Liz Cheney Disagrees With Dad, Stands Up For Palin

by John Nolte 30 Jul 2012
 

  In his interview with ABC News over the weekend, former Vice President Dick Cheney was not only wrong to take a public shot at Governor Sarah Palin in the sense that lending any kind of affirmation to a media narrative about one of our own is immoral -- he's wrong factually.

With real-time polling, time and again, it's been conclusively documented that the "mistake" -- as Cheney describes Palin -- was the only chance John McCain ever had of becoming president. Polling also makes clear that McCain blew the election all on his own after abruptly suspending his campaign to, uhm, save the economy. In other words, in front of the entire free world, McCain jumped on a white horse and charged off with no idea where to go.

Last night, Cheney's daughter, Liz, set the record straight:

Rarely do I disagree with best VP ever but @SarahPalinUSA more qualified than Obama and Biden combined. Huge respect 4 all she's done 4 GOP.

 The elder Cheney is also wrong in the sense that Palin's years in government, especially two years as the chief executive of a state, make her qualified to be president. It's just a fact that she was and is more qualified than any sitting senator with zero executive experience, and this would include Obama, Biden, and McCain himself.

Moreover, during the 2008 campaign, it was Palin who almost always had the guts and the correct instincts. Unlike McCain, she was the one who  bristled at the idea of constantly caving to media narratives and the one who wanted to vet Barack Obama's shady and corrupt past. It was always McCain and the rest of the GOP who thought he could win by appeasing the corrupt media -- it was always McCain who strapped on his "honor" and blindly leapt on to every grenade thrown at him, instead of throwing it back.

We all know who lost that election and we all know what the consequences have been.

By the way, no one should be in the least surprised it would be Liz Cheney who would come out publicly to "disagree" with her own father. Because in the GOP today, it's the women who have the most grit and courage -- and this most certainly includes Governor Palin.

For four years now we've all watched as the collective left in the media and Hollywood have done everything in their power to destroy Sarah Palin and her family. And all the while, too many of the so-called men in our Republican party have done nothing to defend her or have selfishly aggrandized themselves by joining in.  

Andrew Breitbart famously described those in the Republican Party guilty of this unforgivable lack of chivalry as "eunuchs," which is exactly right. There's no question that Sarah Palin is more than capable of defending herself, but a man who doesn't instinctively attempt to defend a woman and her family under a blisteringly unfair attack is lacking in honor.  

A man who unnecessarily piles on is simply embarrassing himself.  

Big Government

Mark Steyn fillets authoritarian mayors

July 29, 2012
Joseph Smith

While Rush Limbaugh cut right to the chase on Chick-fil-A, calling out the "Stalinist" tactics of several big-city mayors for their "direct assault on Christianity," the inimitable Mark Steyn was busy with a fine-point pen.

Referring to a Chicago alderman's opposition to Chick-fil-A opening a restaurant in his ward because the company president, who is a Christian, recently stated his support for traditional marriage and opposition to gay marriage, Steyn writes:

...in a city with an Aurora-sized body count every weekend, his priority was to take the municipal tire-iron to the owners of a chain of fast-food restaurants...

The city's mayor, Rahm Emanuel, agrees with the alderman: Chick-fil-A does not represent "Chicago values" - which is true if by "Chicago values" you mean machine politics, AIDS-conspiracy-peddling pastors, and industrial-scale black youth homicide rates.

But, before he was mayor, Rahm Emanuel was President Obama's chief of staff. Until the president's recent "evolution," the Obama administration held the same position on gay marriage as Chick-fil-A.

And referring to Boston Mayor Tom Menino, who suggested in a letter that the company stay out of Boston, Steyn further observes:

If you've just wandered in in the middle of the column, this guy Menino isn't the mayor of Soviet Novosibirsk or Kampong Cham under the Khmer Rouge, but of Boston, Massachusetts.

Nevertheless, he shares the commissars' view that in order to operate even a modest and politically inconsequential business it is necessary to demonstrate that one is in full ideological compliance with party orthodoxy.

Romney campaign surrogate, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, campaigning in North Carolina on Saturday, called the official intimidation "chilling":

Now you have the police power of government intimidating and threatening people... based on their free speech rights and their religious views.  I mean it's chilling.  I mean it's stunning, it is jaw-dropping.  And so I think strong people who see this need to stand up and say no we don't do that in the United States.

We have seen this same behavior in attempts to demonize Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and the tea party, among others, always following the Alinsky maxim - "pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
Palin, for her part, tweeted a photo on Friday of herself and husband Todd from a Houston-area Chick-fil-A, noting that "we don't have that in Alaska,' and adding "love me some Chick-fil-A."

