Sarah Palin Information Blog

Sarah Palin Web Brigade

  • Upcoming Palin Events

  • Sarah Palin’s Endorsees

  • Sarah Palin Channel

  • Amazing America

  • The Undefeated

  • ‘Stars Earn Stripes’

  • ‘Game Change’ Lies Exposed

  • Good Tidings and Great Joy: Protecting the Heart of Christmas

  • Our Sarah: Made in Alaska

  • America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag

  • Going Rogue: An American Life

  • Other Sarah Palin Info Sources

  • Login/RSS

  • Governor Palin on Twitter

  • @SarahPalinUSA

  • Governor Palin on Facebook

  • SarahPAC Notes

  • RSS SarahPAC Notes

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • SPWB on Facebook

  • SPWB on Twitter

  • @SarahPalinLinks

    Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

  • Join the SPWB Twibe!

  • Posts by Date

    September 2012
    S M T W T F S
    « Aug   Oct »
  • Categories

  • Archives

  • __________________________________________
  • Top Posts & Pages

  • __________________________________________
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • __________________________________________

Archive for September 11th, 2012

Gov. Palin: Romney needs to be “severely aggressive in his articulation” of Obama’s weaknesses

Posted by Dr. Fay on September 11, 2012

Governor Palin on The O’Reilly Factor tonight:

Video retrieved from 


From the transcript of the segment:

O’REILLY: Very provocative. And joining us now from Alaska the former Governor of that state and current Fox News analyst, Sarah Palin. So do you agree with Miss Laura?

SARAH PALIN, FOX NEWS ANANLYST: Oh absolutely. I couldn’t have said it better myself. She’s articulating what so many, just common sense, fiscally-conservative, independent Americans are thinking is “Come on Republicans.”

If you can’t get the fire lit underneath this base and get them convinced that Barack Obama’s lack of a plan to get us out of these economically woeful times, if you can’t get your message through that filter of the media, then we’re in a world of hurt.

O’REILLY: Ok. What is the Republican Party not doing based upon the convention and they — and the race so far that they should be doing?

PALIN: We’re not explaining to the rest of America who thinks that they’re going to get a bunch of free stuff from Obama that you have a choice. You either get free stuff or you get freedom. You cannot have both and you need to make a choice.

And if we could explain and get that message through to people that there is no such thing as a free lunch and that we are an insolvent nation when you consider us being $16 trillion in debt, we’re broke. We can’t keep continuing down this path.

Well, again, we’re in a world of hurt if we can’t get that explanation to the public, to the voters regarding what the choices are and —

O’REILLY: Is it — is it possible, though, that the country has changed with 50 percent of American homes receiving some kind of welfare means tested? Not — we’re not talking Medicare, Social Security. Half, all right, of the population now somewhat dependent on the federal and state governments.

Is it possible that the message is, I want the stuff, I’ll sacrifice freedom? Is that possible?

PALIN: Well, it’s possible that we are so far down that road, Bill, yes, that the majority of Americans could potentially —

O’REILLY: Ok so it is possible that — no matter how vehemently the message is said, ok because I don’t know if that’s to you or not. But I know the demographics are changing and I know the Obama administration is basically targeting Hispanic Americans, women, African-Americans and labor union people to try to get the coalition of the willing to win the election so that the population is changing.

The second thing is, should Mitt Romney go after Barack Obama more — in a more personal way? Should he use words like incompetent, dangerous, socialist, those kinds of buzz words that would get an enormous amount of attention? That would lock people in, should he do that?

PALIN: Well and they’re not just buzz words, those are accurate descriptions of our commander-in-chief.

O’REILLY: So you’re saying yes, he should do that?

PALIN: Yes, he should be very aggressive and he should be adamant in his attacks on Obama’s record, which is so dismal, his plan or lack of a plan of Obama’s to get us out of these woeful times. Yes, he needs to be severely aggressive in his — in his articulation.

