Categorized | Sidebar Open Thread

Open Thread

The Governor appears to be enjoying the National Finals Rodeo in Las Vegas this weekend.


Comment Policy: The Editors reserve the right to delete any comments which in their sole discretion are deemed false or misleading, profane, pornographic, defamatory, harassment, name calling, libelous, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate. Additionally, the Editors reserve the right to ban any registered poster who, in their sole discretion, violates the terms of use. Do not post any information about yourself reasonably construed as private or confidential. Conservatives4Palin and its contributors are not liable if users allow others to contact them offsite.

  • ZH100

    Good morning all.

    Excellent article about Gov.Palin’s record of accomplishments.

    ‘Who Is the Real Sarah Palin?’

    From the article:

    Executive Authority and Success

    Palin was the first female and youngest governor to be elected in Alaska, which is tied for the second most powerful governorship in the United States, according to Thad Beyle, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina.

    Budgeting and Spending

    Palin cut state spending between 2007 and 2010 by 9.5% while also reducing federal earmark requests by more than 80% during her tenure. She used her line-item veto to cut more than a quarter billion in superfluous spending in both 2007 and 2008. In 2009, she instituted a temporary hiring freeze, while at the same time reducing spending by more than 33% between FY2009 and FY2010.

    In stark contrast to President Obama and other governors whose fiscal records are dogged by credit downgrades, Palin left Alaska with an improved credit rating during and following her tenure as governor. Standard & Poor’s raised Alaska’s credit rating from AA to AA+ in April 2008. Then in 2010, both Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s upgraded Alaska to AAA for the first time in the state’s history due to policies enacted by Palin that made the state’s finances more than solvent.


    Under Palin’s leadership, Alaska was 2nd in job growth, and 3rd in the change in its unemployment rate, compared to the other states. Alaska also saw a record number of oil jobs in both 2008 and 2009, while natural resource and logging jobs increased 13.7% during Palin’s tenure.

    In fact, Palin’s record on jobs compared to the country as a whole was stronger than the President’s and other prominent governors’ during their respective tenures

    Business Growth

    Alaska was an opportunity society under Palin. Alaska moved up from the 4th most business tax-friendly state to the 3rd most business tax-friendly state during her tenure.

    Palin was a firm believer in tax cuts. In addition to lowering unemployment insurance tax rates, she cut business license fees in half, suspended the state motor fuel tax, and signed legislation, allowing Alaska-based businesses the same opportunities as out-of-state businesses. All of this was consistent with her record as Mayor of Wasilla, where she eliminated small business inventory taxes and cut property tax mill levies every year she was in office.


    Energy issues are Palin’s forte, and her record proves it. In 2007, Governor Palin signed ACES—Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share—a net tax on oil profits that was passed in a bipartisan and transparent manner. ACES replaced the corruption-tainted oil tax plan of the previous administration, which was passed in secret and ultimately lead to the federal indictment of several Alaskan state officials and oil company personnel. Furthermore, ACES provided oil companies with incentives to develop. The progressivity of the tax meant producers were protected when oil prices were low, but the interest of the resource owners—the people of Alaska—were appropriately protected as well to achieve a fair return for their resource.

    Most importantly, ACES led to jobs, increased development, and a huge surplus for Alaska.

    Perhaps Palin’s biggest energy achievement was spearheading the creation of the Alaska natural gas pipeline. After five decades of unsuccessful attempts by Alaskan administrations to bring a gas pipeline project into existence, Palin and her team introduced the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) in March 2007. AGIA passed the Legislature by a vote of 57-1 in May of that year.

    Unlike the behind-closed-doors cronyism of past administrations, Palin’s AGIA legislation was conducted out in the open and made use of a genuine free-market competitive bidding process. Palin’s AGIA placed not only Alaska, but also the nation, further on the path toward energy independence.

    Palin played hardball with the big oil companies in her state. According to the Alaska state constitution, Alaskans are the resource owners in their state; and it was Palin’s duty as their CEO to get the best deal for Alaskans while at the same time partnering with these oil companies for the mutual benefit of all.

    Ethics Reform and Transparency

    Ethics reform was the hallmark of Palin’s governorship. She was swept into office on a reform message in a state with a serious corruption problem. Alaska at the time was undergoing a federal investigation that culminated in the indictment of various corrupt lawmakers. Palin had made a name for herself as an ethics crusader when she chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservative Commission and blew the whistle on fellow commissioner and state GOP head Randy Ruedrich for doing party business on state time. This resulted in Ruedrich receiving a $12,000 fine—the largest civil fine for ethics in the state’s history. Alaskans respected the fact that Palin was not afraid of taking on the establishment of her own party.

