INVISIBLE OBAMA, HIGHLY VISIBLE PALIN

Barack H. Obama: The Invisible Man
LORENZO BENET'S NEW BOOK ON SARAH PALIN (TRAIL BLAZER) REMINDS OF US AN INTRIGUING REALITY: WE KNOW MUCH MORE ABOUT PALIN, THE GOV. OF A SPARSELY POPULATED STATE, THAN WE DO ABOUT OBAMA, THE PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. SARAH'S FRIENDS FROM HER CHILDHOOD AND EARLY ADULTHOOD HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT HER STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES. YET WE KNOW ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT OBAMA'S FIRST 35 YEARS ON EARTH, ASIDE FROM WHAT HE'S SAID ABOUT HIMSELF. WHY? I'LL EXPLORE THESE ISSUES ON THIS BLOG THROUGHOUT THIS WEEK. One of Obama's former law professors (Lawrence Tribe) called BHO "brilliant." Is there any evidence of that? There's a lot of evidence to the contrary, including many states Obama has made that are wildly at variance with the facts. Remember, he's the one who thought there were "57 states" and that "10,000 people" had died in Kansas tornadoes that actually killed 12 individuals.

As many of you know, I'm writing a book about Sarah Palin and "The Election of 2012," in which year she and Barack Obama may face off for the presidency. If she wins, she will be the 45th President of the U.S. -- and, of course, the first female President. Recently, on my other blog, which I hope you'll visit (http://draftpalin2012.blogspot.com/), I'm writing about Sarah Palin's life, especially the early years before her family moved to Wasilla. In this column, I'll be writing mainly about Barack Obama, his positive and his negatives. I'll emphasize how much his life experience differ from that of Sarah. In many ways, Obama is the "affirmative action guy," because he's had so much handed to him. In Sarah's case, she scrapped and clawed for everything she got. Obama has a kind of eerie ("creepy," as a Newsweek editor called it) calmness about him. Sarah is the quintessence of toughness and resolve. Right now, Obama probably underestimates Sarah, something many others have done to their ultimate regret. In any case, the following is material from my other blog.

"There is an old photo of young Sarah as a mere toddler, standing in a blue jumper in Skagway yard dangling two shrimp from her tiny hands. Her clothes are soaked, and her pearl skin is filthy, her brown hair tousled. 'That was Sarah for you, [neighbor] Moore said, 'She wasn't your typical little girly-girl.'" (Lorenzo Benet, Trail Blazer: An Intimate Biography of Sarah Palin) I can't recommend the book highly enough.

(Where, we might ask, are the pictures from Obama's early years, aside from the one of him on a tricycle? Whom did he know and play with as a child?)

In fact , this volume is teaching me many new things about the nature of life, and that's rare when someone has been on the earth as long as I. As a young child, Sarah, her parents (Chuck, Sr, and Sally Heath), her brother Chuck, Jr., and her older sister Heather and younger sister Molly grew up in Skagway, Alaska, one hundred miles north of the capital city of Juneau. What was life like there?

A friend and neighbor of Sarah's family puts it this way: "Skagway had no beauty parlor, no barber shop, and if your car broke, you fixed it yourself; if your washer broke, you fixed it.. . . You wore many hats: carpenter, plumber, electrician, and boat mechanic; you did all your own stuff. We had just two grocery stores in town -- there was no fresh milk, and the produce ship came twice a month. Banana skins were yellow, but our kids grew up thinking they were black, so we ate a lot of banana bread."

The Benet book on Sarah is really good because she and her family were in Alaska in the 1960s and early 1970s when it was still America's "wild frontier." The early years in Skagway when Sarah was 4-5 years old were extreme by our standards, but Alaska still has a lifestyle that was pretty standard for much the world into the 20th century.

If people survived, they had to do it pretty much on their own. There was no "going down the mall," because there was no mall. If you wanted meat, you had to go out and shoot something.

