After His Two Hit Pieces; The John Ziegler I Know

John Ziegler posted an article on the Daily Caller this morning in which he boasted that no one had been able to disprove anything in his last week’s article, which proves that he’s correct with his predictions. I’ve decided to take Ziegler to task here about his previous article and will follow up with another piece on his current article.

It is well known that one of the disadvantages of the internet age is that most people no longer have the time or patience to do more than skim through a couple of lines and if an article has long paragraphs many will just skip right over it.

For those of you in that category, the following four italicized paragraphs outline the basics of the article.

The rest of my article is for those of you (and there are still quite a few) who want a deeper understanding of the issue and, of course, links and proofs to everything.

Last week Sunday John Ziegler published an article on the DC in which he wrote that Sarah Palin shouldn’t run in 2012, and claims he’s always said so. He explained that she’s the only one that definitely won’t win, and that a presidential run from Sarah will ruin the chances of the other candidates and can even cause us to lose the house!

I’ve gone through John Ziegler’s record and although he’s written the above at times, he also wrote that NO ONE can beat Obama in 2012. Additionally, he also wrote numerous times that she is the only one who can attempt to stand up against Obama since she is the only one that has already faced and emerged stronger from the bullets the media has thrown her way, while anyone else attempting to challenge Obama will still have to face the media’s scrutiny and false attacks. Suddenly she’s become the weakest of all candidates?

Ziegler also stressed in the DC article this week that ever since she quit her Governorship and especially since she has become a Fox News contributor, he publicly stated she ruined any chance she had to beat Obama in ’12. However he’s written several articles after the above facts in which he wrote that she’s the only one with a chance to challenge Obama and that she WOULD AND SHOULD RUN! In fact, he even wrote that the worst case scenario of a Palin run in 2012 is a Goldwater loss in which conservative values have been explained to the public and then led to a Republican in the white house 5 out of the 6 next terms.

I don’t believe in predictions and predictors at all, but even if I would, Ziegler has proven to be totally off base in the past as I’ll prove with two articles he wrote after Scott Brown’s victory in which he claimed it to be totally unrelated to Obamacare and 2010.

 

Now for the rest of you:

When I first spotted John Ziegler’s article Sunday night on the Daily Caller I immediately sat down and read his four page article, because I always like to see everything from the original source. Most of you have probably read it already, and for those of you who haven’t, here’s the link.

John Ziegler portrayed himself as a true, and at times the only, Palin supporter who has always and still has Palin’s best interest in mind. He presents himself as someone who knows what’s best for Palin, to a greater degree than Palin herself. After all, he spent 300,000 dollars of his money to make a video in which he proved the media’s bias against her and their waiver for Obama, and he’d done quite a few scientific polls. He doesn’t mention though that he had hoped to sell enough of his documentations to regain his initial investment plus more through sales, though his hopes didn’t materialize and he ended up losing money on it.

Ziegler’s focus is on Palin’s electability and he brings several “proofs” to support his view such as her quitting, her coming under relentless attacks from the media and her high disapproval numbers. He “admits” that it’s not necessarily Palin’s fault but feels that she’s unelectable nevertheless. If she does run, he warns, not only will she lose but she’ll drag down with her the entire conservative movement and even cause us to lose the house.

How much sense does it make, that the most articulate and outspoken conservative will cause conservatives to lose, especially when the nation is so sick and tired of Obama’s hope and change? His approval ratings are almost as bad as Palin and he never stopped running since 2007!

John Ziegler’s current article did not come as a total shock to me because I saw something amiss in his article last week on the DC in which he wrote about “The Undefeated.” He applauded the new movie but claimed he can’t possibly see it accomplishing anything for Palin on the political scene. What caught my eye was the following sentence in the beginning of the article when he was still full of praise.

In fact, I had suggested a similar concept to the Palins back in late 2009.

Oh yeah? Then why did he suggest a similar concept less than two years ago if you’re so skeptical now? Additionally, who said it won’t be heavily advertised? Steven K. Bannon invested lots of money in this project and has tons of experience in this field, and those that have already gotten to see it have doubled over backwards in awe over the magnificent job he’s done. I feel bad for Ziegler that his terrific documentary hasn’t received more attention; however the timing of the current movie is perfect, the buzz surrounding it is deafening, and it is therefore promising to attract tons of viewers.

Ziegler wrote on 4/25/11 in the DC in regard to the E! Network documentary on Palin in which he participated but had barely received any attention because Trump had taken center stage at that time;

 …should Palin decide to run for president (I still think it is 60/40 that she will), this show targets the exact demographic with whom she will need to get a second chance in order to have a legitimate shot at beating President Obama: women who are not news junkies.

So Ziegler believed two years ago as well as less than two months ago that with a compelling widely viewed documentary on Palin, many with unfavorable opinions or no opinion on her will recognize the truth about Sarah and support her. However, less than two months later, he made he made a complete about face.

