Why are the liberals and media elites scared of Sarah Palin?

I have been trying to figure out for some time why there is such hatred for Sarah Palin. This hatred comes from liberals, media elites, political know-nothings, and even from some inside the Republican party. The ironic thing here is that the same people that hate Sarah Palin are the same people who are telling us that partisanship is killing the country and that we should seek to find compromise.

Anyway, as I have tried to figure out this disdain and hatred, I kept coming up with the same answer - they are afraid of her. I know this does not seem to make sense at first, but after much deliberation in my own mind, this is the only conclusion that I could come to.

First, she is an attractive and successful woman, who is happily married with 5 children. She has not had an abortion, nor does she speak out for women's liberation groups. These are not characteristics that liberals admire in women. Also, I think liberals are jealous about her attractive nature. After all, who do they have on their side - Hillary Clinton and Barbara Streisand?

Second, she holds views that are popular amongst many Americans. The reason she connected with many Republicans and conservatives is that we share her views on many issues. She is sincere in her beliefs, and she does not change her views based on the political climate of the day. She holds the opinion that the government is not the answer to all of our problems, and this is something that resonates with many Americans of all different political persuasions.

Third, she says that she is a Christian. Granted, I can only go by what she says, because I do not know for sure. But she claims to be a Christian, and I will take her at her word. According to liberals, Christians need to discard their beliefs at the door and that their beliefs should have no impact on the decisions that are made legislatively. Sarah Palin is not going to do that, and this irritates the haters.

Fourth, she is popular, while the popularity of liberals is waning. This annoys the haters beyond measure. She is popular because her views resonate with the American people, while the liberals' views do not connect with the people. We are headed in the wrong direction, people know it, and Sarah Palin is not afraid to point that out. She is also not afraid to speak out against Republicans when they do something stupid (which is why some RINO's do not like her).

Fifth, she is not a Washington insider. Many liberals and media elite are upset that an outsider can come into the political scene and have this much of an impact. To them, there is no room for outsiders.

The haters continue to attack her, no matter what she does. They attacked her for making a speech with 4 or 5 different items written on the palm of her hand. Essentially, she had those topics written on her hand because those are the issues she wanted to speak about. And what do the haters do - they mock her. The President's press secretary mocked it. Liberal media elites mocked it. Yet, all she needed to make a speech was to make a list of the items she wanted to speak about and the passion with which to speak. She did not need a teleprompter (a la President Obama). She did not need a written speech. All she needed was a list of topics, and she was able to give an extemporaneous speech, and she did it passionately and eloquently. Should she have used an index card instead of her hand? Possibly. But if this is all that the haters can come up with, then they ought to be ashamed and embarrassed.

Liberals also insist that she is dumb, that she has no idea of how to be 'Presidential' (this from the same people that applaud our current President for being a big bully who lacks decorum). They underestimate her. 'We the people' are tired of these liberals and elites telling us what to think about people. We have enough information at our fingertips and are more than capable of making intelligent decisions on our own. Moreover, those of us who have an admiration for Palin are labeled is idiots or morons. This is another mark against the liberals. Rather than respect the opinions of a divergent viewpoint or have a debate on the merits, they resort to name-calling.

Because of all of this, I believe that it is a fear of Sarah Palin that causes these people to hate her. They are afraid that she will become popular and possibly win an election, and then their power over people will continue to diminish. If they did not fear her, then they would not ridicule her or mock her or continue to publish stories that try to bring her down. They would leave her alone, and she would just go away.

As for me, I do not know if she will run for President in 2012, and if she does, I do not know if I will vote for her. But I will give her consideration before I place my vote. Perhaps, many of these haters should stop hating and give her a chance to be heard.

Liberals need to learn how to think and stop letting other think for them

In yesterday's (12/30/09) Harrisburg Patriot News, I was taken to task for an editorial that I submitted a few weeks ago. My editorial (which was extremely well-written and a work of conservative genius) was in response to an editorial by someone named Billy Carelock, a man I have never met. He basically called out conservatives and Republicans for disagreeing with the sitting President and that we should give him time to fix things. We should also stop being disrespectful (at least, that is how he saw disagreements with this President and his policies).