Some of the suburban liberals who criticize Sarah believe she's "not like them." In a way, they're right. She's tougher and much closer to life on a fundamental level, one where family and community are very close to one another -- and dependent on neighbors not just for company but for survival.

A lot of modern people -- I'd include myself -- don't have great survival skills. If the grocery closed down and there was no one to repair the washer, dryer, and computer, we would be largely helpless. We wouldn't have learned the basic skills that were almost second-nature to our ancestors. Instead, we live on top of a support system whose existence is one of which we're hardly aware. We're a lot less self-reliant than Sarah and many of the people around her.

Defeat Obama, Don't Blow Smoke

My fellow conservatives, I am going to ask (beg?) people to focus on issues that are winnable -- and to ignore issues, no matter how much emotion they generate, that are not. We need to reject the concept of "moral victories," which are a synonym for losses.

The Stimulus was (past tense is correct) potentially winnable if we could have gotten one or two more Republicans. We didn't. Why did we fail in persuading Senators Snow, Specter, and Collins to side with us? If we regard those three individuals as somehow beneath contempt, why did we bother to try to affect how they voted? If we don't ask ourselves hard questions, we'll eventually end up in the political version of the Land of Oz.

I want to plead with people to concentrate on communicating with their own Senators (2 of them) and their own Representative (1 of them). If I send a fax to a Senator in Wyoming or Rhode Island or to Barbara Boxer or Diane Feinstein, it will get ignored. Senators in CA could care less what people in PA or NJ or TX think about them. No one in Congress is going to spend 24 hours a day actually reading e-mails. My own guess is that the "delete" button works overtime.

Also, if I send a communication that expresses extreme hostility to a Senator (say, Specter) it will get discarded by a staffer. Do we want to blow off steam, or do we want to have some real influence on people who make public policy decisions? We don't want some junior staffer to look at our e-mail and say, "Here's another one from a right-wing nutcase."

We don't have a moment of time, a dollar of money, or an ounce of energy that we can afford to waste. Even more important than "fighting the Stimulus" is growing our numbers. If we don't do that, we will never win anything.

It bothers me greatly that some "conservatives" (and this does NOT include you any effective members of our group) are making a great deal of money out of the mailings and out of issues that we have zero practical chance of winning. People who are charging $50 for a relative handful of faxes are never going to go hungry.

I am deeply suspicious of "birth-certificate" people like Phil Berg and Alan Keyes, both of whom are full-time self-promoters. (I do realize that many people are supporting them in good faith, but it has become the world's worst cause.)

The most important issue coming up now is the attempt to restore the fairness doctrine and suppress conservative talk radio (and TV?). Which Senators and Representatives can we reasonably expect to influence? And which ones are lost causes? Of most importance, how can we get to join us in reaching out to fair-minded legislators?

After today, the Stimulus issue apparently is a loss for our side. What can we do better the next time?

Palin Character, Values Hillary Emptiness

Scroll down to previous columns on NY congressional candidate Jim Tedisco, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton TOMORROW: WHY SARAH PALIN IS RIGHT ON ABORTION -- AND HER CRITICS ARE DEAD WRONG.

For his book, “A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (and Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media,” author Bernard Goldberg interviewed Rush Limbaugh.Goldberg asked Rush, among other things, what he thought about Palin Derangement Syndrome. “Why such hatred, especially from liberal feminists? Was it simply her politics or was something else at play?”

Here’s what Limbaugh has to say: “Something else. She was the only effective Republican candidate anywhere in this entire campaign – among all candidates, for all offices. Sarah Palin is what militant feminists have been suggesting all women can become. But she had the gall to have a Down Syndrome child and be opposed to abortion, which is the sacrament to feminist liberalism. She was the Clarence Thomas of the Anita Hill hearings. Her electoral future had to be destroyed.”


