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

    January 2018
    S M T W T F S
    « Jan    
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Categories

  • Archives

  • __________________________________________
  • Top Posts & Pages

  • __________________________________________
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • __________________________________________

Posts Tagged ‘jim demint’

ABC News: Palin Turns Down Coveted CPAC Keynote Speaking Slot

Posted by joshpainter on February 3, 2011

by Josh Painter
*
For the fourth year in a row Gov. Palin has turned down a request to speak at CPAC. ABC News reports that the first woman to be the vice presidential candidate of the Republican Party has once again declined an invitation from CPAC officials to address the conference:

CPAC organizers invited Palin to deliver the closing-night keynote speech on Saturday Feb. 12, immediately following the announcement of the results of CPAC’s annual presidential straw poll, but after several days of negotiations, she declined.

“We’re disappointed that she wasn’t able to make it this year,” American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene said through a spokesman on Thursday. He noted that Palin “expressed interest in wanting to come this year,” but said that it came down to “a scheduling issue.”

The former Alaska governor has a rocky history with the group. In 2010, she stayed away from the event citing the business dealings of the American Conservative Union and Keene, who is a lead organizer of the event.

In 2009, while still serving as governor of Alaska, she initially accepted an invitation to speak on the conference’s opening day, but later dropped out saying that she had to attend to the “duties of governing,” according to a CPAC spokesman. She sent a taped message to the conference instead.

In 2008, CPAC organizer Lisa De Pasquale said that Palin had to drop out of CPAC “at the last minute.” At that point she had not yet been named Sen. John McCain’s vice presidential nominee, but was regarded as an up-and-comer in the Republican Party.

This will be her fourth year skipping the event. While Palin will not be there in person, her political action committee, SarahPAC, is sponsoring a Diamond Reception on the CPAC’s opening night — Thursday, Feb. 10.

[More]

Though a number of her potential rivals for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination will be speaking at CAPC 2011, Gov. Palin joins U.S.Senators Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Marco Rubio of Florida, the Family Research Council and the Heritage Foundation as prominent conservatives and organizations not attending this year’s conference. She’s in some pretty good company, in other words.

Cross-posted from Texas for Sarah Palin

– JP

Advertisements

Posted in Conservative, CPAC, Sarah Palin | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Sarah Palin: Midnight Votes, Backroom Deals, and a Death Panel: The Continuing Constitutional Crisis

Posted by Gary P Jackson on December 23, 2009

More like Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil with this bunch!

At what should be the happiest, most wonderfully magical time of the year, a great evil has gripped the nation. The most corrupt Congress in our nation’s history in lockstep with the most corrupt and evil man to ever step foot in the Oval Office are committing acts that amount to no less than treason.

As we wrote earlier, in a piece entitled Death of the Republic, some serious maneuvering by Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid slipped some language into the already grossly unconstitutional Obamacare fiasco that would prohibit future Congresses from making changes or repealing key measures of this legislation.

As you can imagine, the outrage over this is through the roof nationwide.

Ironically, and well…even laughably, this provision that Reid and the other communists want to make sure is never, ever modified, or repealed, is the very death panel that the communists and their lap dogs in the corrupt, Obamacentric media have been working night and day, with almost superhuman effort, to convince the public that it never existed!!

It was even deemed “lie of the year” by the radical left wing media!

Sarah has now weighed in on the subject:

Midnight Votes, Backroom Deals, and a Death Panel

Last weekend while you were preparing for the holidays with your family, Harry Reid’s Senate was making shady backroom deals to ram through the Democrat health care take-over. The Senate ended debate on this bill without even reading it. That and midnight weekend votes seem to be standard operating procedures in D.C. No one is certain of what’s in the bill, but Senator Jim DeMint spotted one shocking revelation regarding the section in the bill describing the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (now called the Independent Payment Advisory Board), which is a panel of bureaucrats charged with cutting health care costs on the backs of patients – also known as rationing. Apparently Reid and friends have changed the rules of the Senate so that the section of the bill dealing with this board can’t be repealed or amended without a 2/3 supermajority vote. Senator DeMint said:

This is a rule change. It’s a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. I mean, we want to bind future congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future congresses.

In other words, Democrats are protecting this rationing “death panel” from future change with a procedural hurdle. You have to ask why they’re so concerned about protecting this particular provision. Could it be because bureaucratic rationing is one important way Democrats want to “bend the cost curve” and keep health care spending down?

The Congressional Budget Office seems to think that such rationing has something to do with cost. In a letter to Harry Reid last week, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted (with a number of caveats) that the bill’s calculations call for a reduction in Medicare’s spending rate by about 2 percent in the next two decades, but then he writes the kicker:

It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.

Though Nancy Pelosi and friends have tried to call “death panels” the “lie of the year,” this type of rationing – what the CBO calls “reduc[ed] access to care” and “diminish[ed] quality of care” – is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor.

