Video: Jedediah Bila skewers Julianne Moore for dissing Sarah Palin when receiving an Emmy for “Game Change”

.

Interview With Sarah Palin At DWTS (Video)

.

VIEW VIDEO HERE

.

.

Emmy Awards For “Game Change’ Should Be For Special ” Leftist Hatchet Job Palin Hit Piece Fantasy”

The Emmys have gone, oh so predictably, to the leftist crew who created the Palin hit piece “Game Change”.

Julianne Moore ungraciously gets a dig in at Palin and says she is now “validated” but the only thing “validated’ is the proof of the leftist hatchet job on Palin. As if the kudos from leftist Hollywood is a validation of anything except their agenda.

The actress won the Emmy for outstanding lead actress in a miniseries or movie, and she told the audience that she felt “so validated since Sarah Palin gave me a big thumbs down.”

Although the left is awarding and rewarding itself, the last laugh is surely on them. The production was clearly designed to hit Palin during her 2012 presidential run. That that did not happen must have created groans of disappointment, and hopefully, big losses for the production company.

Should Palin decide to run four years from now, the actual events, and the fictional events created by Hollywood will be a long forgotten, irrelevant memory. Palin will have the last laugh as the media, including McGinniss et al and their enablers amongst the Dems and Hollywood, will have shot their respective bolts with no “scandals” to dredge up about Palin.

Here are some links to the truth behind “Game Change,” courtesy of Conservatives4Palin commenters:

Some great articles about the (fiction) movie ‘Game Change’.
————

‘The Truth HBO’s ‘Game Change’ Hides: Palin Carried McCain Until He Changed the Game’

From the article:

“I briefly served as a volunteer speechwriter on the McCain-Palin campaign in 2008. I was never part of the inner circle, and even if I had “dirt” to dish, I wouldn’t dare violate the confidentiality agreement I signed – even though that hasn’t stopped some former McCain campaign aides from publicly blaming Gov. Sarah Palin for everything that went wrong.

But here’s the truth about the McCain-Palin campaign, which HBO’s upcoming “Game Change” film attempts to shroud in fanciful anti-Palin fiction: Palin carried the campaign.

She would have led the Republicans to victory had it not been for the September financial collapse and McCain’s disastrous decision to suspend his campaign so that he could vote for the TARP bailout in Washington. After the bailout vote, support for the Republican ticket collapsed. “

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-H…

From the article:

“Well, now we know who one of those bomb-throwing cowards is, Steve Schmidt, who HBO portrays as the calm, cool, reasonable hero of the film.

In real life, however, it’s no secret that he was the “super-genius” behind (“Schmidt pushed for going all in”) the moment polls prove really lost the 2008 election; when Senator McCain foolishly decided to suspend his campaign and run back to DC to save the economy. “

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-H…

‘Whom Do You Believe? HBO or Gallup?’

From the article:

“Despite the premise of “Game Change” – that Sarah Palin cost John McCain the 2008 presidential election – Gallup polls prove HBO’s assertion categorically false. Palin wasn’t the reason the Republicans lost the election.

She’s the only reason they had a fighting chance up until the time McCain suspended his presidential campaign in late September.

Some were intrigued as to how McCain’s decision would play out in the polls, but once he suspended his campaign in late September he never recaptured the lead he enjoyed with the breaking news of recruiting Palin.

It was downhill from there.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-H…

Here are two earlier pieces setting out some of the background to this misbegotten enterprise. which is as hollow as the “awards” should be. Any recipient will be receiving a tainted award which will be seen as valueless except as a Goebbel’s type propaganda piece.

Entertainment Tonight AT THIS LINK has a glowing puff piece up on the entire cast of the Palin hatchet job “Game Change’ with particular emphasis on Julianne Moore’s chances of an Emmy. I completely agree that her win is “assured,” as why would the leftist crew who produced this hatchet job miss another chance to stick the knife into the female Emmanuel Goldstein they and the media have created.

Continuing on with their fantasy Palin, they  now have Nicole Wallace as Palin’s “punching bag” which suits the make believe world of Hollywood. 

What we have never seen are the financial reports on this turkey of a production. How much did it cost to make and how much did it garner? If it had made a profit, no doubt the left would have shouted it from the rooftops. 

