The voice from the Alaska wilderness has demonstrated to America that she puts principles above party, whether her own Republican party or the Tea Party that has embraced her. In a series of endorsements in races in Delaware, New Hampshire and Maryland Palin has again defied the liberal media by endorsing long shot candidates for Senate in Delaware, Senate in New Hampshire and Governor in Maryland.
Demonstrating that her principles guide her first and foremost Palin opposed the GOP candidate in Delaware, opposed the Tea Party candidate in New Hampshire, and the GOP in Maryland. Voters will determine if she was right, not the media or political parties.
Echoing criticism launched against her by the liberal media in almost every primary endorsement, in which the media claims if the Palin backed candidate wins the GOP will surely lose the general election race, Palin continues to rise above the procrastinators and is guided by her foundation of principles. So far Sarah seems to be the only person who connects with Main Street America.
Palin has demonstrated over and over again that her connection is with the voters, especially those who are disenfranchised by both political parties and who are swelling the rolls of the Independent movement in America. It is a fact the media has missed. Each time a Palin backed underdog won that person has gone on to launch a formidable campaign and is winning or competitive in the upcoming general election.
Tonight we shall find out if Palin Power again can trump her media detractors and give the people a role in the Midterm elections. If she is successful in backing winners tonight and November 2, then the media reporters, who claim to be objective while offering negative opinions on her impact, should resign. It will then be clear the media are attempting to influence the news, not report it.
Sometimes the people in the most obvious places have the greatest difficulty seeing the obvious. In the case of the news media, most of which is liberal, and the political party that controls our government, the Democrats, nothing could be more obvious.
Every time a Tea party backed candidate pulls off an upset and topples a Republican backed candidate in the GOP primaries the media and Democrats start dredging up a false sense of hope based on the fact the mainstream GOP candidate lost. They always declare it means the losses to the GOP in the Midterm elections will be much less because of the failure of the GOP backed candidate to win.
I say hogwash. There are three reasons why Tea party primary winners may be a bigger threat to Democrats than mainstream GOP candidates. First, votes for them are a rejection of Democrats just as votes for mainstream candidates are a rejection of the Democrats. Republicans whose candidate lost a primary are not going to vote for the Democrat, they are going to vote for the party.
I mean Obama would not be president if Hillary Clinton supporters did not back him after beating Hillary in the primaries. Yet the political pundits and news media think Republicans will support a Democrat just because their candidate lost the primary?
Second, the driving force behind the Tea party are registered Independents whose vote was also critical in getting Obama elected. They have deserted Obama which everyone knows because he is not the person to cut spending and reduce the debt as they thought. This past year for the first time in modern times the number of registered Independents has passed the number of Democrats or Republicans.
Yet the Independents, because of protectionist election laws, are not even allowed to vote in most primaries or caucuses. That means those Tea party candidates who won a GOP primary did it without the support of their primary base, the registered Independents. Thus the Independent voters will join with the GOP voters in the November elections. Anyone who thinks they will vote for Democrats en masse is goofy.
Third, there is disillusionment and a lack of enthusiasm from the fractured Democratic base because the Obama administration took them for granted and because the Obama administration favored others much more like Wall Street, pharmaceutical executives, health care and other special interests. In other words, there is no compelling reason for these groups to mobilize for the president or the Democratic party.
It is highly likely that the most dangerous opponents for the Democrats this fall are the Tea party outsiders who are far more closely aligned to the mood of the people than either political party. So, a word of advice to the Democratic pundits and news media who herald a Tea party win as a GOP loss in the primaries, get used to sipping tea rather than champagne or bourbon, there is a change coming and a mighty wind is blowing from the west.
It is after Labor Day and politics in America will reach a crescendo over the next 6 weeks as both political parties inundate the airways with political propaganda in the form of TV ads. Of course the TV stations and networks will run every ad booked regardless of the accuracy of content because the media needs the money more than the truth.
There was once upon a time when the media was required to review the ads to make certain the truth was being told but once upon a time is no more. Now anything goes no matter how far it strays from the truth. Since both political parties and special interests have filled their campaign coffers with astounding amounts of cash we are in for a real avalanche of double talk.
You can count on the candidates and parties to follow the lead of the Obama White House as he is leader of the Democrats and will set the standard of truth for all to meet. Unfortunately the standard being set by President Obama, and his top staff David Axelrod, Political Director, and Robert Gibbs, Press Secretary leaves much to be desired.