Anyway, in my response, I reminded everyone of how liberals treated President Bush throughout his Presidency. I asked if Mr. Carelock told liberals to stop disagreeing with Pres. Bush, because, after all, that would also be disrespectful. I reminded him that liberals always said that freedom of speech allows us to disagree with any elected official without fear of repercussion. Freedom of speech applies to one-and-all Americans, not just a certain ideological group, something liberals seem to forget. Also, even though this was not in the editorial, conservatives are nat attacking President Obama personally. They are attacking his ideology. This is not the same treatment that President Bush received.

Well, along comes Victor Peracchia (again, someone I have never met). He takes issue with my thoughts concerning liberals and their inconsistent (and somewhat hypocritical) approach to everything. He then asks a series of questions, which I will now rebut, quickly and efficiently.

He asks what I do not like about the President in several different areas.

• His compassion for Americans without health care - Well, it is not the government's duty to supply health care to everyone. Let's get our emotions out of this argument and look to the U.S. Constitution. Health care is not an inalienable right. If anything, the government should be removing impediments to health care companies so that they can be competitive and affordable. The government should stop adding regulations and allowing frivolous lawsuits (which is something they never want to eliminate, for fear of angering the ABA). Government needs to get out of the way.
• His success in averting a depression - Not sure where Mr. Peracchia is coming from on this one. We would have pulled out of this economic downturn months ago had Congress and the President allowed the business cycle to run its course. Government intervention is not a good thing. It only keeps perpetuating the problem. Now, the government owns a car company and is trying to control even more industries. This is not good for democracy (remember, this kind of control didn't work for the USSR, Eastern Europe, and it is not working in Venezuela or Cuba).
• His efforts to restore credibility in the world - We are the world leader in almost everything. Even though other countries are jealous of that and want to see us fail, they know where to go when facing a crisis - the U.S.A. We provide relief, but are never thanked for it. We provide money and food, yet no one acknowledges us for it. We are taken for granted, and the President can't help but apologize enough for our greatness. Credibility in the world is very overrated. We will never get the credit from these 'friends', but they will have their hand in our pocket any chance they get.
• His ideals on corporate greed - Corporate greed is a problem and it needs to be fixed. However, it is not a systemic problem. It is a person problem. Greed happens because there are corrupt people. The system itself is fine. So because of a perceived problem, the President needs to appoint all kinds of czars to control things? Who is the greedy one here? I believe that the President is the greedy one here, trying to seize as much power as possible.
• His principles to redirect more equitably our nation's wealth to deserving workers - This is, by definition, Socialism. So now we have American citizens hoping and praying that socialism is instituted in our country. Redistribution of wealth is wrong. You punish hard-working people by taking from what they earn and giving it to people that do not work as hard or do not work at all. Are people really this stupid?
• His concern for the poor and undereducated Americans - Whose fault is it that people are undereducated? We give them a free education in our public school system. Is it my fault they do not take advantage of it. Is it my fault that people do not avail themselves of this free education in order to study and get a better job? I don't think so. This is the problem with the government. The more money they sink into the public education system, the worse it gets. Yet, all these liberals are holding on, hoping it will get better someday. Oh, and by the way, this is why liberals exist today. The school systems of America are not doing their jobs, and they are teaching people what to think, not how to think.
• His Nobel Prize award - This was purely political in nature, and it had nothing to do with his effectiveness in leading the country. This award marks the point where the Nobel Peace Prize jumped the proverbial shark.

I am not going to give this President 4 years to ruin our country. I will speak out against him and his policies (but not insult him personally, as liberals did to President Bush) when I do not agree with him, which will probably be most of the time (although, I may need to insult liberals as a group for their inability to think outside of their talking points). Liberals said that speaking out against our President (while Bush was President) was the hallmark of democracy. Well, the criticism goes both ways. Liberals need to stop being the thin-skinned, shallow, hypocritical fools and they need to start using the brain that God created them with.