    As governor, Palin fought for and signed sweeping bipartisan ethics legislation, which restricted lobbyists, improved disclosure laws, and improved executive and legislative branch ethics laws. In the face of corruption, she continued to take on her own party when it was necessary. She also increased transparency by releasing her oil tax bill to her constituents 17 days prior to the special legislative session, opening up natural gas pipeline deals to all potential parties, putting the state checkbook online, and not allowing lobbyists in her office.


    Palin forward funded education to allow districts greater flexibility, supported increased vocational training and early education funding, opened up opportunity to Alaskan students to participate in regional medical schools, and increased overall funding for special needs education by 175% (before she herself became the mother of son with special needs). Believing that the best reform was close to home, Palin wisely also chose to monitor rather than participate in national standards for education.

    Health Care

    Palin introduced health care transparency legislation that established an Alaska health care information office to give consumers factual information on quality and cost to help them make better-informed health care decisions. Recognizing that health care must be market-and business-driven, rather than restricted by government, Palin proposed repeal of Certificate of Need—a layer of bureaucracy that prevents medical facility development. She established the Alaska Health Strategies Planning Council, reduced Medicaid assessments by 83%, and expanded Alaska’s SeniorCare benefits program for low-income seniors.

    • ZH100

      Governor Palin’s executive accomplishments in list form.

      • John_Frank

        ZH100, appreciate these posts. 

        Also appreciate your encyclopedic knowledge when it comes to responding to the various attempts to smear the Governor.

        This was most recently evidenced in your responses yesterday to a certain individual in the open thread. You did this by resonding to the attack with the uncontroverted facts. This lead the individual to expose himself, ultimately resulting in the offensive comments being removed. 

        Thank you.

        • ZH100

           Thank you , John_Frank.

        • BrianusBerkleianus

          Amen, JF!!

  • ZH100

    As Governor Palin has said many times, she advocates for an “all of the above” approach to energy independence which includes solar, wind, nuclear, and clean coal in addition to the more traditional oil, gas, and coal.

    She supported development of renewable energy sources, developing a plan to have 50% of Alaska’s energy to be produced from renewable sources by the year 2025.

    ‘Palin unveils state energy goals; 2025 GOAL: At least 50 percent of state’s power to be from alternative sources.’    (January , 2009)

    "Gov. Sarah Palin has crossed swords with conservation groups over petroleum drilling, but she earned nothing but praise Friday after announcing the most ambitious renewable energy goals in the nation. At a news conference announcing her statewide energy plan, Palin called for 50 percent of Alaska’s power to be generated by renewable resources by 2025."

    ‘Sarah Palin’s Goal Of 50% Renewable Energy Use In Alaska Signed Into Law’ (June , 2010)

    From the article:

    "One of the first things Barack Obama did, once he took office, was to announce a pretty ambitious goal of having the United States get 25 percent of it’s energy from renewable sources by the year 2025. To date, little if anything, has been done by the Obama regime to reach this goal.

    On January 21, 2009 (Obama’s first full day at work) Sarah Palin, writing in the Wall Street Journal, praised this initiative strongly, while reminding Obama that conventional sources of energy will always be needed. She also announced that she was working on the goal of having Alaska get a full 50 percent of it’s energy from renewables in that same 2025 time frame."

  • Leroy Whitby

    Is there a path back to America’s great traditions and freedom?

    • Freempg

      You don’t like the beautiful primroses on this one?

  • Escaped_Teleprompter

    What if Students Were Not Defenseless

    In the aftermath of the Connecticut shootings, there are already renewed calls for strict gun controls.  But banning firearms will not curtail violence; at the same time the right to bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, does not necessarily result in increased crime.  There was a time in rural America when people grew up with firearms.  Children were taught gun safety, and acquired a healthy respect for firearms.  Yet the rate of homicide was not higher in rural America than in urban areas. 

    In his book, Chuck Heath Sr. related that he was expected to hunt for dinner while walking home from school every day (presumably he stored his gun somewhere, while he was in class).  Chuck Jr. related how the Heath siblings were expected to hunt for dinner after school. 

    Chuck and Heather out hunting
    Bringing Home Dinner

    One wonders whether the Connecticut gunman would have chosen to shoot up a school if students were not totally defenseless.

    • John_Frank

      We are talking about dealing with the symptoms of a problem, rather than the cause.

      The problem is how do we prevent those suffering from severe mental disorders from obtaining access to weapons, so preventing these individuals from going on a murderous rampage in response to whatever evil lurks in their heart.

      In the Connecticut case, evidence suggests two individuals may have been involved, the shooter and an accomplice. 

      According to antecdotal evidence the shooter was apparently suffering from aspergers syndrome and an undescribed "personality disorder." 

      Some news reports suggest that the shooter’s mother had a collection of guns in her apartment.

      Other news reports indicate that the shooter tried to purchase a rifle, but he was unable to do so.