This health care bill is one of the most far-reaching and expensive expansions of the role of government into our lives. We’re talking about putting one-seventh of our economy under the government’s thumb. We’re also talking about something as intimate to our personal well-being as medical care.

This bill is so unpopular that people on the right and the left hate it. So why go through with it? The Senate is planning to vote on this on Christmas Eve. Why the rush? Though we will begin paying for this bill immediately, we will see no benefits for years. (That’s the trick that allowed the CBO to state that the bill won’t grow the deficit for the next ten years.)

The administration’s promises of transparency and bipartisanship have been broken one by one. This entire process has been defined by midnight votes on weekends, closed-door meetings with industry lobbyists, and payoffs to politicians willing to sell their principles for sweetheart deals. Is it any wonder that Americans are so disillusioned with their leaders in Washington?

This is about politics, not health care. Americans don’t want this bill. Americans don’t like this bill. Washington has stopped listening to us. But we’re paying attention, and 2010 is coming.

I love this woman! The radical communist scumbags in the media, Congress, and the White House keep saying she’s crazy with the death panel talk, trying to intimidate her, and she comes right back and shoves it up their @sses!

BOOM, taste my nightstick!

Sarah, of course, is correct here. This is all about politics and nothing about health care. This is an evil, wicked thing that is being visited on the American people as we get ready to celebrate the birth of Christ, our Lord and Savior.

At the end of her note, Sarah references an opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal that must be read:

Change Nobody Believes In

A bill so reckless that it has to be rammed through on a partisan vote on Christmas eve.
And tidings of comfort and joy from Harry Reid too. The Senate Majority Leader has decided that the last few days before Christmas are the opportune moment for a narrow majority of Democrats to stuff ObamaCare through the Senate to meet an arbitrary White House deadline. Barring some extraordinary reversal, it now seems as if they have the 60 votes they need to jump off this cliff, with one-seventh of the economy in tow.

Mr. Obama promised a new era of transparent good government, yet on Saturday morning Mr. Reid threw out the 2,100-page bill that the world’s greatest deliberative body spent just 17 days debating and replaced it with a new “manager’s amendment” that was stapled together in covert partisan negotiations. Democrats are barely even bothering to pretend to care what’s in it, not that any Senator had the chance to digest it in the 38 hours before the first cloture vote at 1 a.m. this morning. After procedural motions that allow for no amendments, the final vote could come at 9 p.m. on December 24.

Even in World War I there was a Christmas truce.

The rushed, secretive way that a bill this destructive and unpopular is being forced on the country shows that “reform” has devolved into the raw exercise of political power for the single purpose of permanently expanding the American entitlement state. An increasing roll of leaders in health care and business are looking on aghast at a bill that is so large and convoluted that no one can truly understand it, as Finance Chairman Max Baucus admitted on the floor last week. The only goal is to ram it into law while the political window is still open, and clean up the mess later.

***

• Health costs. From the outset, the White House’s core claim was that reform would reduce health costs for individuals and businesses, and they’re sticking to that story. “Anyone who says otherwise simply hasn’t read the bills,” Mr. Obama said over the weekend. This is so utterly disingenuous that we doubt the President really believes it.

The best and most rigorous cost analysis was recently released by the insurer WellPoint, which mined its actuarial data in various regional markets to model the Senate bill. WellPoint found that a healthy 25-year-old in Milwaukee buying coverage on the individual market will see his costs rise by 178%. A small business based in Richmond with eight employees in average health will see a 23% increase. Insurance costs for a 40-year-old family with two kids living in Indianapolis will pay 106% more. And on and on.

These increases are solely the result of ObamaCare—above and far beyond the status quo—because its strict restrictions on underwriting and risk-pooling would distort insurance markets. All but a handful of states have rejected regulations like “community rating” because they encourage younger and healthier buyers to wait until they need expensive care, increasing costs for everyone. Benefits and pricing will now be determined by politics.

As for the White House’s line about cutting costs by eliminating supposed “waste,” even Victor Fuchs, an eminent economist generally supportive of ObamaCare, warned last week that these political theories are overly simplistic. “The oft-heard promise ‘we will find out what works and what does not’ scarcely does justice to the complexity of medical practice,” the Stanford professor wrote.

• Steep declines in choice and quality. This is all of a piece with the hubris of an Administration that thinks it can substitute government planning for market forces in determining where the $33 trillion the U.S. will spend on medicine over the next decade should go.

This centralized system means above all fewer choices; what works for the political class must work for everyone. With formerly private insurers converted into public utilities, for instance, they’ll inevitably be banned from selling products like health savings accounts that encourage more cost-conscious decisions.

