By: Nancy Morgan
Sarah Palin takes part in the Rolling Thunder motorcycle ride to honor US veterans.
The media is in a frenzy and elite pundits are all atwitter. Why? Because Sarah Palin refuses to let them define her. As Palin puts it, “I don’t owe the media anything.”
The political and media elites on both left and right are rising up in anger at former Governor Sarah Palin. Stories abound, all negative, about this American citizen whose message resonates with ordinary citizens yet doesn’t conform to the current political and media template.
By all rights, Palin should be kowtowing to the media. Doesn’t she know that? Instead, this upstart dares to ignore the unwritten rules governing political behavior. Palin is playing by her own rules and that just isn’t done.
In the elite world of the old media, any contender for public office must give due deference to the unwritten and ever-changing rules of political correctness. The sacred cows of diversity, multiculturalism and social justice cannot be ignored. And the media is the only one allowed to define the issues (thereby winning the debate by default).
But Sarah Palin has her own agenda. And whatever her agenda is, it most certainly doesn’t fit into the template the media and political elites have insisted upon. This is not only unacceptable, it is downright dangerous.
When Palin resigned as Governor of Alaska, the media immediately defined her decision as a failure to fulfill the obligations of her office. That was only explanation the media allowed the American public to consider. Palin, seeing the writing on the wall after months of negative and scurrilous attacks by the media, rightly deduced that her remaining time in office would be spent countering frivolous legal and media attacks instead of governing. So she quit.
Palin understood that while in public office, one is constrained by politics and media. One must play by certain unwritten rules, rules that would have deliberately silenced or distorted her message. She rightly deduced that she was in a lose-lose situation. She exited the political arena. She refused to play the game, knowing the deck was stacked against her. I call her decision courageous and I applaud her.
Conservative columnist and author Ben Shapiro sums it up best:
“Television made Barack Obama. Television it supported bigger and bigger government, from Welfare to health care; pushed abortion-on-demand and the radical gay agenda into the mainstream; it stumped against war and for meaningless buzzwords like diversity and dangerous buzzwords like multiculturalism. Television has done more to change the politics of our nation than simple politics has.”
Sarah Palin realizes this. The media is not on her side. And she rightly refuses to give them the ability to define her. She is more than capable of defining herself, through her own words and actions. She has the courage of her convictions and, thanks to social media, the ability to convey them, unfiltered by a hostile press. No wonder the press hates her.
The media, like myself, has no idea what Sarah Palin’s agenda is. Lacking concrete facts, the media automatically assumes her motives include gaining political power. They have completely overlooked the fact that Palin already has more than enough influence and political power to participate in (and possibly prevail) in our national debate. That this influence is not subject to constraints from either politician or the media is unprecedented. And dangerous.
I believe Palin realizes that real change is almost impossible within the existing political system. It could be argued that right now, Sarah Palin has more ability to influence political outcomes than does the president of the United States. So why should she play by rules that have been set up by those already in power, rules that are designed to keep them in power? Rules that place her at a great dis-advantage.
Palin is like millions of Americans. Americans who are tired of the futile attempts to change the system from within. I believe Palin’s goal is the goal of millions – to bring about positive change. And she has found that one does not have to be an elected official in order to do this. She directly threatens the status quo and the good old boy system. If she continues to prevail, she will prove it is possible to be effective working outside the system. And this can not be allowed.
Palin has rightly decided not to kowtow to the media and political elites. Her tactics and message resonate with a large segment of America. The segment that still believes in the greatness of America and the ability of individuals to accomplish the impossible.
Palin proves it is possible to change the system from without. She proves it is possible for one un-elected American to effect real change. Just think what would happen if others decided to follow her example. No wonder the elites hate her.
This article was first published by American Thinker on June 1, 2011
By: Dr. John C.K. Daly for OilPrice.com.
The ongoing tragedy of Japan’s Daichi Fukshima nuclear complex will prove to be a boon for renewable energy in Japan, and astute investors should begin carefully to follow Tokyo’s new priorities.
Before the March 11 twin disasters of a massive earthquake followed by a devastating tsunami, about 30 percent of Japan’s electricity was generated by nuclear power, and Tokyo had ambitious plans to raise its market share to 50 percent over the next two decades, with renewable accounting for 20 percent, Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan told journalists earlier last month.