Over the weekend all three stated emphatically that the Republicans, all Republicans to hear them say it, are committed to returning to the policies of George Bush over the past 8 years. In plain English as Harry Truman used to say, that is a lie. No Republican has said they want to return to the George Bush policy of the past 8 years. Why do our political leaders seem compelled to tell lies? Especially those leaders at the top of the Democratic party?
While we should always be suspect of what the political parties say as they are all about self-preservation it is not normal for the White House and the president of all the people to join in the tall tale derby as we can usually get some modicum of truth from our highest elected official. This year seems to be the exception and does not bode well for America as blatant lies foreshadow a willingness to distort the truth and there should be no doubt that our president tells the truth.
If the president cannot be believed on the campaign trail then how can he be believed when talking about health care, Wall Street, domestic and foreign affairs or any aspect of our government? All that is gained in the interest of political expediency by distorting the truth is undermining the credibility of government which has already reached the lowest levels of credibility ever recorded.
If it continues it will be a sad legacy of the political attitudes in place today and the principal motivation for people to want to throw them all out. The politics of deception has no place in a democracy built on truth and honesty.
.
Saviors of the 20th Century - Hitler and Stalin - The War of Annihilation Between the Nazis and Communists, a historical narrative by Jim Putnam about the history of Nazism and Communism and the rise to power of Hitler and Stalin. This book unveils many secrets of the Nazis and Communists long hidden in classified records and secret KGB archives in the frontier outside Moscow.
The author worked with recently declassified materials as well as contacts in various American, British, French and Soviet intelligence agencies in writing this book. His pursuit of information included being the first American to visit a secret Stalin archive located on a missile base in the Russia frontier where the Hitler SS film archives, missing since the fall of Berlin in 1945, were discovered.
Historical accounts of events of the 20th century through World War II are ambiguous on some issues and often guilty of errors of omission. Sometimes truth is rather elusive. Unfortunately this book uncovered so many areas of missing or erroneous history that it is easy to be overwhelmed by information.
In the end history did not change although many of the stories of history we were taught certainly did change. Millions of people died, far more than we were ever led to believe, although they might not have been the people you expected.
Hitler was a man with a mission, a mission inspired by supernatural visions when he was young. Nothing was going to stand in the way of rebuilding the German Reich, restoring the German Empire, and fulfilling his rightful place in history.
Was Hitler the founder, philosopher, architect or soul of the dreaded Nazi worldview? Or was he a mouthpiece for a much more sinister force? Did he practice the black arts or was he a victim of the practitioners? Why did Hitler and the Nazis hate the Jews?
What about the equally enigmatic Stalin remembered as the Man of Steel behind the Iron Curtain and the ruthless ruler of Communism? An ally of the USA in World War II, yet the leader of our most powerful enemy of the 20th century?
This former ally, bankrolled by the USA, was responsible for building an “empire of evil” according to President Ronald Reagan. Stalin’s Communism murdered sixty-two million citizens of the Soviet bloc. Because of him many think the Cold War brought the world to the brink of extinction.
What was his role in the founding and development of the Soviet Union? How does his place in Communist history fit with Marx, Lenin and Trotsky? How did the seemingly humanistic Communist philosophy of Karl Marx evolve to become the foundation of atheist revolution throughout the world and throughout the century?
What were the Jews doing in Europe and Russia that caused so much hatred at the turn of the 20th century? What was the true relationship between Jews and Communism? What roles did the Jews play in the formation of Communism and Nazism, or the nations of the Soviet Union and Germany?
In 1939 the world was stunned to learn a secret Non-Aggression pact had been signed between Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin, the leaders of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. The world has no idea how close it came to being consumed by the greatest killing machine ever created. If they had honored the treaty, no force on Earth could have stopped them.
Hitler and Stalin stayed one step ahead of the best minds and most powerful nations of the world for nearly half of the century. It was almost as if some supernatural force guided them to fulfill a mysterious destiny. As you will read in the chapters of this book, there seems to be no logical explanation for how these two men came to power and were able to achieve what they accomplished.
After five years of World War II and the most senseless slaughter of people in world history, Hitler was dead, Nazi Germany was destroyed, and the Soviet Union was mortally wounded. The Soviets suffered twenty-six million deaths at the hands of Hitler, ten million more were missing, and nearly 80% of the Soviet war machine was destroyed by the Nazis. Yet it still took fifty more years for the rest of the world to finally close the chapter on Stalin’s Communist machine.