Unnoticed by the press corps, the Congressional Budget Office argued recently that the Senate bill would so “substantially reduce flexibility in terms of the types, prices, and number of private sellers of health insurance” that companies like WellPoint might need to “be considered part of the federal budget.

With so large a chunk of the economy and medical practice itself in Washington’s hands, quality will decline. Ultimately, “our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all,” as Harvard Medical School Dean Jeffrey Flier recently wrote in our pages. Take the $2 billion annual tax—rising to $3 billion in 2018—that will be leveled against medical device makers, among the most innovative U.S. industries. Democrats believe that more advanced health technologies like MRI machines and drug-coated stents are driving costs too high, though patients and their physicians might disagree.

The Senate isn’t hearing those of us who are closest to the patient and work in the system every day,” Brent Eastman, the chairman of the American College of Surgeons, said in a statement for his organization and 18 other speciality societies opposing ObamaCare. For no other reason than ideological animus, doctor-owned hospitals will face harsh new limits on their growth and who they’re allowed to treat. Physician Hospitals of America says that ObamaCare will “destroy over 200 of America’s best and safest hospitals.

• Blowing up the federal fisc. Even though Medicare’s unfunded liabilities are already about 2.6 times larger than the entire U.S. economy in 2008, Democrats are crowing that ObamaCare will cost “only” $871 billion over the next decade while fantastically reducing the deficit by $132 billion, according to CBO.

Yet some 98% of the total cost comes after 2014—remind us why there must absolutely be a vote this week—and most of the taxes start in 2010. That includes the payroll tax increase for individuals earning more than $200,000 that rose to 0.9 from 0.5 percentage points in Mr. Reid’s final machinations. Job creation, here we come.

Other deceptions include a new entitlement for long-term care that starts collecting premiums tomorrow but doesn’t start paying benefits until late in the decade. But the worst is not accounting for a formula that automatically slashes Medicare payments to doctors by 21.5% next year and deeper after that. Everyone knows the payment cuts won’t happen but they remain in the bill to make the cost look lower. The American Medical Association’s priority was eliminating this “sustainable growth rate” but all they got in return for their year of ObamaCare cheerleading was a two-month patch snuck into the defense bill that passed over the weekend.

The truth is that no one really knows how much ObamaCare will cost because its assumptions on paper are so unrealistic. To hide the cost increases created by other parts of the bill and transfer them onto the federal balance sheet, the Senate sets up government-run “exchanges” that will subsidize insurance for those earning up to 400% of the poverty level, or $96,000 for a family of four in 2016. Supposedly they would only be offered to those whose employers don’t provide insurance or work for small businesses.

As Eugene Steuerle of the left-leaning Urban Institute points out, this system would treat two workers with the same total compensation—whatever the mix of cash wages and benefits—very differently. Under the Senate bill, someone who earned $42,000 would get $5,749 from the current tax exclusion for employer-sponsored coverage but $12,750 in the exchange. A worker making $60,000 would get $8,310 in the exchanges but only $3,758 in the current system.

For this reason Mr. Steuerle concludes that the Senate bill is not just a new health system but also “a new welfare and tax system” that will warp the labor market. Given the incentives of these two-tier subsidies, employers with large numbers of lower-wage workers like Wal-Mart may well convert them into “contractors” or do more outsourcing. As more and more people flood into “free” health care, taxpayer costs will explode.

• Political intimidation. The experts who have pointed out such complications have been ignored or dismissed as “ideologues” by the White House. Those parts of the health-care industry that couldn’t be bribed outright, like Big Pharma, were coerced into acceding to this agenda. The White House was able to, er, persuade the likes of the AMA and the hospital lobbies because the federal government will control 55% of total U.S. health spending under ObamaCare, according to the Administration’s own Medicare actuaries.

Others got hush money, namely Nebraska’s Ben Nelson. Even liberal Governors have been howling for months about ObamaCare’s unfunded spending mandates: Other budget priorities like education will be crowded out when about 21% of the U.S. population is on Medicaid, the joint state-federal program intended for the poor. Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman calculates that ObamaCare will result in $2.5 billion in new costs for his state that “will be passed on to citizens through direct or indirect taxes and fees,” as he put it in a letter to his state’s junior Senator.

So in addition to abortion restrictions, Mr. Nelson won the concession that Congress will pay for 100% of Nebraska Medicaid expansions into perpetuity. His capitulation ought to cost him his political career, but more to the point, what about the other states that don’t have a Senator who’s the 60th vote for ObamaCare?

***

After a nearly century-long struggle we are on the cusp of making health-care reform a reality in the United States of America,” Mr. Obama said on Saturday. He’s forced to claim the mandate of “history” because he can’t claim the mandate of voters. Some 51% of the public is now opposed, according to National Journal’s composite of all health polling. The more people know about ObamaCare, the more unpopular it becomes.