      I write apparently, suggest and indicate because the initial news reporting in this case was very shoddy, so we need to tread carefully in reaching conclusions.

      The school had recently implemented new security measures in an effort to thwart intruders from entering the school and causing harm.

      What we do not know is why the shooter decided to kill his mother and then go to the specific school, enter a particular classroom and kill everyone in that classroom.

      Separate from the Connecticut case, we know that all of the recent incidents of mass murder have involved individuals with serious mental illness problems.

      What steps are we taking to identify and help treat mental illness?

      Why are certain individuals with serious mental illness problems resorting to killing people?

      What are the triggering events?

      Are there any common triggers, and if so, what steps can we take to address these triggers?

      What can be done to prevent individuals with serious mental illness problems from obtaining lethal weapons?

      In the Connecticut case, if the mother of the shooter was in fact a gun collecter and the weapons and bullets used in the shooting were obtained from her collection, were appropriate steps taken to secure the weapons?

      If not, what steps, if any, should be taken to ensure members of the public who have gun collections properly secure their collections to prevent abuse?

      Don’t know the answers, but believe it is appropriate to focus on the problem, rather than say let’s ban guns, or let’s arm all the teachers in America, etc.

      Just some suggestions.

      • wodiej

        John, great insight on this subject.  Some are born with mental disease, others develop it from childhood.  Their parents developed mental problems from their own abusive childhoods and it keeps getting passed on.  

        Part of the problem is some people are born with a weak mental system.  If they are exposed to abuse, it creates serious consequences.  There are many others who never develop negative, destructive behaviors because they obviously had a caring, stable childhood and have a support system that encourages medication to stabilize their behavior.  

        It is a complex problem and there are no simple answers.  People who seem to have a strong mental system can withstand trauma much better than one who doesn’t.  The bottom line-with God all things are possible.   We need to pay more attention to these people and they need to be institutionalized.  Most will not take medication even when a problem is diagnosed. That being said, I am not a big gun advocate but don’t think they should be banned except maybe those AK47’s and automatic weapons.

        • John_Frank

          We need to pay more attention to these people and they need to be institutionalized.

          When we talk about placing people in mental insitutions that raises another set of questions, given that we believe all individuals have certain inalienable rights given to us by our creator, including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (virtue).

          What civic responsibilities do we have to care for individuials who can not take care of themselves?

          What criteria should we use for placing someone in a mental health institution?

          For how long?

          Under what conditions can we release such an individual?

          Who decides?

          Is there a review process?

          What about outpatient treatment?

          What is the cost of institutional treatment versus outpatient treatment?

          Which is more efficient and yeilds better results? The answer will likely depend on the severity of the mental illness, etc.

          At a time of funding issues both at the Federal level and for many States, do we need to give higher priority to the treatment and care of the mentally ill?

          Most will not take medication even when a problem is diagnosed.

          What evidence is there to support such a statement?

          To my understanding part of the problem with some medication is the side effects. 

          Are there alternative forms of treatment that will yield the same results without the downside risks?

          I am not a big gun advocate but don’t think they should be banned except maybe those AK47’s and automatic weapons.

          My understanding, and I stand to be corrected, is that at least in Conneticut people are prohibited from owning AK47’s, etc.

          From the earliest times, we have determined that we need to prohibit a limited set of activities if we want to have a civil society.

          [Side note: I am speaking of the Ten Commandments and not the myriad set of additional prohibitions and related punishments that were written down.]

          Setting that group of prohibited activities aside, I am of the view that it is better to let people be responsible for themselves than to regulate or prohibit an activity, product or service and if we need to control behavior, it is better to regulate than prohibit and instead of centralizing authority at the Federal level, wherever it makes sense decentralize authority, allowing people at the local level to make their own decisions.

          I have reached this conclusion in part because big centralized bureaucracies do not function well, local governments are best able to address local concerns, over regulation can stiffle innovative behavior along with entreprenuerial activity and once we ban an activity, people will often pursue the activity illegally.

          [Side note: I happen to be in favor of strong regulation of the financial services sector, because banking should be boring, insurance firms need to be able to cover the bet, and if people want to take risks, do it through segregated investment firms which can collapse without bringing down the banking and insurance sectors, and therefore not threaten the entire economy.]

          With those criteria in mind, the solution is to tackle the problem, rather than the symptoms.

          In tackling the problem, we need to ask the right questions, gain an understanding of the facts and develop common sense solutions based on our bedrock beliefs in individual liberty and responsibility, limited centralized government, the role of civil society and to care for those who can not care for themselves.

          Just some additional thoughts, and even more questions.

    • Terrenceor

      You are right. My brother, who is about 17th years older than I and was born right after WWII, told me when he was 12 or 13 years old, he and my dad would go to the Army Navy Surplus store and buy rifles and pistols and take them out to the woods and shoot them.