Steve Says: When I went to a (wonderful) Catholic elementary school, the nuns told us, "You never mistread girls. GOD will be very angry if you do." They got our attention. Bill Clinton never went to that school. His abuse of women, especially middle-class women (Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, and many others) in vulnerable positions, has been the bad habit of a lifetime.

Okay, when she was at Wellesley, Hillary wrote her senior thesis on labor organizer Saul Alinsky (a better man than many people think), and he offered her a job with his community development organization. His total budget for a year was $100,000 (including his salary). He labored almost exclusively with the working poor, including Blacks and first generation immigrants. He hated the "welfare state."

Hillary's response to the job offer? She said, No thanks and went off to Yale Law School, one of those places that usually leads to whole truckloads of money and power. Yes, Hillary "loves" the poor, but only at a distance.

As for Bill, I am not against people making money, even though I don't. He parlayed the presidency into a fortune of $100 million. ONE HUNDRED MILLION. He sold out to everyone, especially rich foreigners, who had a large bag full of cash.

Okay, during the end of the primary season, there was a guy who told a group I was in that he had been unemployed for 17 months (yikes). But he had scraped together $25 that he was sending in "to help pay off Hillary's debt." One problem, the money was being re-directed to her 2012 Senate re-election campaign. The whole thing disgusted me.

I told the group, "Bill should write a check" (I think it was $9 million they owed). That $9 million would have been the same for him as us kicking in ten bucks. The Clintons are one of the wealthiest families in America -- and trust me, they will get a while lot wealthier.

Sarah Palin will never be Hillary's intellectual equal, but unlike HRC, she knows the basic difference between right and wrong. And in life that matters more than anything else.

When Hillary and Bill started slobbering over Obama, it made me physically ill. As one of Shakespeare's cynical lines has it, "Nothing lost save honor." Yes, as Bill said, "Obama played the race card [against them]." But in a world where nothing aside from self-promotion matters, why should racial politics count?

Susan Rice, named ambassador to the U.N. the same day as HRC got the State job, was the person in the Obama Campaign in charge of smearing Hillary. I kept waiting for the two to embrace.

What did Obama promise HRC for endorsing and campaigning for him? Guess. I know what Susan Rice got for her misdeeds.

A Sarah Palin is a person whose life is suffused with character and values. She would not feel comfortable with a Suan Rice or a Hillary Clinton. Sarah does not regard politics as a nasty game whose only purpose is self-advancement. It matters deeply to Sarah that someone like Barack Obama is not dedicated to national security, freedom, tolerance, and opportunity. Those factors matter not at all to someone like Hillary. They don't show up in a bank account or on a resume.

Yes, Hillary Clinton is a trivial human being, but that doesn't make her any less dangerous. She has spent a lifetime putting her own interests ahead of those of the nation. Right now, she's too old to learn new tricks.

Hillary Morally Weak, Sarah Strong

"I have a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. Barack Obama has a speech [against the Iraq War] he delivered in 2002." (Hillary Rodham Clinton) I'll keep adding to this column on Wednesday and finish the "Hillary comments" on Thursday. I'd very much like to get your comments on a deeply flawed human being, Hillary R. Clinton.


I have many friends who were Hillary Supporters. One former friend, Robin, listened to my positive comments on Sarah Palin after she was named McCain's running mate. Robin then said, "Steve, I don't like all the praise of Palin because it makes Hillary sound bad by comparison." That's when Robin, a woman incapable of taking a clear-eyed look at HRC, became a former friend. "Yes, Robin, HRC is no Sarah Palin -- not by a longshot."

My sad impression is that most Hillary Supporters don't want to discuss the woman's actions in any serious way. Apparently, they feel that if they look deeply into this woman's heart and soul, they'll end up like the madman in Conrad's Heart of Darkness, who finally recognizes the evil of what he's done and blurts out, "The horror! The horror!" Horror and Hillary are more than alliterative.