The only good thing about this Hollywood scare flick is that the groans from the financial backers that must have ensued when Palin announced she would not run in 2012 must have been enormous. 

They thought they would finish her campaign off with this fable whilst protecting Obama, but all that has happened is that the public have seen the relentless attacks for what they are whilst Palin continues to grow in popularity, as the poll AT THIS LINK  shows.

From Conservatives4Palin:

Emmys Seek to Prop HBO’s Dying Flop

Steve Flesher

.
Whenever a subject comes along celebrated by the left wing, you can always count on one final rescue when it ultimately loses with the American people.

.
The writers of Game Change and the accompanying surrogates in Hollywood who turned it into a film worked hard to keep their narrative on schedule.  In the free market of art (that’s the nicer way to describe a work of fiction), many folks invested a lot of money and effort in trying to make this thing work.

.
After the movie was hyped to the gills, it disappointed in ratings.  As reported at Breitbart, a disappointing 2.1M viewers tuned in to watch.  Contrast this overly-hyped propaganda piece with Sarah Palin’s Alaska which brought in 5M viewers in a single episode — or when Palin gave Oprah her largest viewing audience in two years when appearing on her show in 2009 — or when SNL was given its biggest ratings in more than a decade when the real Sarah Palin made an appearance.

..
The result is apparent.  While the real Sarah Palin is a massive hit with the American people, the poorly-portrayed and sold out version through the avenues of smear books and films seem to all share the same fate of utter-floppery.

.
So I expected some type of politically correct recognition which falls in line with that of a room-monitor handing out prizes to all the kids just for participating.

.

This was done this week when the Emmys announced that Game Change had earned 12 award nominations.  Julianne Moore now stands to win an award previously earned by Tyra Banks.

.
I don’t mean to knock soap opera actresses who grace the screens of daytime TV, but when multi-million dollar productions are forced to share space with the likes of day-timers like Maury Povich, it’s easy to see where the legacy of the subject is headed.

.
To better explain the prestige of the Emmys, an article written by Joel Keller says:  (Emphasis)

.
“As big a deal as the Emmys are to people who are TV geeks like us, in the grand scheme of things, it feels less essential than most of the other major awards shows. The winners are often forgotten a few weeks after the hardware is given out, to the point where it’s a surprise to find out who is an Emmy winner and who isn’t (for instance, did you remember that Patricia Arquette is an Emmy winner? Neither did we; she won in 2005 for “Medium”).”

.
[…]

.
“But when it comes down to Emmys vs. Oscars, it’s a bit more complicated than just TV vs. movies. Even though both academies give a ton of awards, the Oscars are more defined. There are no separate awards for best comedy, best drama, or best indie movie. It’s just best picture, best actor, best actress, etc. Natalie Portman was the best leading film actress last year, period. It’s that distinction that makes Oscar winners stick in people’s minds more.”

.
In other words, the Emmys seem to create categories to fill its time.  Television shows and TV-movies are a dime a dozen.  As such, many varying categories and sub-categories are required to fill an award show and they are divided between daytime and prime time.

.
Accordingly, it’s no shock that the Emmys were able to hand out 12 award nominations to the creators of Game Change.   Based on its awful ratings, all that’s left is a little recognition from an auditorium filled with prime time sitcom experiments preceded by salacious talk show hosts and caddy soap opera queens.

.
After all is said and done, the consequences of this fact-changing hit piece seem positioned to fall on the predators.  Millions of dollars are down the drain, recognition from the American public is lacking, and the intended target is still going strong.

.
Hope springs eternal.

Hannity Interview Mystery Explained:What Sarah Palin Was Doing In Las Vegas( With Captivating Photo)

Sarah Palin’s interview with Sean Hannity last week showed clearly she was in Las Vegas. With no speaking or campaign schedule in place there was speculation as to why she was there (a secret meeting with pro-Israel conservative Sheldon Adelson  to discuss 2016 perhaps?). 

The mystery was solved with the information below coming to light with an engaging photograph of Sarah.

Sarah Palin was at an Off Road Race in Las Vegas.  Todd is a fan of Off Road Racing and went to the Baja 1000. Sarah Palin was the Lucas Oil Las Vegas Off Road Race today and this guy got a picture taken with her.

