Gawker/Wonkette Are Responsible For The Rise And Sustainment Of Radical Islam

The so called satirical websites Gawker and Wonkette are emblematic of the sustained ridiculing and denigrating of the core underpinnings of traditional American values and beliefs.

They are just two, albeit significant in their viciousness even amongst the cesspool of their peers, of a massive number of similar “humor” outlets which, since the middle of the 1960’s have pushed a radical, ultra-liberal attack on the American culture.

Including, as this list is by no means exhaustive: religion, conservatism, family values, marriage, gender relationships, respect for authority, American exceptionalism, small town values, non-Democratic Party supporting working class people, minorities-especially Blacks who don’t support the Dem’s, 2nd amendment supporters, entrepreneurs, graduates from non-elite universities, Conservative women politicians and pundits.

All these aspects of American life found, especially between New York City and Los Angeles have been relentlessly demeaned, lampooned and ridiculed by the so called “progressive” media in this manner.

Instead of, as might be expected, their finding some sort of equilibrium with the election of Obama, the triumph of all their hopes, they have instead only intensified their attacks on bedrock America. The articles and comments on these sites abound with rumor, innuendo, misogynist language, of the basest sort. It is perfectly normal to find comments allowed along the lines that a Palin stalker should get the right sort of gun and “wipe out the breeding pair”. It is perfectly acceptable for them to reveal, the intimate details of a senatorial candidates alleged private sex life.

Nothing is too low, no language is too coarse, no aspect of traditional society so revered as to escape the progressive attack. Certainly in the past there have been satirical publications-The Judge, The New Yorker, even for younger people mad Magazine and certainly they served a purpose. Where they exposed corruption in politics and business, where demagogues where lampooned and society’s ills brought under a harsh spotlight that was all well and good. However, the basic, good core values of society were not attacked.

The current progressive radical sites and media like Gawker and Wonkette and their more overt radical leftist political sites partners in attack like Crooks&Liars and Daily Kos, are inheritors of a long line of such society destroyers. The 1960’s saw the birth of the “counter culture”, drug culture, hippie culture (sic) and their supporting media like ‘The Fabulous Furry Freak brothers” which glorified in all things not “straight”.

Up until that time when a country threw off the shackles of dictatorship they looked, naturally to America as having a culture, economy and values to emulate. It was unheard of for a country, including in the Middle East to turn to radical Islam as their choice of government. When these countries threw off the yoke of colonialism or Monarchy they became secular societies based on a free market economy sometimes with a nod to “socialism”- Turkey, Egypt and Algeria would serve as examples.

With the moral undermining of American society by the progressive left over the past 45 years This country is no longer one that people look to when they change their governments. As much as we would disagree with the fundamentalist strictures of radical Islam it is clear that they represent, to the downtrodden, a clear, firm set of moral guidelines no matter how alien they are to western values.

Why would a people who have freed themselves from a corrupt dictatorship (e.g like Iran) wish to assume the so called progressive values as represented by the American left and as typified by what is read on such sites as Gawker and Wonkette and the like?

Is same sex marriage, same sex adoptive parenting, drug culture, treating women as sex objects, Hollywood values and the rest of the rotten mass of progressivism something that we would expect those from an Islamic culture to adopt?

If America wishes to once again achieve greatness, in its own country much less in the world, if it is to combat radical Islam in the only lasting way- American moral values against their values, if it is to meet Chinese traditional culture of respect and dignity, on the economic front then it has to begin a process of moral renewal.

That this process could be achieved by the Democratic Party, the wellspring for radical progressivisms which have brought America to this pass is laughable. There is only one candidate for 2012 who personifies the traditional values and who has fought off the very worst attacks these venomous creatures can give-as they recognise the threat to their ascendency-and that is Sarah Palin.

The choice in 2012 is as clear as it has ever been, between a continuous decline into the pit of moral degradation or a chance to turn the country around economically and morally.

PALIN FLASHBACK: Fred Malek, Sarah Palin and the Case for Loyalty

Chris Cilizza at The Fix reports on his interview with Fred Malek about Governor Sarah Palin in this article.  My favorite quote from the article:

“She has that Ronald Reagan quality,” he said of the Alaska governor. “She has that magic.”

Fred Malek, Sarah Palin and the Case for Loyalty

Fred Malek has emerged as the leading defender of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Photo by Nikki Kahn of the Washington Post

Fred Malek is, by his own admission, loyal to a fault.

“My strength is loyalty, my downfall is loyalty,” Malek acknowledged in a recent interview with the Fix. “I’m the guy who waved goodbye to [former President Richard] Nixon from the White House lawn.”

It is that sense of loyalty that has led Malek, a prominent Republican rainmaker, to emerge as the leading defender of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in the wake of the 2008 election where she served as the party’s vice presidential nominee.

Palin’s surprise resignation last week has made Malek a wanted man — one of a coveted few in Washington who have a relationship with the Alaska governor.