But listen, you know, you bring up those demographics and what — what they’re representing in terms of perhaps wanting some free stuff. You need to remember, America is still center right.

Proof of that is look at how Obama has to couch his message. He has to lie to pretend that he is for fiscal sanity and strong national defense and those center right positions that the vast majority of Americans stand for. Obama has to pretend like he is that in order to get that base.


PALIN: They do have to bring it directly to Obama personally, a reflection of what he stands for and his record proves what he stands for. He is for growing this big disconnected, dysfunctional debt-ridden government and disempowering the individual. That’s what Obama and the left stands for. So no he haven’t —

O’REILLY: But you got to use those buzz words. You got to say socialist, you got to do that to get people’s attention.

PALIN: You — and what they have to do is they have to lay out the choice for the American public. They have to tell us, are you for empowering the individual or are you for this nonsense of Barack Obama’s of growing this dysfunctional debt-ridden, $16 trillion in debt, this government, which one do you want, people?

Read more.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Limbaugh: “If Obama Wins, It’s End Of GOP, Start Of (Palinite?) 3rd Party.” Viable? History Says Yes.

Posted by M.Joseph Sheppard At Palin4President2016 on September 11, 2012

Here’s Doug Brady at Conservatives4Palin with his analysis of Rush Limbaugh’s comments regarding the coming third party should Romney lose. It may be that the converse is equally correct-if Romney wins, and doesn’t deliver i.e. flip- flops, then that would probably ensure the emergence of a genuine third party even more quickly than an Obama victory would.

Is a third party option viable? After Brady’s post I show that in my opinion, based on historical data analysis, it most certainly is.

Categorized | Opinion

Rush Limbaugh: “If Obama wins, it’s the end of the Republican Party”

Posted on September 11 2012 – 5:17 PM – Posted by: | Follow Doug on Twitter!

He went on to refer to MSNBC host Chris Matthews saying last week that an Obama re-election would mean the end of conservatism. “Nope,” Limbaugh disagreed, “if Obama wins, it’s the end of the Republican Party.”

“There’s going to be a third party that’s going to be orientated towards conservatism — or Rand Paul thinks libertarianism,” he continued. “If Obama wins, the Republican Party will try to maneuver things so conservatives get blamed. The only problem is right now, Romney is not running a conservative campaign.”

“But they’re going to set it up, ‘Well, the right sat home, the right made Romney be other than he is.’ They’ll try to deflect the blame, but they got who they want,” he said of the Republican Party’s selection of Mitt Romney for president.

Rush is right on a number of levels. If the Mittster loses, the Republican Establishment will indeed blame conservatives. In 2016 they’ll be pushing their next “Mitt Romney”.   Jon Huntsman, anyone? But, as Rush notes, the Republican Establishment got their guy, and if he loses, it sure as hell won’t be the fault of conservatives. It’ll be the logical end result of a party whose powers-that-be are embarrassed by conservatism, and are doing everything they can to purge conservatives from their ranks. Go figure that conservatives are less than enthused about supporting their anointed one. And whenever conservatives feel inclined to cut the Mittster some “ABO” slack, his penchant for saying stupid things like this is a stark reminder of why they didn’t trust him in the first place.

Whether or not an Obama victory sends the Republicans the way of the Whigs is anyone’s guess, but it certainly should.  I for one won’t shed any tears, and will actively support a third party oriented toward constitutional, limited government conservatism. Conservatism triumphs every time it’s tried, but unfortunately those running the show in the party that purports to be the home of conservatism have made it crystal clear that conservatives are no longer welcome. Click below to watch Rush’s comments:

(h/t Steve)

Sarah Palin said a third party option is not beyond the realm of possibility.

When asked if she would consider creating a third party if neither Gov. Romney nor President Obama would budge from their current positions on a variety of issues, Palin left open the door. “Look what happened in the mid 1800’s. The Whig party went away and the Republican Party surfaced. Because the electorate got sick and tired of the party fighting for power and not doing the will of the people.” Palin went on to say history could repeat itself. ” If history is an indication it is a possibility,” she said. “If the Republicans don’t remember what the planks in the platform represent … that is opportunity to prosper and thrive in the most exceptional nation in the world. We do that through a free market.