Perhaps Ziegler has reason to be upset with Palin’s advisors (perhaps not) – but why should his anger cause the Republican Party to suddenly believe that a Palin candidacy in 2012 will cause damage?
In his article last week he wrote;

Let’s face it, Palin made a great decision for her and her family, but one that disqualifies her from running for president, at least in 2012. Obama has the ultimate trump card against her: when things got tough you quit …

The worst part about the resignation from a political narrative perspective is that it also stripped away Palin’s greatest strength. She is clearly a fighter but it is impossible to make “She will fight for you” the cornerstone of a campaign when she just quit her only big job, seemingly for personal gain.

There are three issues with the above. Firstly, Ziegler has written many times that while she shouldn’t run in ’12 she should run in ’16. If she is that damaging, how does four years change that? Has there ever been a candidate with less experience than Obama?

Secondly, she’s been fighting the last three years in order to promote conservative values and expose the Obama administration, no matter how heavily the media has attacked her. In response to Ziegler’s fear of Obama’s trump card, Obama quit his senate seat for definite reasons of personal gain and oh what a disaster his presidency has been. His policies are dragging us deeper and deeper into debt and he’s weakened America’s image worldwide. Who comes across as altruistic and who as egoistic?

Before I continue with all the links which prove how Ziegler has lied repeatedly and is only attempting to promote himself even though he pretends to be doing it all for the good of Palin and the people, I’d like to refute his main claim of the electability/unelectability issue with a story; one that’s actually pretty well known but perhaps forgotten or not seen in the proper light:

In 2007 about this time of the year, many Republicans have announced or were about to announce a run for the presidential office. All polls, strategists, analysts and predictors had Giuliani pretty high up, followed by Romney, Huckabee, and finally McCain. McCain appeared to have absolutely zero chances to win the primary in ’08 especially after he lost Iowa. In fact, at a particular low point during the primary, his fundraising was so weak and his staff so shrunken, he expected to step out and give it up. Less than a year later the candidate who had to travel alone from state to state and drag his own suitcase and bags, received his party’s nomination.

Moral of the story: There is no point attempting to predict what will happen because changes occur and often in the blink of an eye.

It is something that can’t be stressed often enough since it is the most common repeated worry from many on the right, and Ziegler also played on it in his DC article last week:

First of all, almost everyone has already made up their mind about Palin and she has well over a 50 percent disapproval rating with no office/position where she can do/achieve anything to significantly change the narrative about her. About the only opportunity she would have to get a second look is to do high-profile interviews with liberal media types and, against my counsel, she has indicated she has no intention of doing that.

Many of you might nodding your heads along with Ziegler worrying and wondering; how will Palin get her message out to clarify for all those that have been misled about her in the past and will continue to buy all the lies the media spreads about her? There are actually quite a few solutions besides for Ziegler’s and all of them are easily doable.

In response to Ziegler’s “how can she achieve anything,” Palin has shaken up national policy time and again without any official position. Through Facebook she continuously challenges Obama such as with “death panels” and sets the tone for national debate. She also helped many candidates in the midterm elections with her endorsement, which sent tremendous amount of small money donations flying across the internet to their campaigns.

“The Undefeatable” is already scheduled to be shown in several strategic areas and will probably end up having millions upon millions of viewers in the next couple of months. With enough advertisement and viewers, it will completely change the perception people have picked up from the mainstream media, thus raising her approval rating, as her TLC show and “One Nation” bus tour have done.

Additionally, Palin has over three million friends on facebook and that number is constantly increasing. If and when Palin will ask them to go out and educate anyone and everyone they come in contact with, that number will double and triple in no time. That is how Obama got elected. Never give up hope and “Never say Never.”

These are but some examples of Palin reaching voters without having to kneel to the media. No other candidate has the ability to do it the way she does, and it’s a very important tool, because come the general election whoever wins the Republican nomination will be chopped to bits and pieces by the mainstream media as McCain “the moderate” had been in ‘08.

Therefore, when deciding whether to support a specific candidate or where to cast one’s vote, we should focus on principles and values rather than on electability. After all, it is impossible for anyone to know the outcome of an election or the outcome of any event or even what will occur in a single minute from now, so why wouldn’t you support someone with whom you agree on the issues just aren’t sure can win? How many more times must the expected fail to happen and the unexpected happen for people to learn and internalize this truth?

Ask Anthony Weiner if he would’ve dreamt his whole world turning upside down and that he’d be handing in his resignation this week. Who would’ve predicted Weiner’s disgrace a month ago? How many politicians have risen with the right slogan or fallen with one misspoken word? So too here, nobody, including John Ziegler who defended Palin and had gone on so many interviews to spread the truth about her, can know what will be. Even Palin can’t foresee if a campaign will be successful. John, I respect the work you’ve done for Sarah and agree that you, as everybody else, are entitled to form your own opinion. But,

A- don’t lie

B- we don’t have to accept it your opinion even though you’ve met her and interviewed her because many others have spoken and interviewed her and disagree with you

C- your opinions have been proven wrong in the past as is shown later in the article.

Here are some excerpts of Ziegler’s past articles with dates and relevant info in which Ziegler contradicts his current arguments repeatedly in regard to Palin. (During my search I’ve discovered many more contradictory statements that aren’t necessarily tied to Palin so I decided to skip those because this would lengthen an already lengthy article!) Bolded words and color changes are mine.