John Edwards, another mindless left-wing Democrat, limply said of his affair that he had become "egotistic" and "narcissistic." John Edwards, meet Hillary Clinton, a card-carrying narcissist.

Hillary Clinton has spent a lifetime accepting, rationalizing, and even defending (yikes) her husband's chronic adultery and abusive behavior toward women, including Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and Kathryn Willey. Of course, that didn't stop the gentle ladies of NOW and NARAL from endorsing Bill . . . or Hillary. Abuse of women is apparently okay as long as you're "right on the issues." Of course, without a demand for basic decency all the "issues" become practically irrelevant.

Many Hillary Supporters are now spending their lives defending HRC's decision to value her career over her country. In fact, what do you call a woman who values career more than the nation? Why, for services rendered, you call her "Madame Secretary of State," that is Secretary of . . . the Country.

As a member of Alaska's Oil and Gas Commission, Sarah Palin cited the head of the Alaska Republican Party (Randy Ruedrich) for an ethics violation. Such acts continue to make her enemies in the state, one long synonymous with political corruption. .

Hillary Clinton has NEVER done anything remotely comparable in her long career. The sad reality is that most of Hillary's supporters have much higher standards for themselves than they do for their tinsel candidate. I fear that if Mrs. Clinton appeared without clothes, such supporters would be marveling over how good she looks in a pants suit.

In the election, Clinton was a major factor in helping Obama carry Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. To say that she must have had a good (but of course, unstated) reason for doing so is to give her credit she in no way deserves. Over a lifetime, she has always done what is best for Hillary. Period.

During and after the election, I regularly asked people why HRC had supported her tormentor -- her abuser -- Obama. Perhaps for the same reason she'd always supporter her marital abuser, Bill, "the Big Dog?" No one ever gave an answer that made Mrs. Clinton seem like anything other than a moral weakling.

More than one Hillary backer told me, "Well, she had to. They [unnamed] threatened her. They threatened her MOTHER. They threatened CHELSEA." There is not one scrap of evidence any such thing ever happened. Moreover, anyone who would cave into threats has no business aspiring to the presidency.

People like Hillary Clinton are despicable. The fact that she's a woman is not exculpatory. Anyone who's so easily intimidated should not be occupying a high position of any kind.

Defeating Obama, Electing Jim Tedisco

TOMORROW (WEDNESDAY) I'LL HAVE A COLUMN TITLED "HILLARY IS NO SARAH PALIN." Hillary Clinton has spent a lifetime accepting, rationalizing, and even defending (yikes) her husband's chronic adultery and abusive behavior toward women. Many Hillary Supporters are now spending their lives defending HRC's decision to value her career over her country. Sarah Palin is a woman who turned in her own Party's state chairman for ethics violations. Hillary Clinton has never done anything comparable in her career. The sad thing is that most of Hillary's Supporters have much higher standards for themselves than they do for their tinsel heroine.


"It's better to light one little candle than to curse the darkness" (Father Keller, "The Christophers," in radio addresses during the 1970s). PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING AND THEN GO TO JIM TEDISCO'S WEB SITE.


Dear Fellow Bloggers and Online Activists: One of the most important political contests of our time is unfolding in New York's Hudson Valley area (Albany, Saratoga Springs areas). It pits Republican State Assembly leader Jim Tedisco against a super-wealthy liberal Democrat who can't wait to get to Washington to support the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda. The race is in New York's 20th congressional district, and it's for the seat formerly held by Kirsten Gillibrand, recently appointed to fill Hillary Clinton's U.S. Senate seat.

The election of Jim Tedisco will send a powerful message to Obama and his congressional allies. It will demonstrate that the American people are no longer content to have a left-wing government borrow trillions of dollars, use the money mainly to pay off their political supporters, go hat in hand to Communist China for financing, and send the bill to our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Jim Tedisco led the fight against disgraced former Gov. Eliot Spitzer's cynical plan to grant drivers licenses to illegal aliens. He represents the classic American values we all grew up believing were synonymous with our country.