The tragedy is that Mr. Obama inherited a consensus that the health-care status quo needs serious reform, and a popular President might have crafted a durable compromise that blended the best ideas from both parties. A more honest and more thoughtful approach might have even done some good. But as Mr. Obama suggested, the Democratic old guard sees this plan as the culmination of 20th-century liberalism.

So instead we have this vast expansion of federal control. Never in our memory has so unpopular a bill been on the verge of passing Congress, never has social and economic legislation of this magnitude been forced through on a purely partisan vote, and never has a party exhibited more sheer political willfulness that is reckless even for Washington or had more warning about the consequences of its actions.

These 60 Democrats are creating a future of epic increases in spending, taxes and command-and-control regulation, in which bureaucracy trumps innovation and transfer payments are more important than private investment and individual decisions. In short, the Obama Democrats have chosen change nobody believes in—outside of themselves—and when it passes America will be paying for it for decades to come.

This health care bill is a complete and total disaster for the nation. It destroys the Republic forever. In this writer’s opinion, anyone who puts their name to this legislation is guilty of treason and deserves the harshest penalties allowed by law.

One last thing, as both Sarah and myself mentioned death panels here, I just got an e-mail linking to a nice piece from the CATO Institute, a libertarian think tank, that backs up what we’ve been writing about here, and Sarah has been saying from the start:

Death Panels? Sarah Palin Was Right

Posted by Alan Reynolds

PolitiFact.com gave Sarah Palin their “Lie of the Year” award for warning on August 7 that the Democrat’s idea of “cost containment” implied rationing by “death panels.”

The self-described fact-checking web site of the St. Petersburg Times claimed Palin was criticizing a provision in the House bill under which “Medicare would pay for doctors’ appointments for patients to discuss living wills, health care directives and other end-of-life issues.”

The claim that Governor Palin confused one-on-one counseling between doctors and patients with any sort of “panel” was always ridiculous on its face. Indeed, that claim should itself have been a leading candidate for “Lie of the Year.” Yet Palin’s critics kept on equating death panels with counseling throughout the year, as though they could not even begin to understand plain English.

In a column called “Reporting the Lies,” Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein wrote, “Before Sarah Palin talked about death panels, no one knew about Sen. Johnny Isakson’s quiet crusade to persuade Medicare beneficiaries to adopt living wills.”

Adopting a living will requires a lawyer, not a doctor, so there must have been more to the crusade than just that. There is some reason to wonder if the crusaders intended to promote penny-pinching advice like President Obama’s famous suggestion that perhaps grandma should skip the expensive operation and take a cheap pain pill instead (generic, of course).

In any case, no single physician’s advice involves any panel, deathly or otherwise. Palin was clearly worried about rationing by some government-appointed group, panel or board of experts — such the (currently) powerless panel that recently suggested fewer and later breast exams, or the Senate bill’s potentially more lethal Independent Payment Advisory Board

The shameless hoax that Palin had confused individual consulting with rationing by a panel was repeated endlessly. By November, the Washington Post was treating this obvious canard as an established fact: “Proposed health-care reform legislation includes a provision that allows Medicare to pay for “end-of-life” counseling for seniors and their families who request it. The provision — which Sarah Palin erroneously described as “death panels” for seniors — nearly derailed President Obama’s health-care initiative.

What Palin wrote about death panels clearly had nothing to do with counseling or with any other specifics in seminal House bill. What she wrote was: “Government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course.

How could anyone believe Palin’s sensible comment about rationing was, in reality, a senseless fear of counseling? To say so was no mistake; it was an oft-repeated big lie.

Rather than even mentioning the House bill, Palin linked to an interesting speech by “Rep. Michele Bachmann [which] highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff.

Dr. Emmanuel’s varied and murky remarks about using panels of experts (like himself) to ration health care are less clear or less candid than those of another bioethicist, Peter Singer of Princeton. Singer’s article, “Why We Must Ration Health Care,” was a cover feature in The New York Times Magazine on July 15 — shortly before Palin took the opposing side of this issue.

Singer’s argument (about an expensive anti-cancer drug) is that, “If there is any point at which you say, ‘No, an extra six months [of life] isn’t worth that much,’ then you think that health care should be rationed.” But the question itself is rhetorical trickery, sophistry. Even if there was certain knowledge about life expectancy with or without some treatment (which is never true), Singer has no right to any opinion about how much an extra six months of my life is worth (and vice-versa) unless he’s paying the bills.

But that, of course, is what makes the proposed expansion of insurance subsidies and Medicaid so ominous. Just as federal politicians imagine that a small minority stake in some bank entitles them to override all other stockholders when it comes to executive pay, federal politicians would surely claim that even small subsidies for anyone’s health insurance entitle them to, as Singer put it, set “limits on which treatments should be paid for.” And those politicians would surely appoint panels of experts as cover when some life-saving procedure, device or drug was ruled-out for those with insufficient quality-adjusted years left to live.