The first one is from an article he wrote on 11/17/09 reviewing Palin’s book “Going Rogue,” which Palin published several months after she resigned as Governor.

Of course, what everyone really wants to know is whether she is going to run for president in 2012. I have stated my personal opinion to her personally as well as to the Today Show audience: that I believe she would be best to wait until 2016 to run for President (assuming she even has any desire to do so), mostly because I still maintain that Obama is a heavy favorite for reelection.

Before I read this book I was pretty much convinced that Palin would not run for President in 2012 and that she was accepting of the possibility that she will never run for political office again. I now believe that it is very possible that she will run in 2012. This is not because I have read the tea leaves and discovered a hidden message (which, for the record, I did before her resignation), but rather because I believe that if this book is the success that it could and should be, there will be a groundswell among the Republican base demanding that she run. I strongly believe that if every Republican primary voter reads this book, Sarah Palin will win the 2012 nomination in a landslide, whether she wants it or not.

Even if nothing like that ever transpires, I am excited by what I read from Sarah Palin. I had come to believe that all the criticism she and her family have endured had left her a bit “punch drunk” and that her special essence as a political figure had been permanently contaminated, at least to some small extent. Thankfully, I was wrong. The real Sarah Palin is alive and well, and now you have the chance to finally find out who she is and understand why millions of her fans are so devoted to her, even when she is just a private citizen who cares deeply about her country.

So Ziegler believed that once the primary voters were educated about Palin she’ll win with a landslide, even though she quit from being governor which, according to Ziegler, is her greatest obstacle to overcome. As we now know, her book was only the first successful tool she used to increase her positive image. She reached her first million on facebook because of “Going Rogue” and she now has over three million and still growing. She has continued reaching out to many different audiences via her facebook posts, her TLC show, and her “One Nation” bus tour amongst others, though none with the help of John Ziegler. If Ziegler’s concern is only about the general election, why – Ziegler himself in the following excerpt clearly explains how Palin is the only candidate who can dare stand up against Obama!

It is also of importance to note that he’s excited about her book because it proves that “the real Sarah Palin is alive and well,” since he later contradicts that. Additionally, Ziegler is confident that once she gets her message across voters will be so inspired by her, she will win by a landslide.

Read this excerpt written by Ziegler on January 18, 2011, which was several days after the media blamed Palin for the Tucson shooting and about a year after she became a commentator on Fox News.

As dangerous, counterproductive, and pointless as it can be to try and predict whether Sarah Palin will run for president in 2012, I found myself changing my mind last night about what she likely will, and should, do regarding the largest political decision one can make.

I had to stop and comment on his choice of words -- Dangerous? Only if you are putting your own career on line and are betting your life’s savings, although Ziegler officially claims to have only Palin’s best interest in mind when discussing what she should do.

This leads me to my second change of heart. Ever since I witnessed her 2008 convention speech in person, I have had admiration for Sarah Palin, but I had also (almost out of a desire to not see her and her family unnecessarily harassed) come to the conclusion that it was not a good idea for her to run for president in 2012. I figured that, thanks largely to the same media who has targeted her for over two years, Obama was unlikely to lose to anyone and that blowing her one chance to run wouldn’t be good for her or her cause. But now I not only think she will run, but I really hope she does.

I still believe barring a disaster Obama will be reelected, but I now see nothing to lose and lots to gain by a Palin candidacy. She is the only candidate who has the ultimate freedom of having already faced her political death head on. As Winston Churchill famously said, “There is nothing more exhilarating than being shot without result,” and while thankfully Palin only knows this truth metaphorically, all that she has endured gives her incredible independence. Everyone else will inevitably melt (like even grizzled veteran John McCain did) when they get close to the blast furnace that will be going up against the Obama juggernaut. Far more than anyone else in conservative history, Palin has been forced to prove just how fireproof her convictions are and how deep her resolve is.

Quite simply, no one else in the potential Republican field will be as trustworthy to conservatives on the issues, and less likely to back down, than Sarah Palin. She has shown beyond any doubt that she can literally handle anything that the pressure of running for president could possibly present.

Would she win? Probably not, but there is no Republican who would be close to being favored today against Obama. Instead, a Palin candidacy would guarantee, by far, the best chance to have true conservative principles articulated in a fearless fashion on the grandest of stages, which hasn’t really happened (with apologies to Ronald Reagan) since 1964.

While that losing Barry Goldwater campaign is not one which is likely to be emulated politically anytime soon, with Palin such an outcome (a spirited, non-politically correct defense of conservatism followed by likely temporary defeat) is the absolutely worst case scenario. Considering that such a campaign ended up directly leading to Republican victories in five of the next six presidential elections, such a potentiality is one that should be embraced by conservatives and not feared.

Remember that this comes way after her having quit for Governor and several months after she has become a contributor for Fox, both two reasons he cites now have ruined her chances. Additionally, because of the unbelievable attacks on Palin, her approval rating had been at the very lowest point. Despite all of the above, Ziegler was convinced Palin can handle anything and should run for president.