 

Palin Advises Romney/Ryan To “Go Rogue” To Break Through Leftist Media Filter

.

Commentator “Usually Right” is completely right with observations on Sarah Palin’s advice to the Romney /Ryan ticket to “Go Rogue”. And, of course, the supposedly “irrelevant” Palin comes under a barrage of Twitter attacks which are obviously coordinated.  Her power over the leftist mind is still undiminished.

.Saturday, September 22, 2012

Sarah Palin (and Bill Barker) Implore Mitt Romney to Listen

In a statement to The Weekly Standard, former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin offers some advice for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, this year’s Republican ticket for president and vice president, respectively.

.

“With so much at stake in this election, both Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan should ‘go rogue’ and not hold back from telling the American people the true state of our economy and national security,” says Palin.

.

What I continue to find amazing is that my good friend Rob – and indeed many otherwise bright, sophisticated people I know and respect – has nothing but contempt for Sarah Palin.

.

Why?

.

They respect me and my views. They know that even if my analysis of a particular situation differs from theirs that chances are I possess more “nuts and bolts” knowledge upon which to base my analysis than they do to back their opinion!

.

And I love Palin!

.

I love Palin because she’s right far more often than she’s wrong!

.

Sarah Palin has integrity. She’s not always right… she’s not always perfect… but for a politician she’s pretty damn impressive when I rate her on the things that count for me.

“They need to continue to find ways to break through the filter of the liberal media to communicate their message of reform.”

Isn’t that what I do here at Usually Right… day in… day out?

.

Palin also suggests that Romney and Ryan can be responsible for an epiphany on this country’s fiscal standing. “America desperately needs to have a ‘come to Jesus’ moment in discussing our big dysfunctional, disconnected, and debt-ridden federal government,” says Palin.

.

And… she’s… right…!!!

.

It’s the constant lying, misrepresenting, coddling, and pandering to the worst aspects of human nature that most politicians engage in that has led to the place we’re in now here in America!

.

It is nothing short of appalling that President Obama couldn’t even remember how much our national debt is during his interview with David Letterman the other night. Even my 10-year-old daughter knows that it’s $16 trillion, and unlike Obama, she’s not responsible for adding trillions to it. Obama casually told America that we don’t have to worry about our debt in the ‘short term.’ Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan need to ask him how long that ‘short term’ will last.”

.

Listen… folks… you know my opinion of Romney and you know I was never one of the Ryan worshipers… but for God’s sake, compared to Obama, Biden, Reid, and Pelosi…

.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

.

Palin adds that Romney and Ryan are being “counted on” to get this right.

.

The problem is… I’m not at all sure they can be counted on to get this right. And even if they try, understand people, the mainstream media has been acting and will continue to act as an auxiliary wing of the Obama campaign and Democratic National Committee.

.

At the founding of our country, a great American patriot wrote, ‘If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace,'” says Palin. “Obama’s motto seems to be, ‘Let the good times roll in my day. The kids can deal with the catastrophic bankruptcy in theirs.’ That’s no way for the leader of a great nation to behave, and I hope Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney continue to call him out on it. Generations of American children are counting on them.

Amen.

Video: Palin On Obama’s Mishandling of the Middle East Crisis on Hannity Tonight

The Most Popular (Increasingly So – Why?) Palin Article: “How Palin Could Win Electoral College”(With Map)

The article reposted below: “Census Bureau Electoral College 2012 Map Shows Palin’s Eleven Vote Win” has proven to be the most popular ever posted on the M.Joseph Sheppard’s “A Point Of View” site. It was reposted at “The Sarah Palin Information Blog” site also in December 2010.

Surprisingly, pleasantly, and somewhat mystifyingly, it is growing substantially in page views even though Palin is not running.

The article was written at a time when it was considered  that Palin might make a run for the GOP’s nomination in 2012, and of course, for the presidency should she have been successful at gaining the nomination.

Given the voting history of the states assigned to Palin in the Electoral College map, it was entirely feasible that she could have won the required number of EC votes to have reached the 270 needed to be elected (irrespective of the popular vote). 

The article garnered a bit of interest at both sites, and readership declined precipitously (and of course understandably so), after Palin declared she would not be a candidate in October 2011. But, astonishingly and interestingly, the readership of the post has since increased strikingly! Commencing with an uptick in May of this year, and accelerating to over 4000 page views for August and September to date, as per the analysis below from the SPIB site..