Singer wrote, quite correctly, that in “Medicare, Medicaid and hospital emergency rooms, health care is rationed by long waits. . . [and] low payments to doctors that discourage some from serving public patients.” [emphasis added]

Pending health care bills would make such government-mandated scarcity of health care much worse. There would be massive shifting of money away from Medicare toward Medicaid. But the extra Medicaid money would be spread around more thinly. States would cut benefits to the poor in order to accommodate millions of new, less-poor people lured into Medicaid, at least half of whom (7 or 8 million by my estimate) currently have employer-provided health insurance.

The Senate health bill supposedly intends to slash Medicare payment rates for physicians by 21% next year and more in future years, with permanent reductions in payments to other medical services too. It would also establish an Independent Payment Advisory Board which would be empowered to make deeper cuts which Congress could reject only with considerable difficulty. If that’s not quite a “death panel” it would surely not be pro-life in its impact.

The Congressional Budget Office says, “It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would . . . reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.

Actually, it’s clear enough that the proposed Medicare cuts won’t be achieved, but that efforts in that direction will nonetheless reduce access to care and diminish its quality. The government can’t boost demand and cut prices without creating excess demand. And that, in turn, means rationing by longer waiting lines and by panels (rationing boards) making life-or death decisions for other people.

As Sarah Palin predicted, “Government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course.

As the CATO Institute points out so well, Sarah is right, as usual. The chronically ill, old folks, and, of course, the disabled are royally screwed here. Evil men like Dr Ezekiel Emanuel have already written the book on these death panels, and it’s all based on who is deemed “productive to society.” This is as evil as it gets. This is a few psychopaths playing God with Americans’ lives.

Below is the original poster the modified one above came from. In Nazi Germany, the government worked overtime to convince it’s people that some lives just weren’t worth living and should be extinguished. They even went so far as to point out how much keeping what they termed “useless eaters” alive cost each and every German. They got this thinking from the American “progressive” movement, by the way.

Sarah Palin brings this home to me, through her beautiful son Trig. Thanks to the American “progressive” (liberal) movement and immoral groups like Planned Parenthood, a group started by Klu Klux Klanner Margaret Sanger, as a way of Negro population control…she called blacks “human weeds“…,we now abort fully 90 percent of all Downs Syndrome babies.

As our friend Adrienne Ross points out: “Trig is a testimony to the beauty and value of all God’s children.” There is simply no way you can look at this beautiful boy and not see that he is a blessing and a true gift. He brings much joy to his family, and inspiration to other families with Downs Syndrome children.

It breaks one’s heart that so many children like Trig never are allowed to experience life because the “progressives” are carrying out a jihad against all children with disabilities. They are attempting to desensitize and dehumanize all of mankind.

Kim Priestap has a very revealing piece on Dr Death, entitled Ezekiel Emanuel: Deny Coverage to Elderly and Disabled for the Greater Good that is a must read.

Sorry to be so long winded here, but lets face it, this is the most sweeping, and the most dangerous legislation ever proposed by Congress and a President. This is pure and absolute evil. Nothing less. The men and women who have signed on to this destruction of America, and her peoples need to be dealt with in the harshest manner humanly possible. They are all traitors.

There was one bit of sanity in Congress though as freshman Alabama Congressman Parker Griffith did something very rare, he switched parties. From Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air:

Usually one does not see Congressmen or Senators flipping parties to join the minority. However, Politico’s Josh Kraushaar has a scoop that Blue Dog Democrat Parker Griffith of Alabama, a freshman in Congress, has seen enough of Nancy Pelosi’s leadership. He will join Republicans in a move that has far more symbolic than substantive impact — for now.

This is a fascinating story. It is rare to see folks switch parties, and switching to the minority party is virtually unheard of. This is a very strong statement about the state of the democrat/communist party.

Congressman Griffith is a doctor BTW. I imagine that had a lot to do with his switching parties and fighting so hard against all of this. I know from speaking with my doctors and their staff, that this pending evil is not wanted in any way, shape, or form.

Sarah was quick to welcome Congressman Griffith aboard via Twitter:

Congratulations Alabama!And all Americans concerned about Capitol Hill’s current agenda;Rep Parker Griffith just did the right thing.Welcome

We are proud to welcome him to the fight as well.

I want to leave everyone with this reminder from the Great Ronald Reagan on the dangers of allowing government to take over health care and what their real end game is:

Posted in abortion, Barracuda, big government, Blue Dogs, Christmas, Congress, Down Syndrome, Facebook, Facebook note, Governor Palin, Governor Sarah Palin, healthcare, healthcare bill, Medicare, Michelle Bachmann, Obama, Obamacare, Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin Web Brigade, Sarah Palin's faith, special needs, special needs children, terrorist, Todd Palin, Tweet, twitter | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Battleground Poll: Conservatives Make Up 63 Percent Of America: What It All Means

Posted by Gary P Jackson on December 21, 2009

Here is the latest polling from Battleground. This comes right on the heels of Gallop polling that also shows the majority of Americans consider themselves conservative. This is no fluke either. And as much as we’d love to say that Obama is driving people away from his and his party’s rapidly dying ideology, the truth is Battleground polling, since 2002, has consistently found similar results. Battleground, a bipartisan polling group, has a record of being very accurate.