It seems to me that as long as Ziegler felt necessary and played an important role in the defense of Sarah Palin, thinking of her as this poor woman attacked by a pack of dogs, he did his role to the tee. Once Palin emerged on her own, or skipped his advice, and used her own techniques and tools to defend herself such as her facebook page, Ziegler got mad at her each time, as seen in his article last week in regard to Letterman. Is she supposed to let every one of her defenders such as Rush, Hannity, Malkin, etc. know before she releases any statement? What a ridiculous complaint!

Before I discuss this piece, read the following reply Ziegler uses on his new blog to defend himself from the critic he knew he’d receive after his DC piece last Sunday:

I am contradicting my past writings about Palin and a possible campaign. I can understand how people may conclude this because it would require a very detailed look at what I have said and the exact timing of those statements in order to fully realize that this allegation is completely false. For instance, when I wrote for Mediaite that I had “changed my mind about a Palin presidential run” (a headline I did not write) a close reading of that column indicates that I had come to the belief that she WOULD RUN, not that she would win.

The Mediaite column he’s referring to is the one I just brought excerpts from and which he now conveniently chooses to omit that he not only wrote she WOULD run, but that she SHOULD run. He explains that if anyone can beat Obama it’ll be Palin because she is the most trustworthy on the issues, least likely to back down, and “can literally handle anything that the pressure of running for president could possibly present.”

What event affected Palin negatively since January 2011 that has caused him to make a complete turnaround? The “One Nation” bus tour and the announcement of “The Undefeatable” have occurred since then, both of which brought tons of additional support to Palin as seen in her rising poll numbers, (and had no relation to Ziegler much to his disappointment.) This is still before the general public has seen anything more than several short sneak preview of the new movie.

I’ve got some additional issues with Ziegler’s article from last week such as here where he refers to March of 2010 (excerpt below) which is about half a year after her book tour and shortly after she became a Fox News contributor:

Soon after that, she went on The Tonight Show, just blocks from where I was living. I was scheduled to be on Morning Joe on MSNBC very early the next morning. I asked the Palin team if I could simply attend the afternoon taping so that I could be prepared to defend her appearance without having to stay up very late before getting up absurdly early. Laughably, they actually told me that they had no ability to get any tickets to the very public and free taping.

On almost no sleep I did that show anyway and said that while she is clearly brilliant, that there was no way she could beat Obama in 2012, partially because of the choices she had recently made (resignation, Fox News instead of an over-the-air network, getting in bed with corrupt elements of the Tea Party, etc.).

Oh my!

That’s the only thought I was capable of having after reading the above. So this guy was so annoyed at his loss of sleep and so outraged that he hadn’t gotten tickets to The Tonight Show (whether or not they really couldn’t get one for him) that he went the very next morning on MSNBC and disparaged her on everything he can think of such as being in bed with corrupt elements etc. One would have to be an utter fool to want any contact with such a person in the future. Who needs such a teenage moody guy near oneself? If you fill his desires, he sings your praises. If you dare insult him, intentionally or otherwise, he’ll snub you in public. This is, by the way, exactly what he’s doing right now but on the largest scale ever.

In his interview on Morning Joe that morning he also said the following about Palin:

"The Sarah Palin of 2008 doesn’t exist anymore”

And,

"This is Sarah Palin 2.0 She had very limited options about what she was going to do with her future because she was unfairly destroyed, as my documentary proves, in the 2008 election…Since January of this year when she decided to become a Fox commentator, I believe she has gone down a path that makes it absolutely positively impossible in 2012 to beat Barack Obama."

A quick point to ponder; the media’s latest Palin bashing after her emails have been released and no scandals were found, is that she had been a terrific governor but has changed into the partisan and media hating Palin she is now. Credit must be given where credit is due. Thank you John Ziegler for inventing this nonsense and for giving the media another illogical argument to use against Palin.

Additionally, remember that in the first excerpt Ziegler wrote that Palin’s book “Going Rogue” proved that “the real Sarah Palin is alive and well” while here he claims she was destroyed in 2008. Which one is it? Whichever fits your narrative better at the moment?

Here’s another question I have for Ziegler in light of the excerpts above: What occurred between these excerpts from March 2010 in which he disparaged Palin on MSNBC, and January 2011 where he wrote positively about her and enumerated the many strengths a Palin candidacy would have, except for the Tucson shooting? She remained the same Tea Partier who’d written two books, resigned from her governorship, and contributed to Fox!

This crappiness of Ziegler on MSNBC after she’s done such a hell of a job on Jay Leno the night before once again reiterates my previous observation how Ziegler is only there to defend Palin when he perceives her as the helpless victim of the media with no one else ready to defend her. If you follow his actions closely, it’s pretty obvious how every time she doesn’t appear dependent on him or doesn’t respond to “her savior” immediately, he sulks. There are many more examples such as his constant whining in the DC article last Sunday every time she didn’t respond to his emails etc., with the strongest proof being his attack on her this week which is in reaction to the documentary he’s got no part in as proven above.

How else can you explain his irrational behavior of praising Palin suddenly after the Tucson shooting even though she remained the same person who had left her governorship and has become a Fox News contributor – the two things he always has greatest issue with? This also explains why he’s rooting for Pawlenty out of all the other candidates since he’s clearly the new underdog. One has got to be utterly naïve to believe that Ziegler is truly convinced Palin is the one ruining Pawlenty’s chances and at the same time believe that Pawlenty has a better chance in defeating Obama than Palin. Just rereading my last sentence shows the ridiculousness in Ziegler’s latest attention-seeking article.

In his DC article last Sunday, Ziegler also wrote the following:

Quite simply, the evidence is overwhelming that Palin would get crushed by Obama in such a resounding fashion that it may even threaten the Republican hold on the House and the party’s presumed taking of the Senate.

What evidence? Palin played a major role in the success the Conservatives and Tea Party members had in the 2010 election in which the Republicans picked up 63 in the House of Representatives. Her endorsement for Sean Duffy from WI-7, Ann Marie Buerkle from NY-25, and Allen West from FL-22 amongst many other candidates has been credited for creating the momentum that helped them win in

Democratic strongholds. And in 2012 she will be the cause for the loss of seats?

Ziegler seems to have a personal grudge against Palin which he hides at times pretty successfully, but is seen in his attempt to use every and any excuse he can possibly create to discredit her from running. Although he claims he no longer wanted her to run when she resigned from governorship, in his article last Sunday he wrote that he told Palin directly in their meeting in Alaska when she was still governor that;

“You have to know, you can’t beat Obama in 2012. The media won’t let you. They won’t let him lose and the narrative about you is too negative to correct in three-and-a-half years.”

Once she quit, that became his official song for a while and he kept on changing the tune to keep up with the times. He jumped from the electability issue, to claiming it’s in the best of her interest to wait until 2016. He then felt that she had too much on her plate, until he landed with her harming the party by destroying the other campaigns. (If no one can beat Obama, who’s chancing is she ruining? And if they can’t beat her how can the beat Obama PLUS the media?) This guy should get an A+ for his creative imagination!!

By the way, don’t most of these sound eerily familiar as the talking points of the liberals? Which one takes it from the other? Here, Ziegler worried that she’s too busy with her kids to run for president. How nice of you Mr. Ziegler to involve her children!

If you think you’ve heard it all then look below at this one! It truly blows the top! Ziegler wrote the following in March ‘10 a week after Palin was on Jay Leno’s show and he was still blowing over his non-invitation and having to get up early the next day to be on Joe Scarborough’s show.

Some will say that the first hurdle is winning the nomination and that, should the economy continue in deep recession, that anyone at the top of the Republican ticket would beat Obama. Therefore, Palin is right to worry about appealing to the “base” first and then deal with independents and Obama later.

My answer to that would be that under the “economic doom” scenario, Palin might very be the only mainstream Republican Obama could beat. Think of it this way, if things are truly that desperate in 2012, is America really going to dump a guy who at least has four years of Presidential experience for a person who has none, who “quit” her job as Governor of a small state, and who they have been told over and over is not very bright?

You see the problem with coming up with a scenario where Palin could be Obama in 2012 is that the worse things get for him, the less likely that the country would be to take a chance on her.

How much sense does that make to you? How many people consider Obama’s last couple of years as massive experience? What one thing has he done right? The student protests in Iran? Libya? Egypt? Insulting our friends in England and Israel? Jobs? Economy? Energy policies? Wanting to try KSM in Manhattan? Naming a police officer “stupid” before knowing the details? I’ll let you fill in the rest of his impressive resume.

On the other hand, reading Palin’s facebook posts provides clear concise answers to countless issues facing us regarding energy independence, foreign policy, healthcare, and every other topic. This is besides all her past experience.

For those of you not familiar with Ziegler and afraid that with all his scientific polling he’s better informed than anyone else in regard to election outcomes, the following are two more excerpts which Ziegler wrote, one after Scott Brown’s astonishing victory in MA in the special election of Kennedy’s senate seat, and the other in regard to Frank Bailey’s anti-Palin book; with which I rest my case.

In an article titled Brown’s win not necessarily a harbinger of GOP comeback, Zeigler wrote several reasons why Brown won and I copied those relevant to my point:

Fourth, Brown is not just a good candidate, he is so ideal that there is no way his win can possibly be duplicated around the country. Unless of course Republicans have a sable full of experienced, properly accented, locally educated, hunky male candidates with perfect names who drive trucks and whose wives are local newscasters but who are portly enough where their husband’s good looks don’t turn off females voters (the John Edwards effect) and whose daughters are American Idol contestants who star on local college basketball teams. Good luck with that Michael Steele. Sarah Palin is clearly very fertile but even she couldn’t possibly populate a master race of populist Republican candidates fast enough to fill the need.

Sixth, the Haitian earthquake took almost all of Martha Coakley’s natural allies in the news media away from Massachusetts at exactly the time she needed them to descend on Boston to dig up some dirt on Brown. Does anyone really believe that if the quake hadn’t hit that the national media wouldn’t have unleashed Palin-like hell on Brown once they realized he was a legitimate threat? When is a Republican ever going to get a “pass” like that again?

It seems like Ziegler didn’t follow the news in regard to Brown. What sort of pass did Brown get? Olbermann’s favorite topic was blasting Brown with ridiculous untruths such as him having raped women, being a racist for driving a pick-up truck, and being a birther. The left always has enough reporters and attack dogs when wanting to destroy Republicans, as seen then and at every occasion. Ziegler also claimed his victory was unrelated to Obamacare and would have no effect in 2010, something he’s been proven wrong big time!

In another article written on 5/31, he wrote that Frank Bailey’s new anti-Palin book has caused his vision of Palin to become blurry and become unsure of who she really is, further causing him to need to reflect and refocus because Bailey’s book explains with proofs of emails between him and Palin some of the stories Ziegler’s been directly involved. And what’s his new view? His attack piece last Sunday! So,

A- Ziegler is back to himself and his own feelings, although he mainly pretends to be acting out of the goodness of his heart.

B- Most of Palin’s emails have been released to the public and the media hasn’t found anything derogatory against Palin. Why hasn’t Ziegler specified details?

C- Ziegler chooses to believe someone who released private emails from his former employer whom Ziegler officially supports.

D- Ziegler chooses to believe this guy who’s involved in two unethical charges rather than other Palin supporters who’ve explained he’s taken her words out of context and twisted stuff around. For example, Bailey used an email Palin wrote in regard to rumors about her daughter’s pregnancy before she actually knew about it, as her reaction towards her daughter herself, and not rumors.

An aside, after having read every article available online I was able to find that John Ziegler wrote about Palin, it is simply mind boggling to see how self-centered and self-thinking the guy is. Just reading his thoughts will convince all of you who this guy really is, and how every second line is promoting one of his videos or is filled with I and I!

To sum it up, depending on his mood swings and whatever is convenient at the moment, Ziegler uses different “reasons” why Palin shouldn’t run, although his true reason is his opposition to Palin. This is the John Ziegler, after many hours of research on his articles that I know.

Cross Posted at Red State

Update: Thank You Texans For Sarah Palin for linking and quoting this article!
Update II: The Book Of Sarah has linked to this article as well!

The Philanthropist, Barack Obama

Since more than half of Obama’s first term as the president of the great U.S. has passed, it’s time to step back and take a peek at what he’s done with our tax money. We currently have a debt of over 14.36 trillion U.S. dollars, which is an increase of over three trillion in less than three years since he’s been in office. The national debt had been at 10.6 trillion dollars the day Obama took office. Obama keeps on blaming the debt as inherited, but he added in a half a term more than half of what Bush added in 8 years! In Obama’s first 57 days, over 400 billion dollars debt was added! 

Obama seems to have a generous streak in his personality, and has given and promised support for many.  There hasn’t been enough focus on his giving nature, perhaps because of his humility, so I decided to compile a list focusing on his generosity.

•   Union Brotherhood and Acorn:

Right at the start of his presidency Obama overturned a policy which forbade airport screeners from organizing. That’s a future 63,000 new union members as thanks to the unions for the sixty million dollars they’ve spent to get Obama into office. Here’s a link with to two videos where Obama speaks to the SEIU and tells them that their agenda is his agenda, and that he wants to paint the nation purple. Additionally, Acorn was given federal grants and stimulus money for their humanitarian efforts in bringing as many dead people as possible back to life in the voting booths.

•   Bailouts for the car companies:

 The Republicans were outraged at the 85 billion dollars Obama gave to car companies without requiring them to make any serious reforms such as cutting worker pension plans etc.  Now, after 2 years, Obama has declared the bailout a success because they actually returned a few billion of the 85 billion dollars they had received!!  To understand how this can be considered a true success, your name has to be Barack Obama. How and when will they repay the rest? That doesn’t matter. Union Brotherhood is draining them from any profit they could hope of, while all the environmental regulations squeeze the breath out of them.  Not to worry, the government will promote their cars by giving each individual purchasing the Volt, a car on batteries, a 10,000 dollar subsidy! That actually happens to be another example of the philanthropy of Obama, and this time he’s not even singling out who qualifies-race wise, income wise, party wise...  as long as they are an environmentalist.

• Drilling for Oil in foreign Countries

Brazil is on the receiving end from the Obama administration for billions of dollars to explore offshore drilling. At the same time, the Obama administration is forbidding companies to drill in the United States even with their own money! Never mind taxpayers’ money!

• Islamic fundamentalists:

The U.S. at the G8 conference together with the other nations  have  pledged 40 billion dollars for Arab Spring occurring in the Middle East and North Africa to stabilize Egypt and Tunisia, and help fight for rights in Libya, Syria, Yemen and other nations in the region. Additionally Obama has given for Egypt, which is under partial control of the Muslim Brotherhood 2 billion dollars, by waiving a previous 1 billion dollar loan and promising an additional billion dollars!  All this is despite the fact that all this money can very possibly fall into our enemies hands. In fact, it has been reported recently that there are currently over 400 Al Qaeda terrorists in Sinai.

Never mind the fact that we have to borrow this money from China in order to fulfill his generous gesture.

