’t use those terms they call them undocumented immigrants. Why do you call them illegal aliens?

STEELE: Well, if they are here illegally I got a call it what it is. I mean if you can be undocumented — look you can dress it up any way you want the reality of it is the status is the key feature here, and if the status is such that you did not come through the regular process, that you did not present yourself properly, to be documented then you are here illegally.

Fox and Friends handled the non-issue as it should have been handled.

H/T: SondraK

The University of North Dakota's sports teams have been called the "Fighting Sioux" since 1930 in honor of the Indian tribe that is intricately linked to state history and to the very state name of Dakota, which is one of three tribes making up the Great Sioux Nation.  Outside criticism of the school nickname prompted retired UND President Charles E. Kupchella to defend the Fighting Sioux name:

Since the Sioux actually call themselves "Sioux" hardly anyone considers the term to be inherently derogatory or stereotypical, as for example, would be terms like "Savages" or "Redskins." ... We do not have a mascot or any kind of derogatory comical caricature of an American Indian as a logo. Our logo was designed by a respected Indian artist [Bennet Brien] and is similar to the respectful images found on U.S. coins, North Dakota Highway patrol cars, etc.

In 2005, NCAA president Myles Brand, (former president of Indiana University who fired coach Bobby Knight) forged a social policy unrealistic to the purpose of an organization charged with setting sports competition rules among universities. His policy declared Indian images, names and mascots as hostile and abusive toward Indian tribes ... subject, of course, to quasi-legal hearings that permitted the NCAA to mete out judgments and penalties to member universities. As might be expected, justice was most certainly not even-handed among affected schools.

Presented with the "Fighting Sioux" controversy in 2000, the North Dakota Board of Education first ruled that the nickname could stay with UND. Later after an exchange of lawsuits between the university and the NCAA, and after coming out on the the wrong end of two appeals, the NDBofE agreed to end the use of the nickname in 2010 unless the North Dakota Sioux reservations, Spirit Lake and Standing Rock, agreed  to support the UND nickname through tribal referendums.  Earlier this year the Spirit Lake Sioux passed such a resolution but leaders of the Standing Rock Lakotas refused to conduct such an election since tribal by-laws supposedly prohibit it.

But hope springs eternal, and on October 2, an election took place among the Standing Rock Sioux. From the Bismarck Tribune comes this news:

The Standing Rock Sioux have a new tribal leader and the Sioux nickname may still have a fighting chance.

Wednesday's reservation vote propelled former chairman Charles Murphy back into leadership by nearly a two-to-one margin over current chairman Ron His Horse Is Thunder.

Murphy won by 1,233 votes to 695.

A popular leader, Murphy has since 1983 won six of the last eight chairman elections.

While it isn't certain that the newest Murphy administration will be able to swing a hurry-up referendum on the Fighting Sioux logo at the University of North Dakota, there is at least a new chance.

In recognition of the tribal election, the State Board of Higher Education Thursday voted to extend its deadline and give the reservation 60 days to hold a referendum.

Archie Fool Bear, former councilman and a chairman candidate during the primary, said "I predict a landslide" of support for UND's continued use of the Fighting Sioux name. "A lot of people really wanted to have a vote," Fool Bear said.

The state is up against a February deadline by the NCAA to end use of the Sioux logo and nickname, though a court settlement said it could continue if there was nickname consent from both North Dakota Sioux reservations. Spirit Lake approved its use by a wide margin earlier this year.

The Standing Rock Sioux, whose elders formally conferred the name four decades ago, have been denied a vote because the council, under His Horse Is Thunder, declined to schedule one.

Nothing lasts forever, however, and perhaps Charles Trimble, a prolific writer and an Oglala Lakota Indian, has the right idea:

I have never felt offended by their name Fighting Sioux. And I think there are many Lakotas, Dakotas and Nakotas, both on the UND campus and elsewhere, who feel as I do about it. It is an apt name, and if you want proof just go to a Council meeting on any reservation in North or South Dakota. It anything, the name is a redundancy.