That optimistic policy is now in tatters, and Kan added, “However (following Fukushima), we now have to go back to the drawing board and conduct a fundamental review of the nation’s basic energy policy.”
Kan is now touting the government’s “Sunrise Project,” which has been moribund for the last seven years. The goal of the Sunrise Project is to reduce the cost of solar power over the decade to a third of current levels and to one-sixth by 2030 as an incentive for more people to install it.
At the 50th anniversary of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris Kan told reporters, “Japan will now review its basic energy plan from scratch and is set to address new challenges.”
The scale of the government’s turn away from nuclear and fossil fuel power is extraordinary, as currently renewable energy resources, such as solar and wind, only make up about 1 percent of Japan’s total power supply. Even with hydropower, the ratio is about only 9 percent.
According to China Business the earthquake and tsunami halted production at most of Japan’s giant solar power companies, including Kyocera, Sharp and Sanyo because of the subsequent lack of electricity. Prior to the earthquake China and Japan essentially shared the European photovoltaic (PV) market; since the earthquake analysts predict that Japan will lose one quarter of its market share.
The shift has already started, as The Nikkei business daily reported on Wednesday that Softbank Corp, Japan’s third-largest mobile phone operator, has announced plans to assist in the construction of about ten 20-megawatt facilities, costing about 8 billion yen ($100 million) each. But, as in many Western countries dominated by the nuclear and oil industries, solar energy policies have up to now enjoyed fitful support in Japan, where pioneers such as Sharp Corp and Kyocera Corp have lost their lead to overseas rivals that received larger subsidies and lower production costs. Furthermore, the cost of solar panel installation in Japan is double that in Germany.
So, who will be one of the major beneficiaries of this policy shift towards reducing solar costs?
China, surprise surprise.
China now has over 400 PV companies and now produces approximately 23 percent of photovoltaic products used worldwide. Three years ago China produced 1,700 megawatts of solar panels, nearly half of the world production of 3,800 MW, of which 99 percent were exported. According to Huang Xinming, head of a research institute at JA Solar, a large Chinese solar power company, JA Solar has just developed a new technology that could cut the cost of producing silicon, an important material in manufacturing solar panels, by 60 percent.
Expect to see a flood of yen into China’s PV industries; smart Western investors will head east as well, where the sun always rises.
From: The Watcher’s Council
Welcome to Head to Head, a place where the issues of the day are debated by some of the best minds in the blogosphere. This week, Terresa from The Noisy Room squares off against Greg from Rhymes With Right as they take on the question:
Should the next Republican nominee reflect the Tea Party and more conservative views or be more moderate and middle of the road?
We stand at a political crossroads and the path we choose will surely dictate whether our country regains its conservative roots, or goes the way of a multitude of fallen governments such as those who litter the annals of history. Only decisive, moral and strong conservatism will save the America we have crafted and cherished since its inception. Only the patriotic heart of liberty that beats strongly in those such as the Tea Party movement and Constitutional conservatives will win the battle for the red, white and blue soul of the greatest nation to ever grace the Earth. America is the very definition of exceptionalism and individualism shining a brilliant light in a world filled with more and more despotic evil. We must select a candidate for president who embodies the American spirit and one who has the moral integrity and spine to bring our country back from the cliff’s edge of Marxism.
To claim moderation and middle of the road status in politics is to give ground to nihilism and surrender to the degradation of diplomatic mediocrity. Selecting the most ‘electable’ of candidates will only get us more of the same that we have now. Careful who defines ‘electable.’ Those who wish to have bigger government so they can further line their pockets and garner more power will always seek moderate candidates. They tend to be candidates who lack conviction and integrity. They tend to be those easily manipulated and controlled for agendas known and unknown. As Ronald Reagan said, “Man is not free unless government is limited…. As government expands, liberty contracts.”
We have tough choices facing our nation. Life and death choices as it were. A debt burgeoning on 14.5 trillion and a budget screaming for austerity measures that most of America will find painfully sharp. We are reeling from exceedingly high unemployment and a failing dollar. The high cost of gas and food will only go higher. We are fighting at least three military conflicts abroad and more are on the horizon. Our southern border is infected with drug cartels and violence. These are not issues for a moderate; they are issues for a conservative warrior. Someone has to clean up the mess left by the current administration and the ones before it. We have to return to our Constitutional roots and the intent of our founding fathers if we are to weather this storm which I am convinced has been engineered by numerous parties to bring America to her knees in submission. We don’t need more ‘politicians.’ We need to elect a patriot who is willing and able to make hard choices and stand by them. One who is not controlled by the hunger of greed or graft… One who does not seek dinner parties, pats on the back and atta boys, but instead, is willing to be loved and hated for doing the right thing. Someone willing to do the dirty work of politics and then go back to the farm. The Tea Party and conservatism should be the pool from which we choose our next leader. Leaders such as Sarah Palin, Allen West, and Herman Cain – these are the ones that show the way. A way that is NOT progressive, NOT conciliatory and NOT condescending. It is the way of Reagan and our founding fathers – the conservative way.
You know, my dear friend, I tend to agree with you on the issues. At times I even reach for the strident rhetoric you use in your stem-winder of an opening argument. But there is a problem with your argument – it cannot and does not work in our political system. We cannot nominate a candidate too far to either end of the GOP political spectrum without a large chunk of the GOP base, a large chunk of the independent vote, or both.
Let’s remember – our political system is based upon the principle that the candidate with the plurality of the votes wins in a give jurisdiction. And while the electoral college skews things a little bit, the reality is that the candidate with the plurality of the popular vote wins the presidency. Asa result, our political parties are broad coalitions of interest groups, not rigid agents of ideology. We build the coalitions before we cast our votes by finding the candidate who best reflects the broad consensus of the two parties, rather than following the pattern of a parliamentary system where a governing coalition is formed after the votes have been counted. And that is why the GOP cannot – indeed must not – fall for the temptation to nominate a candidate who is identified too closely with either the Tea Party or the Establishment, but instead must find a balance between these two groups in order to present a strong, united front in the 2012 presidential election in order to accomplish the shared goal of defeating Barack Obama, undoing the damage he has done to our government during his time in office, and fixing the systemic problems we have seen growing for much of my adult life.
To that end, it means that the GOP cannot pick a candidate based upon the strength of their devotion to the principles of the Tea Party OR their moderation. Rather, the party must find a candidate who strikes a balance between the two and who is satisfactory to both. If we fail to do so – and I say “we” as the elected representative of my precinct on the county GOP executive committee and a three-time delegate to the GOP state convention here in Texas – then we will fail in the essential task of unseating a president who is far worse from the perspective of both the Tea Party and the Establishment than any of the currently declared candidates (even Ron Paul) could ever be.
What this means from my point of view is that those on both sides of the Tea Party/Establishment divide must accept that we need to strive to select not the strongest exponent of their preferred positions, but rather the best available candidate acceptable to both sides. Unfortunately, that means that the three candidate you proposed – who are,respectively the unpopular, the unwilling, and the unprepared – cannot be the candidate. Neither can Huntsman or Romney (and I say that as a Romney supporter in 2008). The GOP must instead choose a candidate like Pawlenty or Bolton – or somehow draft Bobby Jindal, Bob McDonnell, or Jeb Bush – who is a conservative we can all unite behind and persuade the independents voter to support. And in doing so, we must remember the words of Ronald Reagan — “That person who agrees with you 80% of the time is a friend and an ally not a 20% traitor,” — as we search for the man or woman who meets that 80% criteria for all of us.
“Conservatism works, every time it’s tried.” Rush Limbaugh
In the last election, trying to appeal to a ‘broad GOP political spectrum’ only resulted in the election of Barack Obama. Trying to stand for everything results in standing for nothing, or at the very least losing. Ask yourself, what is it that Independents want? Well, they want what all of us want – a true leader who will limit government, maximize personal freedom and who won’t ‘change’ a political system into a Marxist monstrosity borne of a European socialist’s wet dream.
While you are certainly correct in your supposition that we need to undo the damage Obama has maliciously foisted upon our political system and America as a whole, we can only do so through conservative principles that have been tried and tested throughout the life of our nation. Constitutional principles that built a nation of pioneers and individualists, warriors and poets. These principles were the bedrock that our founding fathers crafted the vision and future of our country on. They are what formed the Tea Party and they are the glue that will hold America together – not some progressive and collective ideal that was meant to herd and enslave the masses. That is what you get when you seek a candidate who ostensibly appeals to all, but never really answers to any. Just another elitist in Republican garb.
Consensus = group think = lowest common denominator agreement. It’s “decision by mob” when people feel driven to conform with their peers.
In the voting booth, however, we are individuals, not a group.
Groups are swayed by what they have in common as a group. Individuals, on the other hand are inspired individually, and not as a group. If the banner (or beacon) of those principles that resonate most broadly with the individual voters, is held high by a candidate that speaks the truth of belief, not the slogans of “everyone,” and if that candidate can articulate that truth with a clarity that penetrates the fog of misrepresentation and mis-characterization — the slander, if you will — that is inevitable from the collusion of a complicit media with agents of elitist thought, the truth of principle will reach the individual, and it is the individual, not the crowd, that stands in the voting booth.
As for me, I will no longer vote for the one who is most ‘electable.’ I will vote for the one who stands by his or her sense of morality and ethics – the one who follows the Constitution and the teachings of the founding fathers the closest. I choose to follow the Limbaugh Rule:
In an election year when voters are fed up with liberalism and socialism, when voters are clearly frightened of where the hell the country is headed, vote for the most conservative Republican in the primary, period. – Rush Limbaugh
Notice he says the most conservative, not the most electable. I implore my fellow conservatives, do not dance with the political devil again this time around. Straighten your spine, stand by what you know is right and America will be great once more. Settle for ‘the best you can get’ and the freedoms you have always known will be lost for a generation at best.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. – Ronald Reagan
I think this is the crux of where we disagree.You argue that the independent voter wants a leader.To an extent I agree.But that voter also wants a leader whose vision they can buy into, and who has credibility with them.And that is why nominating the most hard-right candidate is a recipe for failure.
Let’s use a historical example – Pat Buchanan in 1996. Now there are things that this conservative liked about Pat’s platform, and as a long-time fan of the man’s writings and his CrossFire television show, I had a certain amount of sympathy for him.But let’s be honest – while Pitchfork Pat was certainly the most conservative available candidate for the GOP to nominate, he was significantly less electable than any other possible candidate that year.We went down hard in 1996 with Bob Dole as the nominee – but having Pat Buchanan as our standard-bearer would have resulted in a catastrophic loss of the sort seen by the GOP in 1964 or the Democrats in 1984 – indeed, I believe we would have seen Bill Clinton take significantly more than the 49.2% of the popular vote he received with Buchanan and Perot neck-and-neck for second place as each struggled to garner a mere 20% of the vote.
Let’s consider the candidates (and likely candidates) out there today.If we take the hardest right candidates, what would that mean? Herman Cain – a guy who talks good common sense on the radio but whose lack of experience has already led him to make serious policy flubs? Sarah Palin – a woman who much of the country does not take seriously and who would be rejected at the polls? Rick Santorum – a guy who I like (hey, we graduated from the same high school) but whose name primarily returns a scatological reference when searched on the internet? Michelle Bachmann – who has never won a statewide race? Frankly, I have a hard time seeing any of those candidates – or my preferred candidate, John Bolton – standing with the Chief Justice on January 20, 2013.
That’s not to say we can’t nominate a conservative who the Tea Party will be happy with.I think we should. I’m just arguing that the nominee needs to be acceptable to the entire GOP and to the independent voters – someone who can and will lead.I had some hopes for Mitch Daniels, and I’m still looking at Pawlenty. I’m urging my fellow conservatives to do the same in the interest of finding not the most conservative candidate, but the most conservative candidate who can win, even if he or she doesn’t perfectly check each box on some mythical Tea Party checklist. Failure to find such a candidate makes the perfect the enemy of the good, and will spell electoral doom for the conservative principles in 2012 – and untold damage to America as the nation stumbles and falls under the burdens imposed by Barack Obama’s failed policies.That, my friend, will lead to the very sort of extinction of freedom that Ronald Reagan was warning against.
“What we’ve got right now is almost near panic going on with money managers and people who are responsible for money. They can not find a yield and you just don’t want to be putting your money into commodities or things that are punts that might work out or they might not depending on what happens with the economy… …We’re on the verge of a great, great depression. The [Federal Reserve] knows it. We have many, many homeowners that are totally underwater here and cannot get out from under…” – Peter Yastrow, market strategist for Yastrow Origer, June 1, 2011