  • John_Frank

    Good morning.

    I stand with Sarah Palin.

  • qtdb7

    About the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut:
    Guns DON’T kill people.
    People kill people.

    There is a lack of individual MORALITY and RESPONSIBILITY
    in families and society these days.

  • John_Frank

    For those who are interested, one comment by the writer (along with the ensuing discussion) in yesterday’s open thread, which people may find of interest:

    (In part of the follow up discussion, Yankee4Palin put forward the position that Obama is working with radical Islamists to destroy America from within. The writer challenged this position and some may find the follow up discussion of interest.)

  • ZH100

    ‘Report: Connecticut Shooting Was Revenge Killing’

    From the article:

    "Chief Connecticut Medical Examiner H. Wayne Carver has released the names of those killed by 20-year-old Adam Lanza on December 14. Besides proving anew that the lives of far too many innocent people were taken by a cold blooded criminal, the report suggests that the killings were carried out in an act of revenge.

    According to the report, Lanza shot the 20 child victims — eight boys and 12 girls — at close range and shot each victim between three and eleven times.

    Other reports indicate that Lanza "visited Sandy Hook Elementary the day before [the shooting] and was involved in an altercation with four members of the staff of the school." Three of those four are now dead.

    People who knew Lanza have said his mother expected a lot from him, "that she pushed him really hard to be smarter and work harder in school." He killed his mother before killing the school staff members he allegedly fought with; he then ultimately took his rage out on the children."

  • wodiej

    "Besides that, they learn to be idlers, going about from house to house, and not only idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying what they should not."  1 Timothy 5:13

  • ZH100

    Ian, thanks for posting the photo!

  • ZH100

    ‘The Sarah Palin Factor Revisited’  (May 2012)

    From the article:

    "Throughout the summer huge crowds followed the messiah around and sang his hosannas. When McCain spoke people came but the crowds were dull and the energy low but not when Sarah showed up. Wherever she went the atmosphere came alive.  Her crowds matched the messiahs in both numbers and enthusiasm. He was the aloof and untouchable media darling, she was a gun toting firebrand that knew what real work was.

    The fact is before she entered the campaign McCain was an underdog of underdogs. Carrying an 800 pound gorilla called Bush on his back and facing a Democratic candidate with unparalleled enthusiasm from the party faithful the race seemed lost before it began. After Sarah joined the team his polls rose and even put him ahead. Never in the history of politics had a VP pick been such a game changer. Never in modern history had on candidates choice for VP been so reviled by the opposing party and the press alike.

    A partial explanation of the mad dog response to Sarah Palin may be found in Obama’s total lack of qualifications. The fact that he was so under qualified and totally lacking in experience meant that his supporters had to keep the spotlight off of him. Add to that the enthusiasm for Sarah meant she was the main threat, not McCain. The natural strategy then was to make her the center of debate as a smoke screen to hide their candidate behind. The media would make sure that Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience was not the issue but Palin’s was. The Democrats and their Media cohorts would collaborate to make the race about the VP pick of the opposing party thus avoid the spotlight being shown on their candidates losing record and radical past. His gaffs would be hidden behind hers (whether real or hyped as such). They would concentrate nearly exclusively on her to protect him. This of course explains some of the media Palin bashing craze but not all.

    Everywhere in the press she was decried as a nobody, a lightweight and dumb. That she didn’t have the resume to be president was the tagline they were selling.  A woman that had risen from soccer mom, to mayor, to chairing the Alaska Oil and Conservation Commission to being the youngest and one of the most successful governors in Alaskan history was a lightweight and dumb? A person with a resume that made the Democratic presidential candidate look like a hayseed farmer in comparison wasn’t experienced enough? The fact was her resume was thick and her accomplishments were many.

    Her main sin it seemed was having charisma and a following that seemed to be on the precipice of toppling the Democratic messiah.

    If Sarah had one weakness it was the fact she had no experience with the snake pit that was national politics, something she would soon find rectified.

    The fact is the only reason the 2008 campaign was even a race at all is because Palin was on the ticket.

    Today the hate for her among the left is still going strong. The Democratic party faithful get deranged and spew the nonsensical Sarah talking points of the leadership at the mention of her name. The media still disparages her every move. (Something they did to Reagan too, but less effectively) Despite all of this she still matters. Her impact on the elections of 2012 is already assured by the primary victory of Debby Fischer and the rising star of Ted Cruz , both because Sarah Palin saw in them something she liked. The history of 2012 is still being written but if initial results are any indication Sarah Palin is likely to have another banner year. The vice presidential candidate that came out of nowhere and changed everything still matters."

    • wodiej

      thank you for all you do. Your contributions are invaluable. 