Malek insisted that “everybody is trying to over-analyze” Palin’s resignation, attributing it either to a need to escape ethics charges or as part of a grand plan to position herself for a presidential run in 2012.

“She’s not that calculating,” said Malek. He added that viewing Palin’s resignation through the 2012 lens is a mistake.

That Malek has come to be regarded as the authority on Palin — or certainly one of the few — is remarkable in its own way.

Despite being at the center of Republican politics for decades — after spending four years as an aide to Nixon (former secretary of state Colin Powell referred to Malek as Nixon’s disciplinarian) he chaired George H. W. Bush‘s campaign for president in 1992 — Malek had never met Palin before she was picked by John McCain (Ariz.) as his running mate last fall.

Shortly after that selection, Palin and her husband, Todd, spent 90 minutes with Malek at his home in McLean, Va. where they chatted and the campaign filmed footage for several commercials.

Aside from seeing her occasionally at fundraising events during the fall, Malek had little contact with Palin until McCain’s defeat last November. As the obituaries of the campaign began to be written — and Palin began to be savaged by former McCain aides — Malek found himself more and more annoyed. “It really torqued me,” he explained.

Malek proceeded to take Palin under his considerable Washington wing, inviting her to attend the exclusive Alfalfa Dinner in late January as his guest and hosting a foreign policy discussion attended by the likes of former secretary of defense Frank Carlucci and former deputy secretary of state Strobe Talbott.

What has led Malek to put himself so far forward for Palin even as many other longtime Washington insiders scoff at the idea that she can be a serious national figure or presidential candidate?

“You can teach people to read a [tele]prompter, you can teach people to spout policy but you can’t reach people charisma and magnetism,” explained Malek.

Malek is quick to note that he has absolutely no idea whether Palin will ultimately run for president and, even if she does, he isn’t pledging his support for her.

But, he does have some advice for the soon-to-be former governor if she wants to continue to keep her name in the mix as a national figure and/or potential presidential nominee.

Malek believes Palin should keep her hometown of Wasilla as a home base and make two of three trips a month out of the state. Those trips should include appearances for candidates — Malek said former Virginia state attorney general Bob McDonnell is very interested in Palin coming to the state — fundraising for 2010 candidates, a paid speech or two and perhaps an event for a charity of her choosing.

Should Palin really want to run for president, she would need to get “more serious on substantive stuff,” hire a speech writer, pen an occasional opinion piece to flesh out her world view and make a foreign trip (Palin recently traveled to Kosovo) every six months or so, according to Malek.

Regardless of what Palin does next, Malek will be watching.

“She has that Ronald Reagan quality,” he said of the Alaska governor. “She has that magic.”

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 8, 2009; 3:15 PM ET

1996 Is Not 2012. Palin Is Not Bob Dole.Obama Re-election Not A Historical Certainty.

The “current wisdom” an oxymoron if there ever was one as this ‘wisdom” has been found sorely lacking of recent years, has it that the odds strongly favor President Obama’s re-election as “that is the lesson of history.”

It is tempting to say, as with Henry Ford “History is more or less bunk. It’s tradition. We don’t want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker’s dam is the history we made today.” There is good reason for that of course as regards the inevitability of a sitting presidents  re-election-consider President Carter’s second term, or President Ford’s or President G.H.W. Bush’s second term.

President Johnson didn’t even try for another term after one previously winning of the biggest landslides in history the first time he ran. President Truman had the option of running again but declined during a time when his popularity was at a record low. Thus it is a myth that a sitting president is more or less invulnerable.

G.W. Bush won with the lowest percentage for a sitting president, squeaking through with a football field number of votes in Ohio, and with unasked for the assistance of Bin Laden who intervened late in the campaign.

If we look at the electoral college map for Bob Dole in 1996 as an example of special circumstances it is clear that 2012 bears no resemblance whatsoever and is a further example of the ridiculousness of the “inevitability” myth.

Firstly Ross Perot drew nearly 8 million votes.Since it was a time of prosperity it seems unlikely that,as was the case in 1992 the draw from Clinton/Dole was even-the above map hints at Dole being affected more than Clinton.  Secondly President Clinton was from the South and took states which went Republican in the next three elections Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee and Kentucky and Florida which went for the GOP in the next two elections. Given the current political atmosphere there is every chance of all those states, including Florida, which Obama won narrowly in a horror year for the Republicans, going to the GOP in 2012.  With everything going for Obama he still couldn’t win Missouri which looks safe for the GOP.

Thus with the anomalies out of the way the deciding states will be Ohio and Iowa which went for the GOP 2 out of the three previous elections, North Carolina a traditionally GOP state, and Virginia which looks like the Queen maker state.
Bearing in mind that population shifts have given the Republicans a 6 point starting advantage in the electoral college, there being no third party drawing votes off on the right, the South returning to its traditional voting pattern absent a Southern democrat running, the final electoral college map would look like this.

The Republicans could lose Colorado and one vote from Nebraska (as last time) and still win