If the Republicans become like the liberal left and democrats, I wouldn’t be surprised if history didn’t repeat itself.”

If Mitt Romney wins and institutes policies which are no different from the Obama administrations, and the 2014 mid-terms are a similar expression of Tea Party disgust as was the 2012 landslide, then a conservative third party for 2016 is highly probable. Given the near impossible odds against unseating a sitting president at a convention, as the example of Taft and Carter, who were highly unpopular, proved, as they both withstood challenges from hugely high profile opposition (Roosevelt and Kennedy) it would be foolish for the Tea Party to take that route.

On the other hand, if Romney loses this November (and the “progressive” left is unhappy with Obama’s second term) and the establishment tries to foist another similar candidate (or heaven forbid, Romney once again) on the rank and file in 2016, then yes, by all means, let the Beltway have their way. Then the Tea Party, in coalition with perhaps the Paulites could well start a third party.

Even with massive enthusiasm behind such a movement, history shows that victory first time up would be unlikely (although a massive economic dislocation would prove an exceptional catalyst). Teddy Roosevelt crushed the Republican establishment in 1912 but lost heavily to the Dem’s, La Follete had substantial enthusiasm but did poorly in the Electoral College, as did Perot and George Wallace.

The new Republican Party lost in their first outing, whilst performing credibly, and after the next election became the major force in presidential politics for the next 50 years. Thus the Whigs, who displaced the Federalists, and the Republicans prove that a new party can, if there is a major social shift, not only do well but can become a dominant force.

Below are illustrations of how a new party could eclipse the GOP as it now stands and win in 2016, although 2020 in a straight two party race would seem more likely. The major question would be whether, if the new party did well but did not win, it could stay around for another run, unlike Roosevelt’s Progressive Party. Thus those who might consider a new party would have to also consider the massive commitment it would require.

The question arises, would a third party run give it a realistic chance of winning the presidency in 2016?

The answer is, yes if the environment if right. If by November 2014 the economy is not better than now, or has turned down further, and if Romney were president, then a three way vote split is quite possible.

This approximates the three party (Dem/Bull Moose/GOP) 1912 election. That election was prevented being thrown in the House because sitting President Taft only carried two states, but split the vote with Roosevelt 23% to 27% denying Roosevelt enough electoral votes to deny Wilson an outright win.

Whereas the scenario below, realistically for the scene over 100 years later, shows the GOP candidate winning enough electoral votes to ensure no candidate had a majority.

Given a genuine conservative, like Palin, headed a mass movement third party run, and a split in the left was exacerbated to the point that the “Progressives” stayed home on election day, and the Tea Party turned out en-mass, then the map below (with the prospective third party states in beige) is a very plausible result.

In this scenario the Dem candidate would not have the 270 electoral college votes needed for outright victory. Under the constitution, the GOP standard bearer,the Dem, and the third party candidate would, presuming no other candidate had any electoral college votes, (they would be eliminated from the balloting as only the top three go through for consideration) be the candidates the House would decide from.

Every state would have one vote based on the result of each states party representation. Thus, for example New York’s one vote would go to Obama and Wyoming’s one vote would go to e.g. Palin or whomever the conservative was. It would be presumed that the votes of the states that Republican had won would go to the conservative, if after the first ballot no candidate had a majority of states votes, and if the conservative was the second choice of voters as per the map below.

Given it would be unlikely that the GOP would lose control of the House in the 2012/14 elections thus, on the most recent analysis, the GOP would have a majority of the 50 states votes based on caucus outcomes when balloting. If Romney were president and the Dem’s controlled the majority of state delegations then 2020 would be the year of transition

This scenario played out before. In the election of 1824 Andrew Jackson finished first with more electoral votes than John Quincy Adams, William Crawford came third and Henry Clay fourth. With Clay eliminated he threw the support of his states to Adams, who was duly elected, based on the fact of his having the majority of states.