The Fallacy of History
History is someone’s opinion or bias of something that happened. Whether that position is based on fact is quite another thing. But even historical fact falls far short of telling the truth. Many “facts” provided are nothing more than misinformation given to support the historian’s position. Mere facts do not allow us to get inside the minds of the madmen like Hitler or Stalin.
When Roosevelt was first elected President and took office in March 1933 one of his first steps was to re-establish relations with the Communist Soviet Union. He summoned the Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov, one of the many Jewish members of Stalin’s leadership, and negotiations began to establish diplomatic relations, which were completed in November 1933. Yet millions of Soviet citizens had already been murdered at the hands of the new Soviet government. Why did the President ignore such dreadful truth and embrace the fledgling Communist government?
Was it because of a much deeper fear of the rise of Hitler and Nazism? Yet if Roosevelt was so concerned with the activities of Hitler and the Nazis that he sought out Stalin as an ally, why did Franklin Roosevelt avoid war with Hitler for so long? The Nazi war machine was murdering millions of people yet the USA just stood by. Was it Roosevelt’s fear of Hitler or fear of Stalin that kept us on the sidelines? Why did Roosevelt finally join forces with Stalin?
These questions and many more are answered in this quest for truth that reached into the walls of secret KGB archives built by Stalin on a military base in the frontier far from Moscow, to newly declassified materials around the world, to numerous international intelligence sources, and from former members of the inner circle of Stalin and Hitler.
According to The New American Encyclopedic Dictionary, "An Exhaustive Dictionary of The English Language Practical and Comprehensive published by J. A. Hill & Company of New York in 1906, "bias" of things not material is defined as: "The state of mentally or morally inclining to one side; inclination of the mind, heart or will; that which causes such an inclination, leaning or tendency."
In Crabb: English Synonyms, Crabb thus distinguishes between bias, prepossession, and prejudice: "Bias marks the state of the mind; prepossession applies either to the general or particular state of the feelings, prejudice is employed only for opinions. Children may receive an early bias that influences their future character and destiny. Prepossessions spring from casualties; they do not exist in young minds. Prejudices are the fruits of a contracted education. A bias may be overpowered, a prepossession overcome, and a prejudice corrected or removed. We may be biased for or against; we are always prepossessed in favor, and mostly prejudiced against.
Is there is a bias in America based on suspicion of the intent of the Muslim people's of the world and is it based on the history and modern actions of the Muslim world, in particular the actions of the mainstream Muslim factions. The majority of Muslims belong to one of two denominations, the Sunni and the Shi'a.
According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, in Muslim tradition, Muhammad is viewed as the last and the greatest in a series of prophets—as the man closest to perfection, the possessor of all virtues. For the last 22 years of his life, in 610 AD, beginning at age 40, Muhammad started receiving revelations from God. The content of these revelations, known as the Qur'an, was memorized and recorded by his companions. It has been 1400 years since Muhammad started receiving revelations from God.
Sunni Muslims are the largest denomination of Islam, comprising up to 90% or nine-tenths of the total Muslim population in the world. They are often referred to as Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamā‘h or Ahl as-Sunnah.
The word Sunni comes from the word sunnah, which means the teachings and actions or examples of the Islamic prophet, Muhammad. Therefore, the term "Sunni" refers to those who follow or maintain the sunnah of the prophet Muhammad.
The Sunni believe that Muhammad did not specifically appoint a successor to lead the Muslim ummah (community) before his death, and after an initial period of confusion, a group of his most prominent companions gathered and elected Abu Bakr Siddique—Muhammad's close friend and a father-in-law—as the first caliph of Islam. Sunni Muslims regard the first four caliphs—Abu Bakr, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb, Uthman Ibn Affan and Ali ibn Abu Talib—as "al-Khulafā’ur-Rāshidūn" or "The Rightly Guided Caliphs." Sunnis also believe that the position of caliph may be democratically chosen, but after the Rashidun, the position turned into a hereditary dynastic rule. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1923, there has never been another caliph as widely recognized in the Muslim world.