      • ZH100

         You are welcome, wodiej

  • ZH100

    Yesterday I read about the Film tax credit and that there is some misunderstanding about this issue.

    Gov.Palin’s opponents used this issue in order to smear her in 2011. Now they are using the same smear against Bristol.

    Here are the facts about this issue.

    Gov. Palin never received any direct money or compensation from this tax credit.  The legislation that created this tax credit was crafted and passed by Alaska lawmakers and signed into law by Governor Palin.

    This is what Gov.Palin wrote about this issue:

    Governor Palin: Setting the Record Straight on State’s Film Production Tax Credit

    "As Governor, I signed into law a popular bipartisan bill that was crafted and passed by others and has resulted in numerous Alaska-based productions that are airing today. The only alternative to signing the legislature’s work product would have been for me to veto their legislation, which would have been useless. Besides all that, their legislation worked.

    This bill was not some secret big government agenda. These Alaskan legislators just wanted Alaska to be able to compete with the many other states that offer similar incentives."

    I can’t speak for the film tax credit programs in other states, but the program in Alaska has been effective.

    The bipartisan legislation I signed into law in 2008 was borne out of elected lawmakers’ frustration with the fact that shows and films about Alaska were mostly filmed elsewhere. They wanted to incentivize production companies to film in Alaska instead of Canada, Washington state, or Maine.

    Their bill worked, and as the legislation’s supporters will testify, the state’s economy enjoys the benefits of having this production money circulating right here at home. It was so successful that state lawmakers now want to renew the film production tax credits for another ten years. Keep in mind that we don’t have a state income tax, state sales tax, or state property tax in Alaska. Our state government is predominately funded by oil and gas revenue.

    Essentially we are using revenue generated from the development of Alaska’s natural resources in order to diversify our economy and create jobs beyond just resource development. Not only does this help promote a new film industry in Alaska, it obviously also has the added benefit of encouraging our tourism industry. These shows and films about Alaska act as perfect tourist advertisements for our state. 

    People come here to experience what they see on the shows filmed here. The dramatic increase in Alaska-based television shows and films are testament to the fact that this legislation worked, and it’s exciting to see our state showcased and appreciated. There has been more film productions here than ever before, and the economic benefit of filming here exceeds the tax credit.

    And another point missed by this reporter: apparently The Daily Caller’s conspiracy theory must be that I did all of this not even to benefit myself but Mark Burnett Productions. As I tried to explain to the writer at The Daily Caller, if you believe in this bizarre scenario then why not ask the sponsors, drafters, and supporters of this legislation that would boost job creation if they crafted this bill years ago in order to benefit Sarah Palin. Any suggestion that I somehow did something wrong by signing this legislation is ridiculous.

    The accusation hinges on the notion that I signed the legislation into law knowing that it would personally benefit me. That’s totally absurd. It wasn’t even my bill, and obviously I had no intention of benefiting from it when I signed it into law in 2008 because I had no idea I would be involved in a documentary series years later.

    As I also tried to tell the reporter, it’s also a false accusation to suggest that signing this bipartisan bill somehow goes against my position on the proper role of government.

    I’ve said many times that government can play an appropriate role in incentivizing business, creating infrastructure, and leveling the playing field to foster competition so the market picks winners and losers, instead of bureaucrats burdening businesses and picking winners and losers.

    Again, I can’t speak for what other states do, but Alaska’s film production tax credit program was an effective way to incentivize a new industry that would diversify our economy. It worked."

    Read the whole piece

    Stacy Drake wrote a good article about this issue:

    ‘Does Jim Geraghty Understand Marketing?’

    Whitney Pitcher wrote this piece about this issue:

    Palin hater ,  Litman, even filed a ethics complaint against Gov.Palin about this issue.
    Of course the ethics complaint has been dismissed by the Alaska Attorney General’s office.

    • Val

      Trolls have been posting about this lately on Sarah’s FB page in regards to Bristol, so it’s great to have this info on hand, thank you.

      • ZH100

        You are welcome, Val.

  • wodiej
    • John_Frank


  • John_Frank

    For those who are interested, follows is the latest on the Constitutional referendum being conducted in Egypt:

    Egypt opposition claims victory in constitution poll
    National Salvation Front rejects figures claiming majority voted ‘Yes’ in first phase of constitutional referendum, says 66 pct voted ‘No’, alleges ‘unprecedented rigging’

    Very serious charge, placing the legitimacy of the entire process into question.Clearly the opposition is not about to go quietly into the night.


    Update 1: Now being reported that:

    Matt Bradley ?@MattMcBradley
    Monitoring and human rights groups demand first round referendum re-run because of rampant irregularities. #egypt

    FYI – Bradley is the Cairo correspondent for The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones business wires.