In a May National Review article, John Fund reminds us that it's "Still the Alinsky Playbook" for the Democrats, quoting Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

...they'll go after anybody or any organization that they think is standing in their way. You know the drill. Expose these folks to public view, release the liberal thugs on them, and then hope the public pressure or the unwanted attention scares them from supporting similar causes down the road.

And here they are, at Chick-fil-A.  Fund concludes:

You can expect that the Obama 2012 campaign and allied groups will be filled with people deeply steeped in Rules for Radicals. That is good reason for conservatives to spend time studying Saul Alinsky.

As R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. observes in his 2011 book The Death of Liberalism, (p. 161), "there have always been authoritarian currents in Progressivism, the New Deal and Liberalism." 

An understatement, perhaps, but painfully obvious when the mask comes off.

American Thinker

Romney Charms Israel, Vows US Backing for Israeli Strike on Iran

by Breitbart News 29 Jul 2012

  Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney arrived in Israel to a warm welcome yesterday, and met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres in the capital city of Jerusalem today. Romney's warm connection with Netanyahu--whom he has known for decades--was evident. The Romney campaign emphasized that unlike incumbent President Barack Obama, a Romney administration would support a pre-emptive Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, should that become a necessity for Israel. In remarks prepared for delivery, Romney stated:

When Iran’s leaders deny the Holocaust or speak of wiping this nation off the map, only the naïve – or worse – will dismiss it as an excess of rhetoric.  Make no mistake: the ayatollahs in Tehran are testing our moral defenses.  They want to know who will object, and who will look the other way.

My message to the people of Israel and the leaders of Iran is one and the same: I will not look away; and neither will my country. As Prime Minister Begin put it, in vivid and haunting words, “if an enemy of [the Jewish] people says he seeks to destroy us, believe him.”

 

We have seen the horrors of history.  We will not stand by.  We will not watch them play out again.

Romney was careful to honor his pledge to avoid direct criticism of President Barack Obama abroad. He also noted the solemnity of the day of his visit, which is observed by Jews as the anniversary of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and the Romans.

Netanyahu stressed that sanctions and international talks had failed to deter the Iranian regime: "We have to be honest and say that all the diplomacy and sanctions and diplomacy so far have not set back the Iranian program by one iota." Romney also emphasized the threat of a nuclear Iran, as well as common bonds between Israel and the United States.

In addition to Peres, Romney met with other government officials, though canceled a meeting with opposition leader Shelly Yachimovich--a decision that Yachimovich's Labor Party blamed on political considerations and prompting from within the Israeli government.

Breitbart

Olympic Crimes Against Israel--and Common Sense

by Joel B. Pollak 29 Jul 2012

 This year marks the 40th anniversary of the murder of 11 members of the Israeli delegation to the Olympic Games in Munich by Palestinian terrorists of the "Black September" faction. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) rejected pleas by the families of the victims, and supporters worldwide, to include a memorial as part of the opening ceremonies for the games in London. It was only one of many affronts to Israel at the games--as well as to common sense, and the "Olympic spirit." The same IOC that rejected a memorial for the Munich victims included moments of silence for the victims of war, as well as for the 7/7 terror attacks in Britain in 2005 (a memorial that NBC failed to air). Yet somehow the IOC could not find thirty seconds for the victims of an atrocity directly connected with the Games themselves. The true motive was confirmed by news of an effusive letter from the Palestinian Authority to IOC president Jacques Rogge, thanking him for rejecting the Israeli request. Palestinians regard the Black September murderers as heroes, and the IOC feared to provoke them or supporters within the Arab world.

In a further insult, the IOC bowed to a request by the Lebanese delegation to have a screen erected between its judo team and the Israeli team so that they would not have to share the same practice mat as the Israelis.

And the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), providing coverage of events in London worldwide, is refusing to identify Jerusalem as its capital in its broadcasts, prompting protests from the Israeli government. Recently, a BBC anchor also referred to the terror attack in Bulgaria that left five Israelis dead and many more injured as an "accident."

What we are witnessing is the continued hostility towards Israel--and Jews--in international institutions under pressure from the Arab-Islamic bloc of nations (and within elite British officialdom as well). It is a disgrace--and all the more shocking as it reprises the international isolation of the Jewish people in the 1930s. Jews were allowed to compete--barely--in the Munich games in 1936, but within a few years the Evian conference on refugees made it clear that the world was prepared to look the other way. The attitude of the IOC and the BBC towards Israel are a sign that the world may be headed back in the wrong direction.