Bruce Walker over at the American Thinker has some great analysis:

The Battleground Poll and the Battle for America

There’s good news for conservatives in the latest Battleground Poll. The political implications are profound…if the already-energized conservative base takes even more initiative.

In August 2008, I wrote an article on “The Biggest Missing Story in Politics.” The article explains that conservatives are an overwhelming majority of America. One year later, I wrote an update on that theme, this time based on the Gallup Poll which showed that conservatives outnumber liberals in virtually every state in the union. I have been writing about the remarkable Battleground Poll results in many articles for many years.

The Battleground Poll reveals the internals of its poll. It also asks respondents the same demographic questions in each poll: What is your education level? What is your age? What is your religious affiliation? What is your marital status? Question D3 asks respondents to describe their ideology. The choices are “very conservative,” “somewhat conservative,” “moderate,” “somewhat liberal,” “very liberal,” and “unsure/refused.” Those asked by the Battleground Poll — if they dislike the liberal label — can call themselves moderates, they can refuse to answer, and they can express an uncertainty about their ideology. Only those certain of their ideology and willing to label themselves are considered conservative in the poll.

The Battleground Poll is not a Republican polling organization. It is, rather, one of the few bipartisan polling organizations. Republican and Democrat pollsters agree on the language of the questions for respondents, so that the questions asked are not only fairly worded, but unusually fairly worded. Republican and Democrat pollsters agree on the population sample, so that polls results are not skewed because too many Democrats, too many Republicans, or too many independents are included. The Battleground Poll also has proven very accurate over many elections.

The responses to Question D3 have been remarkably consistent. Respondents have changed dramatically about what they thought of President Bush or of the state of the economy or the most important issues facing our nation. Respondent may swing quite a bit about which party they support or trust the most. But in one single area of this long list of polling data, the American people have not wavered at all from Battleground Poll to Battleground Poll: About sixty percent of the American people, in poll after poll, year after year, describe themselves as “conservative.”

On December 16, 2009, Battleground released its latest poll. In this one, 63% of the American people described themselves as “very conservative” or “somewhat conservative.” The rest of America — not just liberals, but moderates and people who were unsure about their ideology or chose not to respond to that question, totaled only 37% of America. A measly one percent of Americans called themselves moderates; 25% of Americans called themselves “somewhat liberal“; and 8% of Americans called themselves “very liberal.”

This is no aberration. Consider in Battleground Poll results since June 2002 the percentage of Americans who have described themselves as conservative: June 2002 (59%), September 2003 (59%), April 2004 (60%), June 2004 (59%), September 2004 (60%), October 2005 (61%), March 2006 (59%), December 2007 (58%), July 2007 (63%), May 2008 (62%), August 2008 (60%), September 2008 (59%), and October 2008 (56%).

In the November 2008 Battleground Poll, for the first and only time, the straight question of “conservative” or “liberal” was not posed to respondents. Instead, the poll asked respondents two separate questions: fiscal ideology was asked in Question D6 and social ideology was asked in Question D7. The Battleground Poll clearly intended to refine Question D3. What were the results? Fiscal conservatives in Question D6 were 69% of respondents. Social conservatives were 53% of respondents and social liberals were 39%. While that sounds like social conservatism is a weak link, that is misleading: a whopping 34% of all Americans described themselves as “very conservative” on social issues, by far the largest very intense group in any Battleground Poll.

What does this mean for American politics today? It ought to boldly empower conservatives. The “right,” which every Democrat leader reflexively attacks whenever political opposition to his plans grows strong, boasts the overwhelming majority of Americans. This explains why the left’s ballot initiatives in California last year failed, in some cases, in every single county of the state and why the gay marriage ballot measure failed in liberal Maine. This also explains why Obama runs away from “labels” (all leftists do, and have for many years).

What it means in politics is that any true conservative against a true leftist should carry every state and win by a landslide. But it means more than that. Conservatives in the areas of culture, media, entertainment, and education are treated like unwanted stepchildren, or worse (despite the fact that conservatives on average are better-educated than liberals).

The worst victims of invidious bigotry in America today are conservatives. Only a tiny percentage of professors are conservative. The same is true for government-supported media like NPR, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the National Endowment for the Arts. Libraries are dominated by the minority left. How different would America be if fifty or sixty percent of teachers, librarians, professors, public media producers, and staff in government-supported organizations were conservative?