What can you do to help? You can go to Jim's outstanding web site and learn more about him. Also, you can participate in the "$20 for the 20th [District]" effort by donating $20. If you can't afford that much, give what you can -- even a dollar would be much appreciated.

Moreover, you can help Jim's message "go viral" by quickly disseminating either this e-mail or a message of your own to friends, family, and political allies. Those of you with blogs or group web sites can post the information -- as soon as possible -- for your visitors to see and share with their own contacts.

Significantly, the leader of Jim's online effort is Ali Akbar, whom many of you will recall from the effort to elect John McCain and Sarah Palin. Ali is a young GOP activist with an unusual name, but most of all, he's one of us. He's among the hundreds of veterans of the last campaign who are helping us begin dominate the Web . . . and turn this country back in the right direction.

The primary reason I back Ali so strongly in his efforts is that he knows how to win. He fights fair, but he fights hard. If you need to contact Ali, If you need to contact Ali, you can do so at: Ali@jimtedisco.com. . Let's make history . . . rather than waiting for others to do so.

Go to Jim's web site, sign up, and contribute either $20 or as much as you can afford -- and remember, even a dollar will be appreciated. Then, put up on your blog or web site the links and banners I'll make available in the next 24 hours. (I'll be putting them up today on my sites, including: http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com and http://draftpalin2012.blogspot.com.

Finally, if you want to opt-out of the effort to elect Jim Tedisco, you can do so by hitting reply and putting one word -- "Remove" -- in the subject area.

Note; The following statements by Jim Tedisco demonstrate exactly what this good man stands for. God bless America!

Tedisco says, “I am running for Congress to bring the same passion, energy and proven record of public service I have demonstrated as an Assemblyman to residents of the 20th Congressional District. As Republican Leader of the State Assembly, I led the fight for tax relief, a real property tax cap, a stronger economy, more jobs and fiscal responsibility. I opposed Eliot Spitzer when he tried to steamroll New Yorkers with higher taxes and more wasteful spending. I also led the fight against his unlawful plan to give drivers licenses to illegal aliens and worked to keep the Schenectady Free Health Clinic open and operating when he tried to take political retribution against me for opposing his plan."

My friends, this guy -- Jim Tedisco -- is the real deal. Let's light thousands of candles on his behalf. Please do everything you can to help him.

Barack Obama's "Nameless, Unreasoning Fear"

The motto of the woman pictured below is "Serve the people." To find out what Obama's motto could be, scroll down

Most Americans remember a part of Franklin Roosevelt's Depression-era remarks about fear. Yes, he did say in his 1st Inaugural, "The only thing we have to fear is . . . fear itself," but that's not the whole statement. It went this way, "The only thing we have to fear is . . . fear itself . . . nameless, unreasoning fear." The final three words, starting with "nameless," are extremely important.

Granted, there are situations in which fear is appropriate -- for example, if you wake up and see a hungry grizzly bear climbing through your bedroom window. In a case like that, there's nothing unreasonable about fear. (After the initial surge of terror, of course, the most important thing you can do is to calm down and decide -- reason -- quickly about how you're going to get out of the situation. In other words, act like Captain "Sully," not like Nervous Nellie.

Barack Obama has told us that, without his (potentially catastrophic) Stimulus Bill, we will face a financial "catastrophe." How he knows that -- the reasoning part -- remains unclear. So, why did he appeal to one of our primal instincts? Because he knows -- or at least his speech guru Aexlrod knows -- that fear sells. Scare people half to death and many of them will do your bidding.

The last thing Obama wants his audiences to do is have reasoned responses to his rhetoric. When he tells us, for example, that "95% of the American people are going to get a tax cut," he is lying to us. He knows that nearly 50% of American wage earners (and their immediate dependents) don't pay federal income taxes.