Shia Islam (sometimes Shi'a or Shi'ite), is the second-largest denomination of Islam, comprising anywhere between 10% or one-tenth to 13% of the total Muslim population in the world. Shia Muslims—though a minority in the Muslim world—constitute the majority of the populations in Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Iran, and Iraq, as well as a plurality in Lebanon and Yemen.
In addition to believing in the authority of the Qur'an and teachings of the Muhammad, Shia believe that his family—the Ahl al-Bayt (the People of the House), including his descendants known as Imams—have special spiritual and political rule over the community and believe that Ali ibn Abi Talib, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law, was the first of these Imams and was the rightful successor to Muhammad, and thus reject the legitimacy of the first three Rashidun caliphs.
The Shi'a Islamic faith is vast and inclusive of many different groups. There are various Shi'a theological beliefs, schools of jurisprudence, philosophical beliefs, and spiritual movements. The Shia identity emerged soon after the death of 'Umar Ibnil-Khattab—the second caliph—and Shi'a theology was formulated in the second century and the first Shi'a governments and societies were established by the end of the ninth century.
Kharijite (lit. "those who seceded") is a general term embracing a variety of Muslim sects which, while originally supporting the Caliphate of Ali, eventually seceded after his son Imam Hasan negotiated with Mu'awiya during the 7th Century Islamic civil war (First Fitna). Their complaint was that the Imam must be spiritually pure, and that Hasan's compromise with Mu'awiya was a compromise of his spiritual purity, and therefore of his legitimacy as Imam or Caliph. While there are few remaining Kharijite or Kharijite-related groups, the term is sometimes used to denote Muslims who refuse to compromise with those with whom they disagree.
Sufism is a mystical-ascetic form of Islam. By focusing on the more spiritual aspects of religion, Sufis strive to obtain direct experience of God by making use of "intuitive and emotional faculties" that one must be trained to use. Sufis usually considered Sufism to be complementary to orthodox Islam.
Once Muhammad lived and provided the Qur'an by 632 AD the various factions fought a 7th century civil war before undertaking 500 years of war against the Christians for control of the Western World. The initial Muslim conquest of Syria in the 7th century under the Rashidun Caliphs began the battle between the Christians and Muslims. After the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Christians and Muslims the wars ended with Muslims in control of most Middle East nations and Christianity split between the Latin and Greek sects.
By the time Christianity reached about 1400 years of age the factions within Christianity forced the Protestant Reformation in the 16th and 17th centuries and the break up of Christianity into many independent denominations.
Ironically, the Muslim factions have now existed for 1400 years and in country after country they have turned on each other in brutal wars, suppression of competing sects, and acts of genocide that have left a sense of fear, distrust and anxiety in the Christian and Jewish worlds. Is it not surprising? If the Muslim sects can justify Holy Wars against each other in this modern age what is to stop wars with us? Just look at the tens of thousands of civilian Muslim deaths at the hands of radical Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is in the news every day.
History is a brutal lesson in fact over fiction. The origins of terrorism within the Muslim factions is no surprise as radical extremists with a religious foundation have been around for centuries. There is no single voice for the Muslim world and no central control of order to that world. Until those elements of the Muslim world can overcome their own hatred for each other and then their hatred for the Christian and Jewish so called infidels, bias will exist and caution is warranted.
Just as the Christians had to overcome the violence and bloodshed of the ill advised Crusades and the Protestant Reformation in order for Christianity to evolve, so to must the Muslim world overcome the bitter wars and rivalry of secular and non-secular violence and the offshoots of terrorism that attempt to destroy any perceived effort to threaten the single domination of one religious sect over any government in a multi-cultural and religiously diverse world.
Any bias of unease or misunderstanding on the part of Americans toward the Muslim world can be changed, if the Muslim world evolves as other religions have evolved. When radicalism and terrorism are set aside, and they exist in all cultures and religions, there are far more similarities between Christians and Muslims than differences and both share the same God or Allah. Finally, within every culture or religion are good people.
Was I dreaming or was that Barack Obama yesterday, or two years earlier, blasting the Republicans just after John McCain and Sarah Palin had been nominated and the polls showed the 2008 election closing rapidly? There was Obama before another by invitation only Democratic rally in Ohio slamming the GOP for the Bush years, condemning them for destroying the economy, and demanding a chance to give us hope with change.