I still would like to hear ... suggestions for a new name for the North Dakota folk up at their University. Think about it: What is North Dakota noted for? With the flattest topography on the continent, it is the wind, of course. How about the name "Blowing Wind?" Or perhaps "Breaking Wind?" The natural motto would be "Wind Power," which is so "in" these days. With that image and perhaps a million-dollar honorarium, they might even get Father Nature Al Gore to give a commencement address.

I laughed at his Al Gore humor and the "Breaking Wind" name, but Mr. Trimble seriously missed an important aspect of the wind ... it is always chilling.   So change the nickname to the "Cold Wind" or revert to an unofficial UND nickname from the past which could allow the continued use of the Indian Head logo ... "Nodaks." Since there is no Indian tribe named Nodak (a shortening of North Dakotan), the nickname will pass muster. This would put the University of North Dakota in the same weird class of nicknames as the Indiana Hoosiers, St. Olaf Oles, Williams College Ephs, Virginia Tech Hokies and Georgetown Hoyas.

KTLK, Minneapolis interviews Congresswoman Michelle Bachman on the unbelievable news surrounding funding for ACORN.

K-TALK also posts the Republican Legislative Digest published by Mike Pence (R-IN) which confirms the news that the defunding is short-lived.

I can only conclude that the political criminals that represent the Democrats are supporting the RICO violations of ACORN.

Mimicking Oprah's Harpo Productions "Obama I Pledge" video . . .

Just seven short weeks ago, our all-knowing, all-caring president addressed the issue of the war in Afghanistan in a speech to a gathering of the Veterans of Foreign Wars:

"This is not a war of choice,this is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people."

Since then "change" has once again entered Obama's mind probably as a result of pressure from anti-war leftist radicals and their allies in the media. Two weeks ago, in a whirlwind tour of the TV talk shows, Obama offered these comments:

Appearing on CNN on Sunday, Obama asked, "Are we pursuing the right strategy?" On NBC, he said he would expand the counterinsurgency effort only if it contributed to the goal of defeating Al Qaeda.

"I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan . . . or sending a message that America is here for the duration," Obama said.

To begin with, Army General Stanley McChrystal had the audacity to warn that failure may occur in prosecuting the counterinsurgency approach to this war unless additional troops follow the 21,000 sent to Afghanistan in August. Military "experts" in the Obama administration , namely V.P. Joe Biden and Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel disagree with the Afghan War Commander, arguing instead for a much more limited approach that could reduce the approved troop target of less than 68,000.

Polls are giving mixed signals.

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics from October 1 reports that 43% approved but 43% disapproved of sending more troops to Afghanistan. Democrats however disapproved by 58%. On a related question 66% Americans say they trust U.S. military commanders more to decide next steps in Afghanistan — that's more than three times as many as say they trust the president more (20 percent).

A CBS/NYT poll, heavily weighted to Democrats, from September 24 nevertheless shows that most Americans do not see an immediate need to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan - only 32% think troop levels should be decreased. Opposition to a increase is 59% overall but this is greatly influenced by 70% of Democrats opposed.

The New York Times seeks to gain Conservative support for winding down the Afghan War:

The conservative pundit George Will suggested as much in a recent column in which he argued for a reduced, rather than enhanced, American presence in Afghanistan. Mr. Will cited the testimony of George Kennan, the diplomat and scholar, to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Vietnam in 1966: “Our country should not be asked, and should not ask of itself, to shoulder the main burden of determining the political realities in any other country. ... This is not only not our business, but I don’t think we can do it successfully.”

Whether Afghanistan is at all similar to Vietnam is another debate all together, but two after-the-fact conclusions can be reached about our abandonment of the Vietnam peninsula. First of all, millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians lost their lives to Communist oppressors after we retreated and secondly. the world Communist movement wained despite their victory in Vietnam.

The War on Terrorism is not Obama's cup of tea since he wants to pull the plug on America's military might and end our role as the world's law enforcer. However the continued backpedaling from fights will only embolden our enemies in Russia, Iran and among the Muslim Jihadists. Walking from Afghanistan will be much worse than leaving Vietnam.

I just about fell out of my chair last night when the opening monologue came on for Saturday Night Live. Even the liberals are making fun of him. this is F-U-N-N-Y.

Enjoy.