When they get their $500 or $1000 "tax cut" from the Treasury -- and yes, Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle who didn't pay their taxes, will get one -- it will not be a tax refund. Instead, it will be a welfare check. In other words, Obama will be putting half the population on what our grandparents used to call the "dole," welfare. As Obama told Joe the Plumber, it's not about stimulus, but rather about "redistribution of wealth."

Why do such a damaging thing? Because Axelrod/Obama know that dependent people are reliable providers of votes in future elections. When the government basically "owns" someone, he or she expresses gratitude by voting for bigger and bigger government. Sadly, though, he or she is no longer a free, independent citizen.

Thus, we have FDR, along with all other great American leaders, arguing against reliance on "nameless, unreasoning fear." In contrast, we have Obama and his minions relying completely on fear because reason isn't on their side. As every tyrant knows, fear is his most powerful ally.

Gov. Sarah Palin's motto is "Serve the people." In contrast, Obama's seems to be: "Scare the people."

In today's difficult times, we will still sing "God bless America." Yet the more appropriate phrase might be "God help America." In fact, God generally blesses our land most abundantly when the vast majority of Americans do everything in their power to help themselves, their families, and their communities.

Obama's Stimulus: More "Chicago Politics"

This is a guest column by Sammy Benoit "Yid with a lid," who works tirelessly to bring the truth about Obama to the American people.

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2009/02/spend-porkulus-designed-to-keep.html

Spend-a-porkulus-->Designed to Keep the Democrats in Power for GENERATIONS

If you listen to the conservative pundits, Obama's Spend-a-porkulus, is all about transfer of the economy from the private sector to the public sector and they are correct. But there is another reason for the bill, one that makes it worthwhile to the liberals to pass a bill which, if it doesn't work, will drive their party out of power as quickly as they took over.

However, if this plan does work, it will keep the most liberal of Democrats in power for generations to come.

This plan represents the "best" of Chicago liberal politics as taught by the first Mayor Daley. Daley's chief means of attaining electoral success was his reliance on local precinct captains, who marshaled and delivered votes on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.

Many of these precinct captains held patronage jobs with the city, mostly minor posts at low pay. Their job was to dole out favors in the name of the Mayor.

President Obama's Spend-a-porkulus bill which stands before congress will translate Mayor Daley's strategies to a national plane.

Allow me to point out two provisions:"Tax Cuts" Here Obama goes around the middle man the local precinct captains and straight to the new votes. With these tax cuts Obama will be courting favor with the poor by developing a tax cut plan which is essentially welfare. US citizens who do not pay taxes will still be receiving money back from the government.

But guess what, it goes way beyond that because ILLEGAL ALIENS will also be getting this "tax cut" rebate from the government.

ACORN.

Remember Obama's favorite community activist group ACORN? They are the ones who helped the future president "get out the votes" registering Obama voters in two or three counties, or registering fictional and/or dead people.

ACORN is under indictment in 12 states.This spending bill provides them with up to $5.2 billion dollars for their housing oriented activities. At the same time, it empowers the organization to act as President Obama's grass roots precinct captains.

Tying it together.

Now consider the above with some other administration policies. Don't forget that the Democrat's policy on immigration is to grant amnesty to the 12.5 million illegal immigrants. Those are 12.5 million new voters who just received a nice "tax break" and put on the fast track for citizenship by the Democratic Party.

Consider also that the White House will now be extra "involved" with the Census. Lets face it. Behind that announcement was to make sure that the Democratic oriented minority and low income cities/states get counted even if it is at the expense of other areas.

What you are really looking an attempt at shifting congressional seats and electoral votes to areas that may be more likely to vote Democratic. And that was before they got all of that "Free Money" from the stimulus bill.

Folks that is why you need to call your Senators and your Congressional Representative (they will have to vote on it again if it passes the Senate) to tell them to vote no on the Spend-a-porkulus. Not only will it bankrupt the country, but it will help the Democrats maintain power for generations.