Of course he forgot to mention back then that the Democrats had been in control of the budget since Nancy Pelosi became Majority Leader in 2006 and was thus responsible for the budget deficit and the wars. Or that the Clinton White House had made the regulatory changes that resulted in the sub-prime mortgage fiasco that caused the economy to collapse. But that was campaign bravado and facts never got in the way of a good speech. President Obama, your enemy now may very well be Nancy Pelosi, she's a Democrat Mr. President from your very own party, who has been in control of the federal budget for the last FOUR years.
Turn the calendar forward two years and Obama is wrapping up his second year as president with a huge Democratic majority in the House and the Senate and what does the commander in chief have to say about the outlook in America? He is still blasting the Republicans for causing the economic mess, still lamenting about the cost of the two wars, one of which he has expanded, blames the GOP for blocking his legislation though his own party controls both houses of congress now, and seems to have forgotten that Bush has been long gone from the scene.
His polarizing political speeches continue to divide the nation. His condemnation of the "rich" continues to promote class warfare. His build up in Afghanistan has been dropped from the speeches. His promise to help heal the nation is lost by his vicious attacks on the GOP. And then there are the straw dogs he creates to win a point, like attacking House Republican leader John Boehner at least seven times by name. John WHO? Most of Main Street America has no clue who John Boehner is and could care less about a congressman from Ohio. What kind of presidential strategy is that?
Even the president's facts and sound bites are bush league. He said he would not hurt the middle class or small business by raising their taxes, yet his tax of everyone over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples means, according to independent small business groups and even ABC News, that over 894,000 small businesses in America will pay higher taxes thanks to his policies.
The only thing more predictable than Obama being bush league is MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, the resident Republican in the liberal conclave of the Morning Joe Show being shameless in his quite obvious efforts to make it look like the GOP is hopelessly ineffective and impotent. Joe, if he really is a Republican, needs to change his party registration to the Democrat party he seems to espouse so fervently.
On this date 54 years ago Elvis Presley made his national television debut on the Ed Sullivan Show before a record 72 million people. Here is the Man and the real story.
The Real Story - Elvis on Ed Sullivan Show September 9, 1956
by Christine Gibson, former editor at American Heritage magazine.
Given that many fans think Elvis is still alive despite his death certificate, highly publicized funeral, and gravestone, it’s no surprise that misunderstandings abound about his career. Among those events surrounded by fallacies—perhaps because it strongly affected popular culture as well as Elvis’s work—is his legendary first appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show, 49 years ago today, on September 9, 1956.
Books and periodicals mentioning the show, which broke ratings records for the young medium and was one of the first to bring rock ’n’ roll to a mass audience, have erroneously reported that Elvis was shown only from the waist up, a triumph of censorship and evidence of the continued prudery of the 1950s. Others, aware of the hoopla surrounding the program, remember it as Elvis’s first performance on TV. The truth, as usual, is a little more complicated—and more interesting.
Presley, who had released his first three number-one hits by the time of the show, was already a TV veteran. He had appeared six times on the Dorsey brothers’ Stage Show between January and March 1956 and then on The Milton Berle Show on April 3, to increasing, if not yet fevered, press attention. But after his second Berle show, on June 5, members of the press expressed sudden revulsion at what the New York Journal-American called his “primitive physical movement difficult to describe in terms suitable to a family newspaper.” The New York Daily News reported that Elvis “gave an exhibition that was suggestive and vulgar, tinged with the kind of animalism that should be confined to dives and bordellos,” while the San Francisco Chronicle deemed it “in appalling taste.”
The reaction was enough to make Steve Allen, who had booked Elvis for his show before the backlash, briefly consider reneging, but in the end, Elvis did appear on his show on July 1, although in strangely tame form. Allen, going comically overboard to avoid scandal, dressed him in top hat, tails, and white gloves. Elvis soldiered on gamely, singing “Hound Dog” to a top-hatand bow-tie-clad basset hound.
Sullivan, never a fan of controversy, had already refused an offer to hire Elvis for $5,000. The famously prickly host had been burned before by rock ’n’ roll stars: He vowed to drum Bo Diddley out of television after his 1955 act on the show, when he sang his own hit “Bo Diddley” instead of Sullivan’s request, Tennessee Ernie Ford’s “Sixteen Tons.” But Elvis’s ratings—his stint on the Allen show had trounced Sullivan—changed his mind. Even as he professed to the press that Elvis was “not my cup of tea,” Ed Sullivan had already begun negotiations with Elvis’s agent, Colonel Tom Parker. His hesitation cost him heavily, however. He would end up agreeing to shell out $50,000 for three appearances, an unprecedented sum.