Months and Years

	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
2010												95	95
2011	71	78	71	80	34	48	99	26	67	22	44	37	677
2012	118	199	117	109	367	365	363	1,393	2,619				5,650

.

The article has not been front page on either site since it was first posted so for thousands of page views to have happened recently, (a total of over 9000 between the two sites since published), means that people are searching for the article. Perhaps and possibly more likely, they search for an Electoral College map pertaining to the current Obama vs Romney campaign, and upon seeing the link to the post, are clicking on it.
This raises the question as to why that is happening. Does it mean that people are interested in “what might have been” and, given the election is soon upon, want a comparison to the current Electoral College maps which are showing President Obama with a substantial lead? Are Republicans looking towards 2016 should Romney lose and judging whether Palin would be better placed to win under those circumstances?

The fact that there is such interest in the possibility of a Palin campaign -when she is not running now – shows, indisputably,  that there is huge interest in the possibility of a future run to the degree that people wish to see exactly how a Palin run could bring victory. The map, in my opinion, shows a more than viable path to an election win for Palin.

Here is the original post from December 2010

The final 2012 Census Bureau Electoral College adjustments are now in and we can take a preview snapshot of what the most likely result will be for Sarah Palin. 

With the population shifts and a net Republican states gain of 6 electoral votes over the 2008 allocation Palin would assume the presidency with an eleven electoral vote margin.

There is room therefore to lose Colorado or Iowa and still win comfortably.

.

Salon’s Joan Walsh Shows Palin/Ryan Bias & Poor Understanding Of Election History

Apart from her utter liberal bias and Palin disdain being on the wrong side of history, Salon’s Joan Walsh shows an ignorance, or perhaps a wilful blindness, towards presidential election history.

In her efforts to attack the Romney/Ryan ticket, Walsh posits that Ryan may be having buyer’s remorse about having signed up for the 2012 run, and that his future presidential prospects may have been irreversibly dimmed because he answered Romney’s siren song.

She points out that “there’s not much of a market for losing VP candidates” in her exposition as to how Ryan’s career prospects may well be reduced, and then follows this up with a bit of pseudo-history for the uninformed:

“There’s not much of a national market for used V.P. candidates who lost the election. He can talk to Dan Quayle (who admittedly won once), John Edwards, Joe Lieberman and Sarah Palin for advice.  Only one losing-ticket V.P. in American history, the extraordinary Franklin Delano Roosevelt, has gone on to be elected president.”

Rather than let polemics get in the way of proper historical research, lets take a look at the facts. In the past 100 years there have been 25 losing VP candidates  -the full list is below. Of the 25,  five had no chance of being elected because they were dead four years after their VP run, so yes, in their case, there was not much of a market for whatever services they might have been able to provide in their condition.

 

There was a market for three – FDR/Mondale/Dole one of whom won, so the percent of those who ran and won is not too bad especially considering Mondale and Dole were up against hopeless odds. So there were 17 others who were “unmarketable,” one whom the jury is still out on. Actually 16 unmarketables, because Earl Warren was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which some may consider to be a better job than president, especially as it is not term-limited.

 

So the 16 unmarketables are, as Walsh would surely certainly admit, if she were honest about it, or had bothered to look at the list dispassionately, just that – unmarketable, and would never have been considered as presidential nominees. Most were put on the ticket to be geographical ballast, e.g. the never-to-be-remembered William Miller. Some for political favors, e.g. William Jennings Bryan’s brother Charles Bryan. The unspeakable John Edwards’ marketability speaks for itself.

 

So to correct Walsh, there is a market for those who have run for vice-president and lost, but who have realistic chances of getting the nomination. Much as Walsh would not like to admit it, one such is Sarah Palin. 

 

Vice-presidential candidates who lost since 1912*:

 

1912 Nicholas Butler. No nationwide media attacks on him.

1916 Charles Fairbanks. No attacks four years later because he was dead, but unlikely there would have been any anyway.

1920 F.D. R. (Before he was F.D.R.) Plenty of attacks in New York state but nationwide-nothing.

1924 Charles Bryan. Who? (actually W J Bryan’s brother).

1928 Joe Robinson. Nope, nothing happened.

1932 Charles Curtis. See Fairbanks.

1936 Frank Knox. Nothing happening for Frank nationwide, negative media wise.

1940 Charles McNary. See Curtis/Fairbanks.

1944 John Bricker. Didn’t suffer from adverse media attacks.

1948 Earl Warren. Plenty of media attacks when he was Supreme Court head but not presidential election attacks.

1952 John Sparkman. No sparks.

1956 Estes Kefauver. See Curtis et al. Mortality rate surprisingly high for losing VP candidates.

1960 Henry Lodge. Too patrician to be attacked.

1964 William Miller. Who?

1968 Edmund Muskie. Faded into political oblivion. 

1972 Sargent Shriver. Too likable to be attacked and never taken seriously as a candidate.

1976 Bob Dole. Nice gentleman who the media would have been seen as bullies picking on ex post facto.

1980 Walter Mondale. No personality to attack.

1984 Geraldine Ferraro. From obscurity and back again. Also the days when women were not fair game.

1988 Lloyd Bentsen. No point in attacking the harmless, dignified, old gentleman.

1992 Dan Quayle. Same as Bentsen but young/undignified.

1996 Jack Kemp. No threat to anyone and too nice a guy to attack for no discernible reason.

2000 Joe Lieberman. Not a nationwide candidate possibility but attacked in Connecticut by his own party.

2004 John Edwards. Beyond any possibility of being attacked politically as utterly dead politically.

2008-2012. Sarah Palin. Attacked without any remorse or ethics, and often any discernible reason, from her national debut to this very day. Hated by the leftist media/Dems/Hollywood (all one and the same). Not running for any office four years from VP nod, yet would have had, surely more attacks than any previous candidate either during campaign and afterwards.

Fair use notice: This website contains copyrighted material, the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Excerpts of such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this website is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Original material published on this website may be excerpted and the excerpt reproduced for the purpose of critical reviews. However, such original material may not be reproduced in full on another website or in any manner without prior approval from this website’s owner. In all cases when material from this website is reproduced in full or in part, the author and website must be credited by name and a hyperlink provided to this website.

 

Jon Stewart Considers MEast Crisis & Attacks Palin! No Losing VP In 100 Years Was Attacked 4 Years Later By National Media. Why?

Jon Stewart reviews the Middle East crisis and attacks….Sarah Palin!  Ditto the Washington Post on Palin’s views on economics.These are just two recent incidences of literally hundreds of anti-Palin comments in various media.

The question must be asked, yet again, that if Palin is supposedly irrelevant and will never hold office again, etc., etc., why is she the subject of unprecedented attacks from the leftist media and the Dems?

Which losing VP candidate was the subject of an attack by a previous presidential candidate for the opposing party at their convention four years later? Which losing VP candidate was included in a hate figure video at such a convention as Palin was? Sort of like an Emmanuel Goldstein 3-minute hate film with the ensuing boos.

Nobody from either major party in the last 100 years has been the subject of continuing, nasty, and seemingly endless attacks four years after their losing run. Something new, strange, and frankly unsettling in its ramifications has happened. Frankly, the media and the left in general have become unhinged by the ex-Governor of a far-away state. Here’s the proof of a one hundred year situation which is totally unprecedented and mysterious:


Vice-presidential candidates who lost since 1912*

1912 Nicholas Butler. No nationwide media attacks on him.
1916 Charles Fairbanks. No attacks four years later because he was dead, but unlikely there would not have been any anyway.
1920 F.D. R. (Before he was F.D.R.) Plenty of attacks in New York state but nationwide – nothing.
1924 Charles Bryan. Who? (actually W J Bryan’s brother)
1928 Joe Robinson. Nope, nothing happened
1932 Charles Curtis. See Fairbanks
1936 Frank Knox. Nothing happening for Frank nationwide negative media wise
1940 Charles McNary. See Curtis/Fairbanks
1944 John Bricker. Didn’t suffer from adverse media attacks
1948 Earl Warren. Plenty of media attacks when he was Supreme Court head but not presidential election attacks.
1952 John Sparkman. No sparks.
1956 Estes Kefauver. See Curtis et al. Mortality rate surprisingly high for losing VP candidates.
1960 Henry Lodge. Too patrician to be attacked.
1964 William Miller. Who?
1968 Edmund Muskie. Faded into political oblivion. 
1972 Sargent Shriver. Too likeable to be attacked and never taken seriously as a candidate.
1976 Bob Dole. Nice gentleman who the media would have been seen as bullies by picking on ex post facto.
1980 Walter Mondale. No personality to attack.
1984 Geraldine Ferraro. From obscurity and back again. Also the days when women were not fair game.
1988 Lloyd Bentsen. No point in attacking the harmless, dignified, old gentleman.
1992 Dan Quayle. Same as Bentsen but young/undignified.
1996 Jack Kemp. No threat to anyone and too nice a guy to attack for no discernible reason.
2000 Joe Lieberman. Not a nationwide candidate possibility but attacked in Connecticut by his own party.
2004 John Edwards. Beyond any possibility of being attacked politically as utterly dead politically.

2008-2012. Sarah Palin. Attacked without any remorse or ethics, and often any discernible reason, from her national début to this very day. Hated by the leftist media/Dems/Hollywood (all one and the same).  Not running for any office four years from VP nod, yet would have had surely more attacks than any previous candidate either during campaign and afterwards.

* This list is created under the definition of “rhetorical device” as so defined.

.
This is, of course, beyond any logical explanation and lies in the field of psychology rather than psephology. Unless, of course, there is an underlying fear amongst the left in its various guises that Palin remains a threat to them. 

They must surely perceive her as having enough influence to unseat their candidates, or, at some future time, may run for the presidency. If she was not a threat under either one of those scenarios, then the question must be asked, is their something fundamentally unhinged amongst the denizens of the leftist media?

Columnist Suzie Parker touched on this in a recent article on Palin. The hint that the cause of the left’s “vitriol” is fear is well founded I think, but still comes with a tint of manic irrationality:

The problem isn’t her or even some of the Republican insiders who might malign her in the media. The problem is the vitriolic nature of the Democratic attacks that would almost instantly come to dominate all of the campaign coverage, if she were to engage in a significant amount of high-profile surrogate stumping on the trail.

What Is To Be Done? The Conservative (Reagan-Palin) Answer To The Coming Economic Crisis

The Wall Street Journal has an article examining the current state of America’s economy with particular reference by The Federal Reserve Banks’ Ben Bernanke’s latest announcement of further “quantitative easing.”

The authors of the article entitled “The Magnitude of the Mess We’re In,” George P. Shultz, Michael J. Boskin, John F. Cogan, Allan H. Meltzer and John B. Taylor, are a distinguished group: “The authors are senior fellows at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. They have served in various federal government policy positions in the Treasury Department, the Office of Management and Budget and the Council of Economic Advisers.”

This opening paragraph gives an indication of the gigantic size of the debt problem, and the article continues on to describe, in straightforward non-polemical fashion, the dangers inherent in the magnitude of the debt.

Did you know that annual spending by the federal government now exceeds the 2007 level by about $1 trillion? With a slow economy, revenues are little changed. The result is an unprecedented string of federal budget deficits, $1.4 trillion in 2009, $1.3 trillion in 2010, $1.3 trillion in 2011, and another $1.2 trillion on the way this year. The four-year increase in borrowing amounts to $55,000 per U.S. household.

I strongly commend reading the whole post and the subsequent comments from the public. They are of course more on the polemical side, but I note, as does one commentator, that there are no defenders of the Obama administration or Bernanke’s policy from anyone who makes an observation on the main article.

They clearly are not ready to accept it quite yet as the printing press has not reached inflationary saturation point yet, which, if it comes, will be very painful and of course destructive to the middle class and all savers. For those of a more doomsday scenario taste Peter Schiff, who covers some of the same ground and conclusions at The Market Oracle  AT THIS LINK may be more to their liking.

Here is the concluding comment AT THIS LINK which would have sounded good coming from President Reagan, and would sound just as good, sensible and correct, coming from 2016 candidate Palin:

The fixes are blindingly obvious. Economic theory, empirical studies and historical experience teach that the solutions are the lowest possible tax rates on the broadest base, sufficient to fund the necessary functions of government on balance over the business cycle; sound monetary policy; trade liberalization; spending control and entitlement reform; and regulatory, litigation and education reform. The need is clear. Why wait for disaster? The future is now.

.