Big Journalism

NY City Council Speaker Stands Against Freedom of Speech

by Warner Todd Huston 29 Jul 2012

 City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. Quinn is proud to stand against our Constitutional rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. She is also proud to stand against the right to do legal business anywhere without fearing the iron boot heel of government coming down on citizens for having upset some haughty government official somewhere. Quinn has condemned Chick-Fil-A for having dared to break no laws in the exercise of its daily business and is sponsoring one of those wondrous Internet petitions saying so.

If a petition were to be where her ire ended, well, that would be her right as a private citizen. However, she's taken that step farther which makes her actions illegal. Quinn's invoked her powers as an elected official and sent a letter to New York University's president demanding that the Chick-Fil-A outlet on his campus be shut down.

Writing "as the Speaker of the NYC Council," Quinn's letter contains at least one veiled threat and one overt one -- the latter clearly being un-American and un-Constitutional. The letter reads in part…

Let me be clear -- I do not want establishments in my city that hold such discriminatory views.

We are a city that believes our diversity is our greatest strength and we will fight anything and anyone that runs counter to that

I know from our long relationship that you and your university celebrate the diversity of NYC. Your history in this area is exemplary.

As such I urge you to sever your relationship with the Chick-Fil-A establishment that exists on your campus. This establishment should be replaced with an establishment where the ownership does not denigrate a portion of our population.

First of all, this idea that "diversity is our greatest strength" is absolute, feels-goodism at its worst. It is a rote saying that has no meaning. But that's a quibble compared with the authoritarian threat and the veiled threat contained in this screed.

Then there is this "my city," stuff. You, my dear, are an elected official. New York is not "yours." It is the collective ours, not the autocratic yours. After all, there are millions of New Yorkers, who agree with the owners of Chick-Fil-A about gay marriage. Are you saying those voters have no right to live in "your city"?

The veiled threat is in the second paragraph above. Note that Quinn's implied threat is that if the university doesn't agree with her that Chick-Fil A is the worst company ever, then the university will no longer have that "exemplary" love of diversity record.

And then there is the overt and un-Constitutional threat. Quinn's use of her power as an elected official to oppress a business that has neither broken any laws nor been accused of breaking any laws anywhere in the country, but one whose owners have certain (and inalienable) religious ideas, is unconscionable.

This letter gets even worse. At its end the Speaker tells the university to not only close down Chick-Fil-A but force the next fast food outlet that opens in that space to hire the same people that worked for Chick-Fil-A.

...I also urge you to keep the workers who are employed by Chick-Fil-A and ensure that the replacement restaurant lets them retain their jobs.

That's right, this dictator thinks she can tell the next business who they must hire for having the privilege of taking Chick-Fil-A's spot on the campus!

Ms. Quinn says that Chick-Fil-A is "repugnant and un-American." But what is really repugnant and un-American is this arrogant woman using her position of power to quash a business whose owners she disagrees with on religious matters, but one that has otherwise broken no laws at all.

Quinn has just pronounced Christianity a hate crime. How long will it be before some politician somewhere tries to make this pronouncement a matter of law?

Big Government

Refuting Obama: The Story of Henry Ford

July 28, 2012
By Isaac Martin

 Everyone is by now familiar with President Obama's famous collectivist speech in Roanoke, Virginia.

Governor Romney promptly reacted to these statist sentiments, saying, "The idea that Steve Jobs didn't build Apple, that Henry Ford didn't build Ford Motor, that Ray Kroc didn't build McDonald's, is not just foolishness; it is insulting to every entrepreneur, every innovator in America. And it's wrong."

Truly, in addition to their efforts, entrepreneurs did get help, but it was from private -- not government -- investors and employees, who in turn were rewarded with pay, promotions, and dividends.

Romney's Ford Motor Company example is worth exploring.  Mr. Ford's company literally transformed, in an immense, economically positive way, the American landscape with his cars, which linked directly to roads and bridges.

Today, few people are aware of Ford's start.  Consider Obama's "great teacher" archetype.  Ford's education took place in a one-room schoolhouse via McGuffey Readers grade-school texts, so there was no "great teacher" miracle worker.  If one individual gave Ford personal encouragement growing up, it was his mother, to whom he was devoted.

As Ford grew up, he was fascinated by mechanics.  At the turn of the 20^th century, motor cars were capturing the public's attention, and Ford determined that he would find his career calling in that field.  After some failed starts, Ford Motor Company was incorporated June 16, 1903, when he was 40 years old -- proof again that you're never too old to pursue your dream.