Elvis made his Sullivan debut on the show’s season premiere, but on the big night neither Sullivan nor Elvis was in the New York studio. Elvis was in Hollywood, filming his first movie, and he sang from the CBS studio there. Sullivan was recovering from an August head-on car collision, and Charles Laughton, the star of Mutiny on the Bounty, filled in for the host, hailing his guest by saying, “Away to Hollywood to meet Elvis Presley.”
Elvis, wearing a loud plaid jacket, greeted the audience from a set decorated with stylized guitar shapes. He announced that the show was “probably the greatest honor I have ever had in my life,” and then launched into “Don’t Be Cruel.” The camera stayed above his waist for now, sometimes closing in on his face, sometimes turning to show his backup singers, but something Elvis was doing out of lens range was causing unexplained screams from the audience. After the number was over, he acknowledged the vocal segment of the crowd, saying, “Thank you, ladies.” To finish the first segment, he played the title song to his new movie, “Love Me Tender,” introducing it as ”completely different from anything we’ve ever done.” Nationwide, disk jockeys taped the performance and played the song, which had yet to be released, on their radio shows, increasing pre-release orders to almost a million and pushing forward the single’s release date.
Viewers got to see the full Elvis—legs, hips, and all—during the second segment, when he performed the up-tempo Little Richard song “Ready Teddy” and two verses of “Hound Dog.” Young rock fans today would doubtless have a hard time understanding what all the scandal was about, as his frenetic swivels and shuffles look chaste compared to the gyrations common on MTV. But Elvis on that night (and his rock star peers in general around the same time) arguably set in motion a trend that continues today.
The press was quick to note that the cameras switched to close-up shots whenever he started dancing, in effect censoring him, but the TV audience got to see plenty, and besides, the girls screamed when he grunted, moved his tongue, crossed his eyes, or even stood perfectly still. With Elvis, censorship began to seem irrelevant. As Laughton noted at the end of the hour, ”Well, what did someone say? Music hath charms to soothe the savage breast?”
The viewing audience certainly wasn’t so offended that it changed the channel. The September 9 Sullivan show reached 82.6 percent of the TV audience, and Steve Allen hadn’t even seen fit to offer an alternative; NBC had showed a movie instead. Censorship did enjoy one last gasp during Elvis’s third appearance, on January 6, 1957, when Sullivan—or, as some historians believe, a publicity-hungry Parker—did indeed instruct the camera operator to show him only from the waist up, even when he sang the gospel tune “Peace in the Valley.” It was the last song he would ever perform on the show. Parker was now demanding $300,000 for future TV engagements, stipulating that a network must also commit to two guest spots and an hour-long special.
Even as he priced his client out of its range, Parker credited the program with the success of “Love Me Tender” and earning Elvis the esteem of American adults for the first time. Historians assert that Elvis’s three nights on the Sullivan show helped bridge the gap between the first rock ’n’ roll generation and their parents. Whether at the same time his behavior on those shows ultimately caused today’s generation gap—that is, whether MTV’s rump-shakers should look to Elvis as their earliest role model and parents can blame him for Britney Spears—is still up for debate.
There have been two fascinating political phenomenon resulting from the last presidential election. First was the rise of Barack Obama from obscurity in Illinois to shatter racial barriers and become our first Black president demonstrating to the world that America does indeed live by the Constitution and have equal opportunity for all.
The second was the rise of Sarah Palin from being governor of the Alaska woodlands to become a national political spokesperson for those who had no voice in politics. The speed with which she transformed from a nobody to vice presidential candidate, the polarizing and bitter opposition to her from the left, and her ability to sustain her prominent position, even enhance it, after losing the presidential election and resigning as Alaska governor, defied all odds.
Because of the insatiable interest in everything Sarah and in order to show how she evolved in the eyes of the Coltons Point Times we are providing links to every article that appeared about Sarah Palin in the CPT since she first rocketed onto the American political landscape. Consistent with our overall policy to provide the news all archived articles are available online and there is no charge for you to read them and see how her national career unfolded through the highs and los, the ups and downs of becoming the most popular and controversial personality in American politics. Enjoy if you dare by clicking on the links and then returning to this index of articles for more.
The Sarah Palin Chronicles of the Coltons Point Times