    In light of these calls by Monitoring and Human Rights Groups, will the Obama administration do or say anything and if so what?

    Update 2: To gain some insight into the scope of the vote rigging and voter fraud by the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists, along with the resulting impact:

    The Rigged Constitution

    Update 3: Opposition calls for probe

    Al Arabiya EnglishVerified ?@AlArabiya_Eng
    #BreakingNews: Egypt’s opposition calls for probe into 4,000 complaints against the referendum

    The Egyptian Armed Forces conducted much fairer elections then the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafist, oops I meant the Egyptian Government.

    Update 4: Scathing editorial published in the Economist Magazine on the eve of the vote:

    Egypt’s choice
    The Founding Brothers
    If approved, Egypt’s new constitution would be a step back into the Mubarak era

    Will the IMF come to the table?

    Everything that is transpiring raises even more questions about the approach being taken by the Obama administration towards the Morsi Presidency.

    • Audrey_I

      Obama will be supporting the Muslim Brotherhood.  Obama was silent when the Muslim Brotherhood was sending thugs to rape and intimidate the demonstrators for freedom and liberty. 

      Obama wants an Arab Caliphate. 

      • John_Frank

        Obama wants an Arab Caliphate.

        Sigh … we have absolutely no evidence to support such a claim.

        • GeraldGoff

          audrey and her cohort need no evidence.

  • Escaped_Teleprompter

    Since the Connecticut shootings, politicians and pundits have been quick to blame the availability of firearms for the violence.  Hardly mentioned at all is the role that Hollywood plays in fostering a pop culture that glorifies violence.  It is no coincidence that the increase in violent crime in contemporary society coincides with the prevalence of gratuitous violence in action movies and TV shows in recent decades. 
    Perhaps the gunman, Adam Lanza, would not have thought of shooting up a school if he had not been so predisposed to violence.

    Yet all the talk seems to be about guns but none about the culture of violence from Leftist Hollywood.  It is high time conservatives redirect the spotlight on Hollywood, just to bring some balance to the debate.

    • brightfuture12

      "the culture of violence from Leftist Hollywood."Such as Charlton Heston ?…I agree that there is a culture of violence but it is not recent and it is not just Hollywood – it’s everywhere : movies, video games, news, wars etc.

      • John_Frank


        While violence has always been present in our culture, how we present it has changed.

        We are seeing violence presented to us in much more crass and graphic ways than it was presented in the late fifties and early sixties in the last century.

        Some believe this has had an impact, which is why I asked a question earlier:

        What is triggering the violent impulses of those suffering from a mental illness?.

      • Escaped_Teleprompter

        The Hollywood of Charlton Heston was half a century ago.  In recent decades, ultra-liberals have taken over Hollywood, accompanied by a sharp increase in the level of violence in society.   How many shooting sprees like what happened at Columbine or Virginia Tech or Sandy Hook were there in Charlton Heston’s heyday?   So citing Charlton Heston does not provide a contra-example.  If anything, it strengthens the case that the explosion of violence in recent decades coincides with the liberal takeover of Hollywood along with the ever increasing violence in the standard fare coming from Hollywood.

      • CBDenver

        No, the culture of violence came from the 1960’s.  The movie codes were loosened to allow blood and gore where previously all that had to be implied not shown.  Over time special effects became better and better to allow the most shocking, gory, gruesome reinactments imaginable. 

        Furthermore, and prehaps most importantly, the "morality play" aspect of films has changed.  In the past we saw stories of good versus evil where violence was only used to protect good against evil.  Sometimes good won over without violence (I just saw such a film yesterday from the 1950’s where the hired killer dopped his guns and left the town in peace). 

         But today films have nothing but gratuitous violence with no moral positon at all.  In fact often the brutal killers are presented as heros or at least sympathetic.  That, along with the graphic nature of filmed violence, is the big difference.  No longer is violence an unfortunate means to an end, chosen at the last resort to protect the innocent.  No, now gory violence is an end unto itself.  Very different from anything associated with Charlton Heston.

    • Audrey_I

      They have taken God out of the classroom and we are paying the consequences.  Sixty years ago there was no school room violence of this nature.  Schools were open all day.  There were no security guards.  Many boys carried pocket knives to school.  Student obeyed teachers.

      Those on the Left have setup the conditions for this tragedy. 

      • wodiej

        Prayer should begin at home.  

        • Audrey_I

          There were classroom devotionals, bible readings and a salute to the American Flag in classrooms sixty years ago.  Students respected their teachers, schools were open to anyone who cared to visit, and there were no bang-bang shoot them up incidences. 

          It is OK to cite the Communist Manifesto, study the teachings of Lenin and glorify Castro in the classroom.  It is verboten to mention God.  In North Carolina a six year old first grader was not allowed to mention God when she read a poem celebrating her father who is stationed in Iraq. 

          Obama and those on the Left created the conditions for the tragedy in Connecticut.  President Barack Hussein Obama did not seem to show any remorse when a crazed Islamic terrorist murdered our soldiers at Fort Hood.  Obama has had the judge removed and is trying to get Major Hasan off the hook for this horrendous crime.  Obama continues to refer to the Fort Worth murders as a workplace accident.  The corrupt mainstream media lets him get away with this.

      • flyinroom

        I’d bet that most of the regular posters here remember a simpler time…. The issues are far more complexe and will require good-will on both sides of the political divide. 
        Maybe the American people would like to have that national conversation. And have it without all the insults, the anger and the insinuations.

  • ZH100

    ‘School Adviser: Gunman a Loner Who Felt No Pain’

    From the article:

    "At Newtown High School, Adam Lanza had trouble relating to fellow students and teachers, but that was only part of his problem. He seemed not to feel physical or emotional pain in the same way as classmates.

    Richard Novia, the school district’s head of security until 2008, who also served as adviser for the school technology club, said Lanza clearly "had some disabilities."

    "If that boy would’ve burned himself, he would not have known it or felt it physically," Novia told The Associated Press in a phone interview. "It was my job to pay close attention to that."

    Novia was responsible for monitoring students as they used soldering tools and other potentially dangerous electrical equipment.

    He recalled meeting with school guidance counselors, administrators and with the boy’s mother, Nancy Lanza, to understand his problems and find ways to ensure his safety. But there were others crises only a mother could solve.

    "He would have an episode, and she’d have to return or come to the high school and deal with it," Novia said, describing how the young man would sometimes withdraw completely "from whatever he was supposed to be doing," whether it was sitting in class or reading a book.

    Adam Lanza "could take flight, which I think was the big issue, and it wasn’t a rebellious or defiant thing," Novia said. "It was withdrawal."–Gunman-a-loner-who-felt-no-pain

  • John_Frank

    Boehner puts tax hikes on table in latest fiscal cliff deal

    Jamarr Reese?@cloud30168
    "Source: House Speaker Boehner has offered a fiscal cliff deal that includes letting tax rates increase for the wealthy." — CNN

    News is breaking late Saturday that House Speaker John Boehner has offered a fiscal cliff deal that would involve tax hikes on those earning more than $1 million, rather than the $250,000 ceiling demanded by President Obama.

    In lights of this news, people may want to re-read the following blog post by the "Ulsterman" in which he posted a report from the "Republican Insider" on December 11, 2012:

    The relevant part of the note reads:

    One last thing. I noted Speaker Boehner came out today and indicated there was an impasse in negotiations with Democrats on the “fiscal cliff.”  Not entirely true. He is very close to coming to agreement on a deal with the White House and is working to line up the votes among Republicans in the House at this very moment. People are literally being called in to his office right now. Indications are for an agreement announcement to take place by the end of this week or possibly over the weekend. There remains about 20 Republicans though who refuse to commit to any agreement that raises taxes without promised spending cuts. I am told Speaker Boehner has assured the White House he will have the votes for an agreement by the end of the week though.

    I’m not so certain of that just yet. Lots of friction between him and Cantor over these negotiations, but would give Boehner’s chances to lock this up in the coming days about 80%.  But I’m not so sure he will survive as Speaker past 2014 even if Republicans keep the House.  There’s just too much open dissension in the ranks right now.  Similar to what Gingrich faced in 1997 which ironically, was led in part by John Boehner.  The good old wide-eyed and innocent days.

    Two questions:

    – Whether the observation / prediction of the "Republican Insider" of a pending "deal" was meaningful / useful or not in light of the "breaking news;" or did people presume that Speaker Boehner would ultimately bend, given his publicly stated desire to reach a "deal" and the "public musings" coming from various sources, getting enough House Republicans to line up with him to carry the day?

    – If there is a "deal," will the public have adequate time to review the terms and any related legislation, or is this going to be another one of those "midnight deals" that smells like "dead fish wrapped in newspaper" which is rushed through at the last minute?

    • Audrey_I

      John Boehner has always been more supportive of Barack Obama than doing what will be good for America.  John Boehner is Obama’s "Ace in the Hole".

  • stlouisix

    Obama will travel Sunday to Newtown, Conn.

    A lot of good "gun control" did to prevent the tragedy in CT as evinced by the following link.

    Gun-control laws failed Connecticut children
    Facts of crime reveal shooter violated at least 3 statutes  already in place

    Which of these signs will prevent another school tragedy?

    1) "All weapons are prohibited on these premises."

    2) "Staff heavily armed and trained. Any attempt to harm children will be met with deadly force."

    Anyone taking longer than a millisecond to answer 2) is THE problem!