•   Illegal Immigrants:

Free health care, an amazing deed, indeed. All the citizens struggling to pay their own insurance policies are positively thrilled to have their tax money and future tax money to pay interests for borrowed money that then goes to illegals that don’t even pay taxes. These illegals kids get free education thrown into the package, also from taxpayer money, crowding up the classrooms thereby creating a disadvantage to the Americans’ kids. And if we’re giving already, we might as well give them housing, food stamps and any other program available to Americans in the lower earning bracket. Forty seven million Americans are currently on food stamps and Gingrich dares call Obama the food stamps president? 

Obama said in El Paso that Republicans would never be satisfied with what he’ll do about border control, even if he puts a moat with alligators, as though he’s done even a single thing to make our borders safer. Obama has also told Latinos before the 2010 midterms to be aware and punish our enemies and reward our friends. Indeed, Obama has given so much to them, but perhaps at the expense of the citizens’ in whose interest he’s supposed to be focused? After all, whoever you’ll ask we’ll respond he wants them to sneak across the border, everyone besides for those evil Republicans. Sure. All those looking for job, which amounts to over 10% of this country; they all want another 20 million illegals to undercut them.

·         

•  Worldwide Contraception:

Obama signed an executive order, overturning Bush’s previous order, to fund abortion groups worldwide. Nancy Pelosi, the former House Speaker, explained why it’s part of the stimulus, in that less people will equal fewer dependents on programs. Additionally, fewer people will equal less pollution to pollute the environment. When Stephanopoulos asked her whether she regrets her statement, she responded; No apologies. 

We could go on and on about Obama’s greatness and philanthropy, which is something he’s not given credit often enough. Whether for illegals, acorn, or supporting drilling in foreign countries Obama’s generosity surprisingly isn’t in sync with the will of the American people, especially in such tough economic times. Obama’s philanthropy comes at the expense of the over 300 million citizens who have entrusted him with the presidency and with making the right choices where are country’s taxes shall be spent. Not only the over 300 million citizens, but their grandchildren and grandchildren’ grandchildren will be paying off all the debt this country has accumulated in the spirit of his generosity.

This article has been cross-posted at Red State.

The Question is not whether it is a “Gangster Government,” Rather Whose?

The mainstream media erupted in anger over the choice of words of an outspoken Republican representative, Michele Bachmann in naming this administration a “gangster government.”  The media launched into their typical, “how dare you attach such a false and slanderous name to this administration?” tirade

.   

Their ruckus is nearly identical to the storm that exploded at the naming of Obamacare.  In case any of you need your memory refreshed, Obamacare is a bill that’s over 2,500 pages that not a single senator or American had a chance to read, but Obama proclaimed that he knew exactly what was within that monstrous creation.  Well, if Obama wanted the country to support the bill only because of his knowledge of its contents, then it rightly deserves to be named after him!  Who else should the bill have been named after if not for “The Anointed One,” the only one with complete understanding of its contents?  If the crowds would react positively to the bill, the left would give Obama full credit for being the mastermind and composer of the bill.  Alas, the people united in their opposition against the bill, so the leftist media had to distance Obama from the unpopular parts of the bill. No matter what you call the health care bill; history will have put the responsibility squarely on Obama’s shoulder.  

In a similar vein, while the left is all riled up at the calling the current administration “gangster government,” they’re questioning is wrong.  After all, what other name is this administration worthy of?  They took control of GM, the banks, and a whole lot of other industries and then use these institutions to promote their own agenda.  Suddenly, one year before elections Government Motors announced that they will be hiring more workers thus creating additional jobs.  What a coincidence! 

In typical gangster style, the NLRB which was appointed by Obama is blocking Boeing from using the factory they built in South Carolina because it’s a “right to work” state.  Don’t you even dare suggest involving Obama’s name in this one for isn’t that the reason why he’s appointed these guys to their jobs?  

The federal government’s budget is paid by its citizens through taxes, which the government is supposed to use to keep this country safe.  Over time, the federal government has become lax about some of their duties such as keeping our southern border closed, until the states had no choice but to enforce what the feds are supposed to take care of.  Arizona passed a law to fight the endless illegal immigrants streaming into their state and wreaking havoc to their citizens and economy.  Eric Holder, Obama’s Attorney General, sued Arizona, claiming their law to be unconstitutional even though he hadn’t even read their bill.  Eric, how about focusing on implementing the federal laws and leaving the states alone?  Stop using our tax money to fight against us.  

This is not the first time Holder has acted against the safety of this country.  Shortly after being appointed as AG, Holder threatened the CIA who works tirelessly to protect the U.S., to try them for using enhanced interrogation methods on stubborn terrorists.  He likewise insisted on a civilian trial for KSM contrary to the pleas of the 9/11 victims’ families, amongst many others, who rightfully insisted he deserves a military trial and not a circus.  Eric actually wanted it to take place in Manhattan which would’ve put the city once more in the cross-hairs of terrorists still at loose.  Debra Burlingame, a sister of one of the pilots from the hijacked planes, met with Obama when he came to New York after Osama Bin Laden’s death.  She told Obama that as an attorney she knows Obama can’t tell Eric Holder what to do, but can he please tell Holder his opinion on Holder’s attempt to pursue criminal charges against CIA investigators, Obama just said “No I won’t” and walked away.  Since when is Obama shy to speak his mind?  It’s obviously an attempt of his part to keep the blame off him while having his errand boys do the dirty work for him.   