That ought to be a goal for conservatives. Winning elections is fine, but how much more vital is it for us to recover at least an equal voice in colleges, media, schools, libraries, and entertainment? What is wrong with us, the overwhelming majority of Americans, demanding not to be consigned to a ghetto or treated by Jim Crow standards? We begin by pointing out the obvious: conservatives are the majority of Americans, but we are almost invisible in our public and private institutions of education, information, entertainment, and study.

Then demand that those who want our tax dollars, our commercial business, our donations — anything, really, from us — treat us fairly, portray us honestly, and invite us into the halls of influence. It is a modest demand, but it is very important. It is a cultural “game-changer,” and that, more than anything, is what we need.

Walker nails it here. This is more than just about who wins elections. This polling shows that conservatism is greatly under represented in this country. The implications, for business, media, entertainment, and marketers are incredible.

Let’s take the media first. It’s no secret that liberals make up the bulk of those who choose “journalism” as their career. Even at the so-called “Republican” Fox News, liberals far out number conservatives on the payroll. Everywhere else, conservatives are almost non-existent.

Oh sure, every network and big newspaper has their “token conservative.” They all have their David Brooks or David Frums. But none are actually conservative. Most are “progressives” masquerading as conservatives. Is it any wonder that the newspaper industry is collapsing and the two cable news networks that aren’t Fox are going virtually unwatched?

A smart operator would shake things up and get back to being a news agency rather than a shill for the democrat/communist party. Their profits would soar, and America would be better for it.

The same goes for Hollywood. You ever notice that when Tinseltown makes a movie or television show that is family friendly that folks flock to them in droves? Shows like American Idol and Dancing With The Stars are huge hits because they appeal to a conservative audience. Now that’s not to say every show should be a version of these two, but it shows that Americans enjoy more wholesome fare than what they are generally served up.

Frankly, I enjoy films and shows that are considered “edgy.” There is absolutely a place for these sort of things. Where Hollywood loses me is when they turn otherwise entertaining and delightful movies and TV shows into nothing more than vehicles for liberal propaganda.

One has to look no further than the NBC/Universal to see this on display. Although under new management, NBC/Universal is the poster child for unrelenting propaganda. Owned by General Electric, whose CEO is an adviser to Barack Obama, NBC/Universal has pushed the global warming hoax to the max for years, going so far as having “green weeks” where all of their shows, and entertainment work the global warming shtick into the story line.

NBC uses their long running series Law and Order to bash conservatives, Christians, gun owners, pro-life advocates, and so on. Portraying them as evil and unstable.

It’s easy to see the motivation behind Law and Order. They despise conservatives and use tactics right out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules in order to demean and marginalize the object of their scorn. While the far left eat this up, conservatives, by nature, are too timid to act. This needs to change, and change big time.

Of course, for GE, it’s all about the money. NBC pushes “green” as much as possible because GE makes most of the implements of this movement. By hammering viewers constantly with propaganda, they hope to convince people to fall for the global warming scam. Hundreds of billions of dollars are riding on this deal for GE alone. Big Global Warming, if not stopped, will be a trillion dollar industry built on the back of the American people.

Again, smart operators in the entertainment industry would take a pass on all of the propagandizing and get back to just entertaining. The ones who do that will have great success and loyal viewers.

Now this is not to say that TV shows shouldn’t have messages built in. The greatest movie ever made, Casablanca, is one of the most patriotic films ever made. Whether it was intentional or by accident, this movie stirs great emotions, even to this day.

Years ago, television was leading the way with socially relevant programming. TV tackled tough subjects like racism and sexism. Important issues of the day and issues Americans agreed needed addressing. That was responsible and appropriate. What we see now is just pushing an agenda that most of the country doesn’t care for.

Liberals always have to force their agenda on the people, because few would willingly submit.

With all of that said, this has the greatest implications for the Republican Party. The Party is in shambles. For decades the so-called “moderates” have attempted to marginalize conservatives, and conservatism. It’s why they are completely out of power in Washington.

The country club, blue blood, Rockefeller Republicans, the RINOs and DIABLOs (Democrats In All But Name Only) are, and always have been, “progressives.” This is worse than liberal, and frankly all of us are guilty of labeling “progressives” as liberals. The “progressive” movement goes all of the way back to Teddy Roosevelt, a Big Government Statist. “Progressives” totally control the democrat/communist party.

Conservatives, when in power within the Republican Party, have always come out as winners. One has to look no further than the Great Ronald Reagan, who won two unprecedented landslide elections to the presidency, to see that conservatism is attractive to the American people.

We are seeing the same sort of buzz around Sarah Palin, an unapologetic conservative icon. Not since Reagan has a single politician truly aroused the American people.