Obama believes that private-sector success means that "someone else made it happen," and he thinks government is that someone.  In Ford's case, business acquaintances invested $100K.  Actual cash was $28,000, the balance being IOUs.  About a month later, company cash on hand was only $226.23, but factory landlord Albert Strelow delivered his $5K investment.  Cars began selling, and in August, the company was $23K ahead.  Investors took a risk with zero guarantee that they would see any money, let alone dividends, paid back.  It was classic capitalism.  

As company engineer, Ford knew the car he wanted to build to sell "to the multitude" [1], and in 1908, the Model T put Ford Motor Company on the map.  It was simple, durable, and quality-built.  Ford knew that to sell, the Model T needed to be inexpensive, hence development of the assembly line.  A five-year sample of production figures  illustrates Ford's success:

• 1911: 34,858
• 1912: 68,773
• 1913: 170,211
• 1914: 202,667
• 1915: 308,162

Here's where Obama sounds like a fool and Romney is right. Ford built his company through vision, motivation, and daily decision-making.  Honestly, Ford didn't build his cars alone; employees contributed their talents.  Machinists C. Harold Wills and Edward S. Huff worked alongside Ford fabricating prototype Model T parts.  Charles E. Sorensen was Ford's production manager for 40 years.  Naturally, there were tens of thousands of factory workers, and Ford's profit-based entrepreneurism allowed them to earn a prosperous living.  To my knowledge, there was no government investment or "help."

Obama regularly invokes the holy "your government in action" grail of road and bridge investments.  So did this help Ford succeed commercially?  I doubt it.  In the classic "which came first, cars or good roads" conundrum, road-building played catch-up with consumer automotive demand.  

It shouldn't be surprising that private citizens saw the need for all-weather roads.  A Good Roads Movement started in about 1870, ostensibly for bicyclists, and expanded to include automobiles.  One major populist road improvement example was the Lincoln Highway, connecting New York City with San Francisco.  According to the association, founded in 1913, most roads were dirt and didn't always connect where people wanted to go.  Search YouTube, and you'll find period films of Model Ts navigating rutted dirt roads turned into axle-deep mud rivers after a rain.

Entrepreneur Carl Fisher -- there's individual initiative again -- who built the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, envisioned this coast-to-coast graded highway.  His idea was to privately fund the $10-million project from auto manufacturer contributions.  Ironically, Henry Ford was opposed to the idea, thinking that the public should learn to fund roads.  Congress finally got on board with the passage of The Federal Aid Road Act of 1916, which provided states with matching construction funds.  Tin Lizzy production that year, by the way, totaled 501,462.  For eight years after the first Model T puttered to life, Ford prospered without government infrastructure "investment."

Romney highlighted individuals who transformed their ideas into success via hard work coupled with employee dedication.  As the Declaration of Independence so eloquently put it, everyone engaged in his own "pursuit of happiness."  Success is rarely simple or easy, but I'll take Romney's vision of prosperity over what Obama's sellin' any day.

---

[1] Lacy, Robert. Ford: The Men and The Machine, Little, Brown and Company, Boston-Toronto, 1986. Page 84.

American Thinker

Bachmann Still Standing as Information on Huma Abedin Emerges

by AWR Hawkins 27 Jul 2012
 

 Rep. Michele Bachmann has faced an onslaught of opposition since requesting that U.S. intelligence and security agencies investigate possible ties between Huma Abedin and the Muslim Brotherhood. This onslaught not withstanding, information that has become public since Bachmann's request has only justified her concern and magnified the need to ascertain what influence the Muslim Brotherhood may be exercising in U.S. governmental affairs. Here's what we know:

1. Abedin's mother is not only a member of the Muslim Sisterhood but also sits on its Guidance Bureau (along with Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi's wife).

2. Abedin's mother is also a board member of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief. This council has been banned in Israel for its support of Hamas.

3. Abedin's brother has alleged ties to Omar Naseef and Sheikh Yusus al-Qaradawi, two of the most influential terror supporters in the world.

4. Abedin became involved in the Institute for Minority Muslim Affairs (IMMA) during the Clinton presidency and remained involved with that group until leaving it for a position with Sec. of State Hillary Clinton in 2008. During this time the IMMA was backed by Omar Naseef, one of the influential terror supporters with whom Abedin's brother has alleged ties.

5. Abedin's mother is also heavily involved in the IMMA.

When we take these things into consideration, along with the fact that Sec. Clinton recently overrode Congressional objections and sent a $1.5 billion lump-sum payment to Morsi's Islamist government in Egypt, it only makes sense to investigate what influence the Muslim Brotherhood may be having over our foreign policy.

Bachmann took a stand for the security of the United States. And, thankfully, she's still standing.

Big Journalism