    • John_Frank

      Good morning,

      You may want to edit the post, as the link for the WND article is not working at present.

      Hope this helps.


      • stlouisix

        Thanks! I just clicked on both links and they’re now working!

        • John_Frank

          You are welcome.

          Given the laws on the books in Connecticut, the evidence that the shooter broke into the school to circumvent the existing security measures and that he broke a number of laws in having the weapons in his possesion according to the WND article:

          Which of these signs will prevent another school tragedy?

          1) "All weapons are prohibited on these premises."

          2) "Staff heavily armed and trained. Any attempt to harm children will be met with deadly force."

          Anyone taking longer than a millisecond to answer 2) is THE problem!

          Neither. Someone wanting to go on a muderous rampage and kill school children can do so without entering the school. He or she could gun down the children as they are going into school at the beginning of the school day, or leaving the school to go home for the day.

          More to the point, while putting in place appropriate security at schools is common sense, do we want to turn schools into armed camps with posted warning signs, or do we want to address the problem of how to keep weapons out of the hands of those with severe mental problems who are predisposed to cause harm?

          According to the referenced WND article:

          The New York Times reports at least one Capitol Hill Republican, however, argued tighter control is not the answer.

          “That’s one thing I hope doesn’t happen,” New York Rep. Mike Rogers told the Times. “What is the more realistic discussion is how do we target people with mental illness who use firearms?”

          The New York Daily News reports Lanza was “dark and disturbed, a deeply troubled boy” who suffered from a troubled mental state, perhaps related to Asperger’s syndrome or a form of personality disorder.

          Representative Rogers is asking the right question. Hopefully we will read reports of other elected representatives doing the same.

          • stlouisix


            I don’t think so.  The deterrent of knowing that your life is at immediate risk speaks to the stats in those states promoting gun rights whose crime rates are down appreciably from their gun control promoting counterparts.

            At this time in the world in which we live, where the devil is having his day,  to use the excuse of turning our schools into "armed camps" isn’t going to cut it, as every means available of preventing tragedies of the like that happened in CT must be used to particularly include ensuring that those schools who can’t afford armed security guards will at least have staff trained in firearms usage so that we have a better chance of talking about one death, that of the individual whose intent is to wantonly murder the innocent, than the mass murders of the innocent! And those means should include having monitors on the school grounds to be watchful of anything suspicious and immediately report it, or in the school proper monitoring closed-circuit surveillance of the school grounds!

    • hrandym

      Obama traveling to the scene gags me. Does he think his entourage of security will help the issue?

      • Audrey_I

        Obama wants to demagogue this tragedy and push for gun control.  He has intimidated John Bonehead to support an increase tax rate and more government spending. 

        I believe John Boehner has always been in the Obama camp and has worked to sabotage the Tea Party and conservative Republicans. 

        • narciso

           Well not exactly, he doesn’t know Obama’s true nature, so he doesn’t properly respond, you cannot negotiate with him, in good faith.

          • Audrey_I

            One would expect somebody who has been involved in politics for years and rose through the ranks to become the House Majority Leader would understand Obama’s true nature. 

            I can’t figure out why John Boehner has stripped conservative republicans from their leadership roles, failed to use the talent from the Republicans elected in 2010, and has tried to marginalize those in  the Tea Party including Sarah Palin. 

    • HuntingMoose

      Or an analogy: why is flying El Al the safest option?


  • celestiallady

    Not to take away from Friday’s tragedy but how many children every day are in harms way from child abusers, pedophiles and more? How many children every day go missing and never found. Where is the demand to do something about this? It is not the guns – it is the mental state of those who perpetrate any of these crimes against children.

    • wodiej

      Amen to that.  

  • ZH100

    About Revere

    The media  were wrong about Revere (of course they will never admit that they were wrong).

    Anyway, distinguished historical scholars have come out endorsing Gov.Palin’s statement regarding Paul Revere.

    Here are some links about the Revere issue.

    Experts back Sarah Palin’s historical account

    From the article:

    "Sarah Palin yesterday insisted her claim at the Old North Church last week that Paul Revere “warned the British” during his famed 1775 ride — remarks that Democrats and the media roundly ridiculed — is actually historically accurate. And local historians are backing her up"

    Washington Times Editorial: The Palin version of history was correct about Revere

    From the article:

    "It soon turned out, however, that Mrs. Palin’s version of history was correct"

    Even NPR confirms that Gov.Palin was right about Revere (interview of professor Robert Allison Chairman of history dept Suffolk university Boston)

    From the interview:

    "BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.

    Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did."

    The LA Times concedes that Governor Palin was right too

    From the article:

    "You know how Sarah Palin said Paul Revere warned the British? Well, he did. Now, who looks stupid?"

Open Thread

Governor Palin’s Tweets