Oh sure, Barack Obama achieved pop star status, but it was all smoke and mirrors. There was absolutely no substance. In fact, as it is now painfully clear, Obama had to lie about his actual agenda in order to win the election. Obama had to work over time to keep his radical associations from derailing his run for office. Of course, he had plenty of accomplices in the willing media to carry his water and hide the real Barack Obama. Now that he is in, the American people are mortified by the incredible mistake that was made. The American people are horrified now that any pretense that Obama isn’t an out and out communist is gone.

Bounce this off of Sarah Palin’s incredible popularity. Unlike Obama, she actually has decades of experience as an executive level leader. She has an actual public record, going back 20 years, that can be examined by all. She is quick to state her position on any given subject, and all one has to do is look back at her actual record as a public servant to see that she’s pretty consistent in her beliefs and agenda. In other words, if she is saying it now, she has a record of doing before. She doesn’t have to hide behind trickery and the slight of hand. She is what she is.

Sarah doesn’t have to hide from the American people who she is. She is genuine. In this way, Sarah Palin is just like Ronald Reagan: Outspoken and unabashedly conservative. People see this, and respond favorably.

The implications for the Grand Old Party are many, and great, but the biggest is the myth that the GOP needs to “moderate it’s message” to win elections. The current GOP wisdom, or what passes for it, is that we need to pander to the oh so precious “moderate” vote to win. (A whopping 1 percent of the population, according to this poll!) That we need to be a “big tent party” to regain power. The end result is a party that is nothing more than democrat/communist light.

Yes, there are differences in the parties, but on many issues top candidates from our party sure sound a lot like the democrat/communists, and certainly vote with them in their misguided effort to be bipartisan. Our last presidential candidate made one of his center piece talking points the fact that he was known for “reaching across the aisle.” You see where that got us! And I’m not just talking about the election!

Conservatism is the big tent. Always has been. In 1984 Reagan won crushing victories in 49 states by governing as a true conservative in his first term. A feat that hasn’t been, and may never be, duplicated. Running as an unbridled conservative, Reagan “only” won 44 states in 1980.

If you look around at the current political landscape, all of the stars are unabashedly conservative. Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Jim DeMint, James Inhofe, Michael Williams, and Lt Col. Allen West are all solid conservatives and not afraid to say so.

Speaking of Michael Williams:

Williams is the Railroad Commissioner of Texas, a very powerful job, that among other things, regulates energy in Texas. Hmmm…..Sarah Palin had a powerful job in Alaska doing pretty much the same thing!

Williams is wildly popular in Texas, and a shoe-in to take Kay Baily Hutchison’s seat, giving Texas an actual conservative in the Senate for the first time, in some time. Make sure you check out his You Tube channel that is filled with inspiring speeches.

Then you have Lt Colonel Allen West, from Florida, who is running for Congress:

This is the message of conservatism. This is the message of liberty and freedom. This is the message of America. One of the most powerful speeches you’ll see.

The video below is what is considered the best speech given by any leader since Ronald Reagan’s iconic 1964 address to the Republican National Convention. In this speech Sarah Palin solidified her position as the new leader of the conservative movement:

Of course, the original is still the blueprint for greatness in America. I’ve always considered this “must see TV” and go so far as to say that schools need to teach an entire subject based on this speech alone, and no one should graduate high school without a working knowledge of it’s concept.

It’s amazing how much of what Reagan had to say still applies today. It’s chilling what decades of liberal control of our culture has done to us, as a nation. The destructive nature of liberalism is seen all over the fruited plain. It touches our lives daily. It makes our lives just a little less whole, just a little less free.

Few, if any, in Washington get it. Our nation has been taken over by the most radical elements on earth. Vicious elements that have no problem using brute force, as well as trickery and deceit, to see their agenda prevail.

Liberty and freedom are the enemy of the liberal movement. The current communists in Washington are the enemies of liberty and freedom. They only bring tyranny and oppression to the table. The opportunity is ripe for true conservative leaders to step forward and assume the mantle of freedom and liberty, of the American way.

America sorely needs conservatives to answer the call at every level We need conservatives to step up to the plate in local and national races. We need conservatives to seek careers in education, journalism, and the arts. Most importantly we need conservatives to stand up and speak out. You are by far the majority in this nation, it’s about time you realize this, and no longer remain passive, no longer remain silent.

America is a conservative nation and it’s time that our conservative nature is both respected, and celebrated. It’s time for our government to respect the will of the people. It’s our duty to replace those that won’t, with those that will.

Screw political correctness. Stand up, speak up, and be bold!

_____Sarah Palin

Posted in Barracuda, big government, bureaucratic, Congress, Conservative, conservative values, ECONOMY, Energy, Energy Independence, freedom in America, global warming, GOP, government control, Governor Palin, Governor Sarah Palin, lamestream media, Michelle Bachmann, Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin Web Brigade | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »