Sweethearts Candy Blog's

A new and independent film about Sarah Palin may change minds about the former Alaskan governor.  It is called "The Undefeated," and critics say it will show Palin in a much more favorable light.  The film is produced by filmmaker Stephen K. Bannon.

Elisabeth Meinecke at Townhall.com describes the film:

Though the film production timeline was not, it appears, done with any kind of presidential 2012 campaign in mind, it is capable of giving people a second impression of Palin and one that could prove useful in a 2012 discussion, because it’s a documentary based on facts that show the governor as an astute leader and a smart woman, unlike how she has been portrayed for the better part of three years. Bannon himself is a Harvard grad and was impressed with how Palin governed the state. He also said even some liberals in the entertainment industry are garnering a great appreciation for her as a person of substance.

Read more about the film here.

I see that the phony liberal known as Tina Fey was back on "Saturday Night Live."   She again was making fun of Sarah Palin.

You know, Sarah Palin, who wrote a best-selling book called "Going Rogue."  Tina Fey also wrote a book, called "Bossy-Pants."  It was so popular that it was for sale in book discount stores almost immediately, stacked nice and high because no one was buying it.  Perhaps they can sell them to Eskimos for building igloos...or something.

Maybe Tina needs to stop pretending to be a comedienne and hire Palin to tell her how to write a book...one that actually sells.  Of course, that presupposes that Fey has something to say that anyone wants to read.

Liberal media conspire and coordinate their response to current events like shady figures out of an Oliver Stone film.  You can tell this is true by the nearly identical response throughout the mainstream media and liberal blogosphere on any given topic.  This identical response is called "talking points" by Democrat strategists, and its purpose is to make the script seem legitimate and widespread.

The script to Sarah Palin's speech yesterday was to seize on her use of the term "blood libel."  Every chattering squirrel in the Democrat propaganda system began decrying the use of the term as wrong, inappropriate, antisemitic or outrageous.  The disingenuous and biased Washington Post claimed that "Sarah Palin's effort to defuse controversy backfires with 'blood libel' comment."  Her speech, of course, didn't "backfire," but the liberal media want the public to believe that it did.  The Washington Post, like most of the liberal media, are attempting to influence events rather than merely report on them.

True, the term "blood libel" like the word "pogrom" had its origins in antisemitism and the slander of Jews.  That, however, does not restrict its broader use in situations that are highly analogous.  In fact, I used the term "blood-libel" to describe the Left's smears before Sarah Palin did, here, in the second to the last paragraph.

 As Legal Insurrection points out:

In fact, as Jim Geraghty of National Review Online documents, the use of the term "blood libel" in political discourse is common both on the left and the right to describe incendiary false accusations which tend to blame a person for inciting violence and making the person a target of violence.

Much like the use of the term "holocaust" (e.g., nuclear holocaust) is not used in the strict sense of The Holocaust, the use of the term "blood libel" does not offend the traditional meaning of the term.

The looser, more modern usage of the term certainly seems to fit here.

The Anti-Defamation League has stated that the term "blood-libel" is now used in common parlance to refer to those who are falsely accused.  

So why is the Left trying so hard to make an issue out of Palin's legitimate use of the term?  Simple:
1.  To redirect attention away from what Palin said by focusing on an irrelevancy;
2.  To dilute the impact of Palin's charge that she was slandered by the Democrat Left;
3.  To support the long standing leftist meme that Palin is stupid, insensitive and uninformed (and thus reduce her effectiveness in future political endeavors).

There you have it, folks:  another Democrat propaganda effort in full swing.  Be ye not fooled.

From Moonbattery, the latest swill from the liberal hate machine:

The Facebook site "I hate it when I wake up and Sarah Palin is still alive" now has 2,200 likes. Here's an example of what you'll see if you wade into this cesspool:

Another Example of Liberal Hate Speech Advocating Death and Violence

Surveyor Marks

Left Wing Hatred

Yesterday it was disclosed that the so-called "cross-hairs" in the Sarahpac map were actually a surveyor's mark, of the type that is often used on maps.  Today some leftists have posted the right side graphic as their response:  an image of Sarah Palin's head in a rifle scope, with the slogan, "Calm down!  It's just a surveyor's mark!"

Why do surveyor marks resemble the cross-hairs of a rifle scope?  Because surveyors use a scope of their own, with cross-hairs, as a tool for measuring the dimensions of land.  How do you tell which is which?  By the context in which it is used.  If such marks are on a map, it is likely they are a surveyor's mark.  If such a mark is on the face of a nationally known political figure, it is obvious the mark is intended to be a rifle's scope.  The image above right (used on a T shirt) is another leftist call for assassination, thinly disguised as a joke.  Who then are the purveyors of hatred and the advocates of violence?

Hat tip to Proof Positive.

Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

The extremist rhetoric being disseminated by the Democrats following the Arizona murders is almost unprecedented.  However, Glenn Reynolds in the Wall Street Journal deflates the Left's hot air balloon in his article today:  The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel.  He writes:

Shortly after November's electoral defeat for the Democrats, pollster Mark Penn appeared on Chris Matthews's TV show and remarked that what President Obama needed to reconnect with the American people was another Oklahoma City bombing. To judge from the reaction to Saturday's tragic shootings in Arizona, many on the left (and in the press) agree, and for a while hoped that Jared Lee Loughner's killing spree might fill the bill.

With only the barest outline of events available, pundits and reporters seemed to agree that the massacre had to be the fault of the tea party movement in general, and of Sarah Palin in particular. Why? Because they had created, in New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's words, a "climate of hate."

However, who has created the climate of hate, and who are its targets, is clearly open to debate. Reynolds concludes:

There's a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn't derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source.

If you read nothing else today, do read this article here.

The map on the left is from Sarah Palin's PAC, which designated Democrat-held districts that were targeted by Republican hopefuls.

Now the Democrat propaganda machine is broadcasting the notion that the "cross-hairs" on the map somehow inspired a 22 year old crazy into shooting Democrat Gabrielle Giffords.

Is this map really outlandish?  Does anyone seriously believe it implies or advocates violence?  Even more absurd, does anyone seriously believe that the shooter was motivated by this map?

RIDICULOUS.

The Democrats real purpose is to smear Sarah Palin and reduce her political influence through innuendo, character assassination and outright lies.

The Left cannot win in a fair debate of the issues.  They can only win through mind games, propaganda and smear tactics.


UPDATE: It appears that the symbols used on the Palin map are actually surveyor symbols, not rifle scopes.






















UPDATE:  The Democrats had their own "target" map before Sarah Palin did.  The map below was used by the Democrat National Committee in the 2004 elections.  Note the bulls eyes on the "targeted" districts.  Also note the use of war-like imagery, i.e. "behind enemy lines."  Such metaphors have long been used in politics and mean absolutely nothing.  Again, Democrat hypocrisy is on full display here.