Democrats complete disregard for the electorate

Over the past week or two, there have been many news accounts of ordinary citizens attending town hall meetings, confronting their congressional representative with their objections to the Health Care Bill that Congress is trying to push on top of us. The complaints are many. It costs too much. It will do away with existing, private health care plans. It will give too much authority to the government. It will cause health care rationing. And the list goes on.

Now, all of these are very valid complaints. And after reading about this bill, as well as looking at examples of other countries that currently have this government-sponsored health care, these issues are very accurate.

Now we see that the Democrat leadership (both in Congress and the White House) is trying to fight back, to try to get a foothold in this debate, as they can now see that they are losing on this issue. They have done everything in their power to demean the people who are speaking out against this issue. They are trying to threaten those who speak out against them. They are being nothing more than playground bullies on this issue.

They have accused the 'protesters' of being organized by the Republican Party. I know this is not true. I would not give the Republican Party that much credit right now. Then, the liberals go to their playbook. They blame entities like Fox News and talk radio (esp. Rush Limbaugh).

Their argument goes something like this: Conservatives are too stupid to create their own opinions so they have to listen to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh in order to get the day's talking points. I find this viewpoint narrow-minded. Conservatives know what they believe and why they believe it. We do not like it when someone tells us what to think.

But there is an irony in all of this: Liberals can only argue in Democrat talking points. They do not have original thoughts of their own, as can be seen by their continual use of the Fox News/Rush Limbaugh argument. In fact, this argument is so popular amongst liberals that the President even uses it when he cannot get his way on something.

Now, the congressional leaders are saying that these protests are part of a small, lunatic fringe of the radical right. Barbara Boxer said that the protesters are too well dressed to be concerned citizens (as though, ordinary citizens do not dress neatly). Harry Reid said that these protesters are trying to destroy the democratic process. I am not sure how he arrives at that conclusion, as though speaking out on issues to your elected representative is a bad thing. I would think that trying to cram a bill through Congress that the overwhelming majority of Americans does not want and limiting debate on that bill is more responsible for the death of democracy. But who am I?

The same people that are decrying these opponents to the health care proposals are the same ones who spoke out against the Tea Parties earlier this year. They do not like that fact that we do not agree with them. To the elected representatives, power does not exist with the people. It exists with the government. They want the power for themselves, and they want to remove anyone that gets in their way, a la Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro.

The administration is doing their best to strong-arm everyone in their own party to get behind this bill. They are trying to bully the American people into getting behind this bill. And now they are getting physical with some of the protesters at these town hall meetings around the country. They want to beat us into submission. If they were really intent on getting the American people behind them, they would try to persuade us, not beat us. That tactic is just turning more people against them.

It is time we stand up and tell our elected representatives that they work for us. We put them there. If they are not going to listen to us, then we will vote for someone who will. We should not be living in fear of what they may do to us. They ought to be afraid of us and not voting based on the will of the people.

It is time for conservatives to stand up for what we believe

Why do we, as Republicans and conservatives, allow the media and the liberal establishment to define us? They tell us who should lead us, what we should believe, who we should include, and the list goes on-and-on-and-on.

The latest chapter comes from the speech that Rush Limbaugh delivered at CPAC on Saturday evening. After reading the majority of his speech, I must say that I agree with him. We have allowed moderates to come into leadership roles within the Republican Party and tear us down. They have led us astray. They have tried to make the party into Democrat-lite.

The Republican Party, at its core, is conservative. The people who are the base of the party are conservative people. Moderates within the party have a hard time swallowing this bitter pill. They think we ought to reach out to more moderates and liberals and broaden the base of the party.

Well, that is what has put us in the position that we are in today. We ran a moderate for President in 2008, because we thought that is what was needed to win the election. It didn’t work. You cannot out-liberal a liberal. The liberals want people like McCain, Specter, Snowe, et al. running the party because that will guarantee that they stay in power for many years to come.