What a shocker it was to see none other than President Obama himself ganging up against the little guys.  He did try to do the following first through congress, and I guess none of his czars could claim the authority for this one, so now Obama’s getting ready to sign an executive order that will force any contractor or business currently dealing with the government or seeking to do so in the future, whether to bid for a project or to supply the government with any merchandise, to release in an online document a listing of the political contributions the company and its senior employees have made in the last two years.  This includes contributions to a third party group that uses the money for “independent expenditures or electioneering communications.”  Oh sure, and we’re supposed to believe this order is being written to promote transparency and not, as Forbes Magazine  dared naming it, Nixonian.  Does he really think we’re so stupid to believe that bids won’t be given to those that donated to his candidacy and party rather than to those that supported “the enemy”?  

Additionally, this president has appointed over thirty czars who report directly and only to him.  These czars then issue regulations that Obama couldn’t get congress to pass, thereby creating a totalitarian government without the need to remove congress.  

To sum it up, the health care bill is not Obamacare and Eric Holder’s actions have absolutely nothing with Obama either.  Neither does the EPA or his numerous czars, although he’s constantly in closed-door meetings with them.  The question conservatives therefore have to ask is who, if not Obama, is out of control? 

It’s Time to teach this President a Lesson on Economics while at the Same Time confronting his Phony Energy Policy. Let’s Deal with the Hated Speculators as well.

The hypocrisy of the Obama administration and his media cohorts is simply mind boggling! Instead of being open about their destructive energy policy, they began a campaign against oil companies and speculators as a cover for the sky rocketing oil prices.

Speculators decide the price of a barrel of oil as well as the prices in many other industries such as silver, gold, and wheat. These as well as other products’ prices are calculated based on the demand versus the supply. In a similar vein, the dollar is constantly rising and falling due to the constant shifting of our economy. The hatred for oil companies and speculators for oil, however, are unparalleled. This is because gas has gone up so drastically, and the government needs a scapegoat for the people to blame.

The Obama energy policy is crashing, or better yet, never took off ground. Where are all the wind turbines and solar panels and volt cars powered by electricity (which is powered by gas) that Obama had promised? He’s against oil, coal, and nuclear, which are the three main energy sources in this country. I know Obama has said in some of his talks to the country that he supports new nuclear reactors just as in some of his speeches he claims to support coal mining and drilling for oil. All that talk is a piece of bluff. When it comes to putting those words into action, there simply is none. And when others try to build on them, he puts stumbling blocks in their path thereby revealing his true colors. He had said on the campaign trail to the San Francisco Chronicle that he wants to regulate coal mines to such a degree so that energy prices will "necessarily skyrocket"!

And who is being blamed for the current oil prices? The speculators! They create neither the demand nor the supply, so what are they guilty of? May one no longer speculate and say how much oil we have? Why should the speculators be polarized and put down for saying the truth and setting the facts straight? What happened to freedom of speech? I’m not going to name anyone as a socialist or communist, but what on earth is happening to this country?

Obama’s policy has been, “let us use every disaster to our benefit.” The accident in the gulf by BP Oil Co. led Obama to ban deep water drilling, forcing the oil companies to go elsewhere. The reason they’ve been drilling in such unbelievably deep water is because the liberals have banned them from drilling right off the shore where we have hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of oil buried. Alaska and many other states also have tons of oil waiting to be sucked out of its grounds while Obama chants “drill baby drill”, not in the U.S. but in Brazil. If we will increase the production of American produced oil, our supply of oil will increase thereby bringing a drop in price.

Regarding the complaints against oil companies at their unjustifiably large profits, last I checked America is still a capitalist country in which one may build a business to bring in a profit. For those of you that believe that the price of oil rose so dramatically because of the oil companies who want to increase their profits, Exxon makes 28 cents per $3.00 gallon of gas, while you pay in average 48 cents per gallon in taxes. The federal government makes billions of dollars a year in tax revenue without lifting a pinky to earn that money. In fact, it only puts roadblocks and mountains in the paths of the oil companies to produce more oil. Why doesn’t anyone blame the feds for the raised gas prices?

The administration pretends to support an increased energy supply and give permits to drill in a land that doesn’t have oil wells and then has the chutzpah to blame the oil companies for the higher prices. In actuality the oil companies end up wasting a lot of their profit money in research and attempts to remove oil from land with no oil, while barred from oil-loaded fields. What a two-faced administration! After Shell shelled out nearly 4 billion to drill oil off the coast of Alaska, the EPA blocked them from drilling because of some environmental fear. That’s billion with a “B”! Why should companies invest in American oil wells when they risk so much?

So yes, oil prices are decided by speculators and oil companies do make a profit, but it’s the Obama energy policies and the EPA that are guilty without the slightest doubt.