Interestingly the combined Adams/Clay popular vote was 43.9% to Jackson’s 41.3% so in effect electoral justice was done. Similarly in the map below the combined non-Dem electoral vote is 278-eight above the minimum of 270, and thus electoral justice would also have been done 187 years later.

The full constitutional scenario is set out below the map.”Undecided” means third party and the map represents a 2016 scenario disregarding Obama as the Democratic candidate. In the ensuing map from 1912 it clearly shows how a sitting president can only carry two states as did Taft so the scenario is entirely plausible.

Wilson received 41.7% of the vote and 435 Electoral College votes/Roosevelt 27.4 and 88/Taft 23.2% and 8. Thus Roosevelt/Taft had a popular vote majority (The Socialist Debs received 6%)

The constitution is very clear on the matter. Article 12 states, inter- alia:

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

Thus, if the no candidate with an electoral college majority scenario plays out, and presuming there are no other candidates who have won electoral votes, the House would meet to choose the next president by January 20th 2017, with the states having one vote each, whilst the Senate would meet to choose the Vice-President.

Based on the current composition of the House, and if voting went strictly on party lines, with no vote switching or abstentions in states with a close proportion of Republicans and Democrats, the Independent (or third party) candidate would be chosen on the first or second ballot.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Unimpeachable Leftist Silver At N.Y.Times”538″ Shows Statistical Proof That Palin Didn’t Cause McCain’s Loss

Posted by M.Joseph Sheppard At Palin4President2016 on September 11, 2012


Nate Silver, the resident psephologist at the New York Times “538” poll analysis and political comment column lays to rest, hopefully permanently, the leftist nonesense, that meme that “Sarah Palin caused McCain to lose the 2008 election.”

The source, Nate Silver of the New York Times (hardly a Palin supporter site), being a Dem who made his reputation at the far left Palin hate site “Daily Kos,” and in fact because of it, makes the following of value.

I see it as a counter to the “Palin cost McCain the election” rubbish which shows up often on leftists’ sites and Twitter.  After Palin’s nomination, and during the inter-period between that and the Lehman collapse, the  McCain/Palin team were in the lead.

Here, from a statistician and especially because he is a leftie, is his confirmation of what caused McCain to lose, which can be thrown back at anti-Palin posters.

Rather, it was what the model did in September of that year, when it detectedvery, very quickly after the collapse of Lehman Brothers that John McCain’s goose was cooked, with Barack Obama’s projected probability of winning the Electoral College increasing by about 25 percent in a period of just 48 hours.

This follows on from his previous analysis:

And in 2008, it’s not quite clear what would have happened if not for the collapse of Lehman Brothers, which occurred about two weeks after the party conventions. Mr. Obama very probably still would have won, but it might have been by a smaller margin had the economic problems not become so acute so quickly.

Here are the actual figures and history from 2008:

When the GOP convention opened on September 1st 2008, with the first day cancelled like the 2012 Tampa conventions, candidate Obama had a 4 and a half point lead over John McCain 48.8 to 44.3.

On the first real day of the convention McCain was behind Obama by a huge 6.4 points 49.2 to 42.8.

In four days from Sarah Palin’s vice-presidential nomination acceptance speech on September 3rd, on September 7th, the McCain/Palin team went into the lead by 1 point 46.7 to Obama’s 45.7.

On the 9th day from the opening of the convention the McCain/Palin lead was 2.4 points over Obama and huge turnaround from the 6.4 point deficit.

Thus Palin’s acceptance speech saw a 9% increase in support from the night of her address for McCain/Palinand at its height the McCain/Palin convention bounce was 3.7 points.