Conservatism came to prominence in the 80’s with Ronald Reagan, then in the 90’s with Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America. When conservatism is on the ticket, it wins. This is why liberals want the moderate wing of the Republican Party to win. They are scared of the masses that are conservative, and they know that if we have a conservative nominee, that he/she has a good chance of winning.

The mainstream media and the DNC are all over the Rush Limbaugh speech and his criticism of Michael Steele. They are trying to paint Rush Limbaugh as the problem with America. He is dividing us. He is mean-spirited. He is harming the bipartisanship that the President is trying to inflict us with. They want to make him the evil person in all this country, to help distract from the way that they are destroying this country. It is Rush Limbaugh that wants us to have the freedoms that the Founding Fathers intended us to have. With that freedom comes the ability to become whatever we want to be. The Democrats want us to rely on government for everything. They want us to be dependent on them, which will entrench them in power for years to come.

It is time to stand up against these liars, these divisive nutjobs that run the Democrat Party. They are the ones constantly playing the race card. They are the ones constantly trying to divide us (whether its based on class, gender, race, or anything else). They are the ones that want us to be totally reliant on the government. They are the ones who are held captive by the left-wing, anti-capitalism, anti-America fringe base that would rather see us live under the flag of the U.N than under the flag of the U.S.A.

An old adage (that some say comes from Alexis de Tocqueville) says that “America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” Those of us who are conservative understand that this goodness does not come from the government and politicians in Washington. Rather, it comes from the goodness of its people. It is not our concern what other countries think of us. If they disdain our greatness as a superpower, that is their problem (but they sure know who to come to when they are in need).

Anyway, it is time for us to fight back. It is time to fight for conservative causes, for conservative candidates, for conservatism in general. We have seen throughout our history as a country that conservatism can beat liberalism. We also know that there are a lot of conservatives that are fed up with the way we are defined by the liberal media establishment, and liberals in general. It is time to fight for what we believe in. I support Rush Limbaugh. I support conservative Republicans. But most of all, I support what is best for America. Liberalism is not good for us. It will lead to our defeat. We need to avoid it at all costs.

The Bush Legacy

Webster's defines the word legacy as "something handed down from an ancestor or from the past." In other words, it is something handed down to younger generations that causes us to remember someone or something that came before us.

There is a considerable rush at this time to state what the Bush legacy is going to be. Many foreign papers today are stating that Bush was an abject failure as President. This is also the feeling of most papers within the U.S.

The international community does not like President Bush because of his single-handed approach to fighting the terrorist threat that faces us on a daily basis. He did not want to do it their way. He was a renegade. They are also now fond of blaming him for the current financial situation. It will not be long before they blame him for the plane that landed in the Hudson last week.

Liberals and the media elite in the U.S. do not like him because he has ruined the American goodwill with other nations. He is not an environmental zealot. He had the audacity to try to protect the U.S. from being attacked again. He was a divider, not a uniter.

According to recent polls (which I am sure are bias-free), the majority of people view President Bush as the worst President ever. It is hard to believe that anyone could have forgotten about Jimmy Carter, but we tend to cloud our view of history with what we see going on in the present.

With all this being said, let me offer my opinion: You cannot judge a man's legacy at the time he is leaving office. Only history will be able to tell us how good of a President that Mr. Bush has been. I believe that history will be kind to him, for a variety of reasons. The main reason is that we have not been attacked since 9/11/01. He saw to it that we went after the terrorists; he did not want to wait for them to come back at us. As time goes by, people will understand that this was the right thing to do.

The American people want to see America remain a superpower. They do not want to cede that power to other countries, or especially to the UN. Other nations are upset with us because we are taking the leadership role, and they want to drag us down. They use the UN as a collective body to try and pull the U.S. down from its leadership position. President Bush would not let that happen, and for that he deserves our gratitude. The only other thing he possibly could have done that would have benefited us more would have been to jettison the UN from New York City and level the place.

Other nations complain about our leadership position in the world, yet they know where to come when they face a crisis. Do we remember the tsunami in Indonesia? It was the U.S. people that gave millions of dollars. It was the U.S. government that gave millions of dollars. The U.S. government has given billions of dollars to help fight the spread of AIDS in Africa. The U.S. has been so generous to other countries through the 2 terms of President Bush. Yet, he receives no accolades for this, nor does he seek them. And the international community conveniently forgets the times we have bailed them out.

We hear about the budget surpluses that existed when President Bush became President and the deficits that he has created since being President. One thing people fail to remember is that it is not the President that spends the money for the U.S. government. It is Congress. Because of Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in the 1990's, we had surpluses. It was not President Clinton. He happened to be the President at the time, so he gets the credit. Likewise, President Bush is not the cause of today's government deficits (although some of his policies have led to higher spending). It is due to Congress not being able to control spending. They need to be held accountable for that.

Even some liberal causes that Bush helped to further were snubbed by the liberals: No Child Left Behind, immigration, bailouts, health care. There are areas where he tried to reach out, yet the liberals were not willing to meet in the middle. They had an utter disdain for this man. They give him credit for nothing. And the media reports these things as Bush failures, not as the failures of liberal ideas.

They also like to blame President Bush for ruining the bi-partisan goodwill after 9/11. If I recall, it was the liberals who started to attack this man because he actually wanted to go after the terrorists who were determined to attack us. Actually, they never stopped attacking him for winning the 2000 Presidential election. It was not the President who went after the liberals. Rather, he stayed true to his beliefs, his principles, his ideals. He did not waiver. The liberals (including the media) attached the President.

President Bush is a good man. Yes, he has his faults, as we all do. He proposed things that I did not (and still do not) agree with. However, he is a man of principle and character. He did not make up his mind based on the latest opinion poll. He stayed true to what he thought was right, whether or not other people agreed with him. That is what I want in a leader. A true leader does not change his ideas based on the political climate. Rather, he remains true to his ideas. That is what I will remember and appreciate about this President.

Who are the haters??

I have been frustrated over the course of the last eight years over the treatment that President George W. Bush has received from Democrats, the media, Europeans, and liberal people, in general. These groups seem to stir up the 'Bush is playing on your fears' card at every turn. They talk about he has involved himself in the 'politics of personal destruction.'

During the run-up to the Presidential election, President-elect Obama talked about how we needed a new tone in Washington. We need change. McCain would be just like a 3rd Bush term (and they new how frivolous that suggestion was).

Now let me be the first to say that President Bush has made mistakes. In my opinion, we should have annihilated Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet we did not do that. The bailout deal was not good at all. His stance on immigration, in my opinion, is wrong. I do believe, however, that he is a principled man. He truly believes in the things he does and the decisions that he makes as President. These things are not politically motivated, but, in his eyes, they are the right thing to do. And he has been castigated by conservatives when he does something we do not believe is good and right for the country.

However, our displeasure remains at the policy level. The attacks do not get personal. The left has attacked the man personally. They say he is a fool, a buffoon, a stupid man. They have compared him to some of the past evils that truly evil men have committed (Hitler, Stalin, etc.). In their eyes, he is everything that is wrong with the world. They believe that he is the enemy, not the terrorists. They believe that the U.S. is the problem, not the solution to the problem.

These are the same groups of people that stopped the bipartisanship after the 9/11 attacks. They wanted to attack President Bush more than the terrorists. They saw the U.S. as the reason we were attacked, not the fact that the terrorists hated us for who we were. They have more sympathy for terrorists that we are holding in prison that they have for innocent, unborn children that are being aborted daily.

So I ask, who are the haters?
** A man, although we may not agree with him all of the time, stands on principle and does what he believes is right for this country, even when those ideals are unpopular?
**Or a group of people who want to see failure at all costs and want to see the U.S. brought down to the level of European countries that see socialism as the answer to all of our problems?