  OBAMA              McCAIN/PALIN


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Sarah Palin 2016 Lumbar & Throw Pillows – Surely A Must-Have For Every Home

Posted by M.Joseph Sheppard At Palin4President2016 on September 11, 2012

These have just surfaced from a speciality political novelty site. Kudo’s for the creativity and yes, I can certainly see an order on the way from MJS!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Palin: Remember the Victims of September 11

Posted by Jackie Siciliano on September 11, 2012

Earlier today, via her Facebook page, Sarah Palin requested prayers for our military men and women who continue to protect us as well as prayers for the families affected by the tragedy of September 11th, 2001.

We remember that eleven years ago today nearly three thousand of our fellow Americans were killed by evil men. Every year on the anniversary of 9-11, we read out the names of those who died and comfort their families, and at military recruiting centers throughout the country, young men and women choose this day to enlist to serve their fellow Americans and ensure that something like this never
happens again. While some try to move on with their lives and let the tragedy of that day recede in their memories, our men and women in uniform remain ever vigilant for us.

Today, let’s take time to remember the victims of September 11. Let’s say a prayer for their families. Let’s comfort their children left behind. And let’s also remember our men and women in uniform who enlist to protect us from tragedies like this. Let’s remember that American troops are still fighting in Afghanistan now, and they’re dying this year at an average of one a day. Let’s never forget the heavy price they pay to keep us free. – Sarah Palin

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Remembering the Victims of the 9/11 Attacks and Saying “Never Again!”

Posted by Dr. Fay on September 11, 2012

None of us will ever forget the moments in which we learned about the plane crashes on September 11, 2001 or the days and weeks of national grief that followed. It was a time of sorrow for our loss, a time of flag-waving patriotism, and a time of seeking the face of a Higher Power. Even though our country is now deeply divided, September 11 each year is the day we all remember the victims of these terroristic attacks.  And each year at this time, we are also reminded of the continuing threats from terrorist groups around the globe.

Before the 9/11 attacks, the World Trade Center was a bustling place with an estimated 50,000 people working there and another 200,000 visiting on each weekday.  The Twin Towers stood 110 stories high, a prominent feature of the New York City skyline.

The horrors of that day were watched on live TV, and many observers recorded their own video footage of the burning first tower, followed by the plane crashing into the second tower, and then the collapse of both towers.  One person even recorded the sound of the impact of the first airplane.

Ten years after the attacks, the National 9/11 Memorial was dedicated last year. Twin reflecting pools occupy the space where the twin towers once stood. They are surrounded by bronze panels on which are engraved the names of the victims of the Twin Tower, Pentagon, and Flight 93 attacks.  A panoramic view of the 9/11 Memorial can be viewed here.

The 104-story One World Trade Center, which will be 1,776 feet tall when finished, is nearing completion and is expected to open in 2014. Photos and description can be found here. First named the Freedom Tower by Gov. George Pataki in 2003, the structure was given its current name amidst some controversy by the ground zero owners in 2009.

A third plane crashed into the Pentagon and killed 184 people. President George W. Bush presided at the dedication of the National 9/11 Pentagon Memorial on September 11, 2008. A full description of the memorial event can be found here, and photos from the event can be found here.

A fourth plane was on its way to Washington, D. C., perhaps to crash into the Capitol or the White House, but due to the bravery of the 40 passengers on board, it landed instead in a field in Shanksburg, Pennsylvania, killing all those on board. Having learned about the attacks on the Twin Towers, the passengers realized the plane was part of a coordinated terror attack.  So they rushed the cockpit and caused the plane to crash. The words of Todd Beamer heard over the phone are a rallying cry even today: “Let’s roll!”

The Flight 93 National Memorial, which is still about 1/3 completed, was dedicated on September 10, 2010. Former Presidents Bush and Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden were present at the event. The full text of President Bush’s memorable speech can be found here.

This year again, there will be commemorative ceremonies at each of the three memorials to remember the 2998 lives that were lost on that fateful day. And this year, as every year since the attacks, America will collectively say, “Never again!”

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »