Sarah Palin responds to Media Matters!

David Brock, founder of Media Matters, has come out now, declaring that Sarah Palin is the only person that can save the nation from another Oklahoma City style massacre, saying that in order to do so she must speak out against Glenn Beck!

Beck gets her on the phone to get her response and it’s awesome. In fact the whole interview is really awesome.



Be sure and watch to the end for a short but effective smack down of Karl Rove.

Enjoy!

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

44 thoughts on “Sarah Palin responds to Media Matters!

  1. Talk about a desperate bunch ! The Left is going nuts ! Good ! They have done it to themselves and have no one to blame. Now lets get on with running this country the correct way. Only fiscal conservatives can do this. Thank GOD for Beck and Palin.

  2. Standing with Beck 6 of my family members and counting. Never have watched Soros ever and never will. How he compairs this to another Oaklahoma City is mind boggling. He is running the mouth out of his but. Brain Washing the Nation is what the dems are doing but it is failing and their grasping at straws. I ask one question to our government. Why are you killing the United States of America that is the GREATEST NATION IN THE WORLD?

    1. Having said that, it is enlightening to see the power the far Left has on advertising. Not that you’re going to see a GE ad on Fox; they’re a progressive company and own NBC.

      But there are no large company ads in general; shopping, automotive, food, etc. Those companies are not using the largest TV audience in the country because they are afraid of reprisals.

      It is kind of shame that business remains so silent in general about what they see happening in the country as well. But then, look what Obama himself did to silence the Chamber of Commerce. That’s Main Street. That is as close to free markets as we have in USA.

      The large corporations are now very politically correct or outright Progressive given crony capitalism.

      1. Are you implying that Fox has the largest TV audience in the country? You realize that they only have the largest cable news channel audience in the country, right? Bill O’Reilly’s ratings can’t even hold a candle to stuff like The Amazing Race.

    2. Having said that, it is enlightening to see the power the far Left has on advertising. Not that you’re going to see a GE ad on Fox; they’re a progressive company and own NBC.

      But there are no large company ads in general; shopping, automotive, food, etc. Those companies are not using the largest TV audience in the country because they are afraid of reprisals.

      It is kind of shame that business remains so silent in general about what they see happening in the country as well. But then, look what Obama himself did to silence the Chamber of Commerce. That’s Main Street. That is as close to free markets as we have in USA.

      The large corporations are now very politically correct or outright Progressive given crony capitalism.

  3. The establishment pols and players (Rove) not only claim there seats or positions, but think they should qualify all others, by right! —–My biggest grip right now is with all the complaning about the typical pol, the lifetime pol, political elite,that there all the same—-and then someone throws there hat in the ring that’s not a professional politician, all start with they have no experience crap. It makes me sick I’d love to have a rancher fr. Texas, a farmer fr. Iowa, a plumber fr. Georgia a man with calous on their hands or a nurse fr. Oaklahoma, a merchant fr .Florida represent the people in the goverment,now we have professional pols. represent gov. to the people.

  4. this is the respond that “Media Matters” counted on, the purpose of David Brock call was to tightening the connection between “Nutty extremest right winger” beck to Palin which considered less extreme and by that showing that Palin is as dangerous as Beck.
    my guess it has something to do with their internal politics and fundraising.

        1. Was wondering what happened to that guy.Figured he had gone to Iceland to see if it really did have volcanos.Who would’ve thought he was trolling this blog instead.god works in mysterious ways indeed.

  5. Oklahoma City happened in 1995 and it had a lot to do with Bill Clinton’s comeback after the 1994 elections. Democrats and liberals were very successful in painting all conservatives as extreme right wings nuts. They still compare Islamic terrorism to Timothy McVeigh and very few conservatives ever bother to argue that McVeigh did not blow up the building because he was a Christian. As a matter of fact, when most liberals think of Christians that’s exactly who they think of.

    I stopped by the local mini-mart this morning. They have a big screen TV and a few tables and chairs around a coffee station. CNN is always on. As I walked by the TV they were showing a promo for upcoming stories. Here’s the first:

    At The Boiling Point!
    inside the Tea Party

    They’ve pretty much already convinced the great unwashed masses that the Tea Party is going to result in another Timothy McVeigh and Oklahoma City. We’ll see how many next Tuesday.

    1. wasn’t the oklahoma bombing a response to Waco and another previous incident where federal agent killed an innocent man?

      1. Ruby Ridge and Waco were incidents where US goverment law enforcement killed civilians during confrontations.

        The key thing to remember, when it comes to liberals and how they think and use incidents to their own benefit, is that Waco happened under a Democrat president and a Democratic attorney general. Ruby Ridge happened under a Republlican administration.

        So while McVeigh was getting his revenge for what was a non-partisian hatred of the US government, run-of-the-mill liberals would have no problem being convinced that he was a white-supremacist-right-wing-extremist-radical Christian. And since there was an election coming up, and they’d just lost control of Congress after 40 years, Democrats had no problem feeding that scenario to the masses. Helped along by the media, as always.

        It worked like a charm. That’s why they’re going after the Tea Party. Because it works.

        There is one thing that just MIGHT make a difference for 2012. The internet. We’re not as ill informed as we used to be.

        1. Because of the internet, lots of people are now more easily informed… they are also more easily misinformed.

          1. That’s true. There is absolutely no excuse for anyone who has access to the internet to not know what Islam is.

            But look at you. You don’t have any idea.

            1. Having known, and befriended, and gone to school with, and been neighbor of, and had political, moral and philosophical discussions with, and even dated many Muslims from many different nations, I have a better idea than most can imagine. It just doesn’t agree with that of those who get their information exclusively from internet sources.

            2. Having known, and befriended, and gone to school with, and been neighbor of, and had political, moral and philosophical discussions with, and even dated many Muslims from many different nations, I have a better idea than most can imagine. It just doesn’t agree with that of those who get their information exclusively from internet sources.

              1. So all these Muslims you’ve had all these discussions with have told you what they believe and what Islam is. Is that correct?

                What is it that Islamic sites on the internet get wrong? I’m talking about pro-Islam websites. What are all these people you know telling you that goes against what Islamic sites say Islam is?

                There are many pro-Islamic websites that all say the same thing. All Muslims believe that the Koran is the last, literal, true word of God and is the only holy text that has never been touched or corrupted by the hand of man. Muslims are very proud of this fact and it is the basis for Islamic supremacy.

                All Muslims believe that Muhammed was God’s last Messenger, and that all other religions are superceded by Islam. It’s pretty basic Islam. Islam good, all other religions bad.

                What are all those pro-Islamic websites getting wrong? What did all these Muslims you claim to know tell you that makes you think Muslims don’t see themselves as the only true followers of God?

                1. What they’re getting wrong, is that they are probably being posted by those who agree with the radicals. While they don’t have the gumption to go out and kill people, they’re happy to cheer them on. That doesn’t mean what they profess is true Islam.

                  It’s similar to the many Christians you mentioned who applaud what Roeder did.. although they would never do anything like that. And to the Westboro Baptist bunch who may applaud gay-bashing (although they don’t resort to violence).

                  My friends are more like the ones who, on hearing of something suspicious.. would see their duty under Islam as being to protect the innocent public by alerting the proper authorities.

    2. According to McVeigh’s authorized biography, it had almost nothing to do with Clinton’s comeback. It was retaliation for Waco and Ruby Ridge, which occurred under Clinton and Bush, and had more to do with the lower level Federal Government agencies of ATF, FBI and DEA, none of which is even a cabinet level department. In fact, Ruby Ridge incident was in 1992 and Waco in 1993, both during the time of William Sessions as FBI Director. As President, Clinton fired Sessions. So I really can’t see McVeigh’s anger directed at Clinton. It was directed at the FBI, the ATF, the DEA and the US Marshals.

      Generally, McVeigh’s name is only invoked as a Christian to rebut arguments like the one made by a politician whose name I can’t remember right now, that “All Muslims aren’t terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.” That’s when you’ll see people who know better, myself included, pointing out that there have been plenty of non-Muslim terrorists, like McVeigh, like the Unabomber, like the Klan, the Weathermen, the SLA.. and, of course, Scott Roeder the killer of George Tiller.

      1. The FBI, DEA and the US Marshals are part of the Justice Department while The BATFE is Treasury Department. The Justice Department is headed by the Attorney General and Treasury Department is run by the Secretary of the Treasury , both are Cabinet level positions. As for anger at Clinton,it’s actually very plausible, McVeigh was a veteran and Military men and women understand the chain of command and where orders come from. As Sessions’ superior (under Clinton) would have been AG Reno who’s superior would be Clinton,who would have given approval to Reno’s orders to Sessions on down to the incident commanders Chojnacki and Jamar. Reno would have been the one to approve the breach having previous secured approval for it from Clinton. In McVeigh’s mind this would make Clinton ultimately responsible and quite possibly his eventual and ultimate target had he not been captured.

        1. I know that, Ken. But the agencies themselves aren’t cabinet level, they are merely part of an agency that is, like all others under the executive branch. I was pointing out that they were all definitely arms length or more from Clinton. Also, while it was a multi-agency force involved, command and control on the scene, especially of the snipers, usually came from the FBI SAC.

          And plausibility be damned, McVeigh said he was looking to strike back the those 3 agencies, ATF, FBI and USMS. He scoped out Federal Bldgs in several states which housed those 3. Any others, he considered a bonus, and he did try to minimize non-governmental casualties. He rejected one building because there was a florist shop on the ground floor. If he’d wanted to attack Clinton himself, he could have done that easily in 1995. He wasn’t going after the specific chain of command for those incidents, just the agencies involved. He didn’t make the attack in Texas, and didn’t even look at Idaho.

      2. You misunderstood what I wrote. By “Clinton’s comeback” I meant his relection in 1996. Clinton took office in 1993 and proceeded to piss off half the country to such an extent that in the 1994 midterm elections the Democrats sufferred the biggest defeat in a generation and took back control of both houses of Congress after 40 years in the minority. Today, pundits credit Clinton’s move to the center after the 1994 elections for saving his presidency and allowing him to go on to win a second term after such a historic humiliation at the polls. That’s an argument for another day.

        Clinton and the Democrats took advantage of Oklahoma City from the beginning. Dick Morris has told the story of how they recognized immediately that they could use McVeigh and the bombing to demonize all conservatives as right-wing-extremist-Christian nutjobs. The media was more than happy to help get that message out. It worked. Clinton went on to a decisive win a year and a half after the bombing.

        That’s exactly what they’re doing now with the Tea Party. And it’s working.

        My point about Ruby Ridge and Waco was to specifically point out that McVeigh bombed the Murrah building in retaliation for incidents that took place under both Republican and Democrat control. But since he did it when a Democrat was in power, and liberals can never allow a Democrat president to get blamed for anything, and will believe anything about conservatives, the narrative HAD to be that he did it because he was a conservative Christian.

        Liberals love “root causes” but only when those root causes can be traced back to Christianity and the West.

        Your last paragraph is so idiotic I don’t know where to begin. Are you actually saying that people like you, because “you know better”, use “McVeigh, like the Unabomber, like the Klan, the Weathermen, the SLA.. and, of course, Scott Roeder the killer of George Tiller.” as examples of Christians to counter that argument that all Muslims are terrorists? Is that what you mean?

        The Weathermen and the SLA were Christians? You gotta be joking. The Unabomber? Huh? I’ll give you the Klan, although some Catholics will argue that point. Oh, and you forgot Hitler. You’re supposed to bring him up as an example of Christianity killing more people in history than any other religion. How could you forget Hitler? Did someone manage to convince you Hitler wasn’t Christian, which he wasn’t, or did you just forget him?

        As for Scott Roeder, the killer of George Tiller. He IS a good example of someone who kills for his religious beliefs. The problem with using Roeder to defend Muslims against the charge that Islam promotes violence is that he doesn’t prove that Islam doesn’t prohibit violence. The Chrisitians here can explain to you how Roeder was not acting according to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and you can Google for yourself the condemnations of his act by mainstream Christian leaders.

        While Roeder really did “twist” Christianity to justify his murder of Tiller, and many Christians just love what he did, none of that clears Islam. The simple fact is that Islam demands that Muslims fight in defense of Islam and allows the killing of unbelievers in that defense. Under Islam, there is no such thing as an innocent non-Muslim.

        All Muslims believe that only God can decide who is worthy of Paradise. When a Muslim kills, he or she has no responsibity for their victim. At all. If they happen to kill an innocent, God will sort that out and make it right. Their victims are not their problem. That’s why a Muslim can bomb a bus or a cafe. That’s why 19 Muslim men walked on 4 planes, saw children, and carried out their plans anyway. That’s why the Muslims at Beslan had no problem attacking a school full of kids. That’s why when the seige went bad, the Muslims at Beslan had no problem killing as many kids as they could. Just more work for Allah.

        Muslim terroists are not twisting or perverting anything in Islam to justify what they do. They are following Islam to the letter. Islam IS The Religion of Peace as long as you remember that the word “peace” to a Muslim means a world dominated by Islam, and as long as one corner of it is under infidel control, there will never be peace.

        1. I didn’t say that the SLA and the Unabomber were Christians, I said they weren’t Muslims. The point I was making was against the statement that “all terrorists are Muslims.” There have been too many who just weren’t. Likewise Roeder, I wasn’t saying that to clear Islam of any label of terror. That can’t be done by pointing to non-Muslims, it has to be done by pointing to Muslims who don’t support terrorism… like the ones who inform our FBI of the terrorist plans they hear about, like some of my friends and former neighbors (the al-Fayeds are the only ones you’ve probably heard of) but there were others, whose nationalities ranged from Pakistan to Malaysia. To me, the religion itself needs no clearance of this.

          I don’t conflate the tenets of any faith with the actions of its adherents, even the actions of those who declare that they perform those actions in the religion’s name. I think all three religions descended from Abraham, over the centuries from then till now, produced radical adherents who used lethal violence against innocents as a tool to support whatever they placed on their agenda, and claimed God’s sanction of it.

          The Koran requires that innocents be protected, and that God punishes those who attack the innocent. They have to twist the definition of innocence in order to make their actions fit.

          Your statement about Muslims believing that only God decides who enters Paradise is accurate, and it’s shared by most of those who believe in such a concept as Paradise. Few believe that we mortals have any say in who gets in. When the Catholics killed heretics, they knew that some might be innocent.. and they trusted to God to sort that out. During the Albigensian Crusade, According to Heisterbach, (one of the leaders of the Crusader army,) the Papal legate when asked by a Crusader how to distinguish the heretics from the Catholics, answered: “Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius” – “Kill them [all]! Surely the Lord discerns which [ones] are his”. Joshua ben Nun, when he took Jericho ordered all the inhabitants killed – men, women and children – with the exception of the family of Rahab the harlot who betrayed her people and hid the spies.

          The point of this, is to prove that what you vilify the radical Muslims for, is not unique to Islam. If you’re going to condemn the action (as I do) then you must also condemn the same action when taken by those against whom you show no hostility. To do anything less, I believe, is hypocrisy. If you want to assert that the others really did have God’s sanction… then you are saying hypocrisy is “Perfectly” acceptable if God does it.

            1. Who is innocent under Islam?

              “[Quran 6:151] “…… You shall not kill – GOD has made life sacred – except in the course of justice. These are His commandments to you, that you may understand.”
              [Quran17:33] “You shall not kill any person – for GOD has made life sacred – except in the course of justice. …..”
              Quran 5:32] “……, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. …………..””

              I am trying to reconcile the two statements in your last paragraph, Jaynie59.

              You’re an atheist who thinks all religious people are nuts… Okay, I get that.

              How does this make it “really nice if, just once” a liberal would condemn one bunch of mostly domestic nuts without gloating that another bunch of mostly foreign nuts did something worse.

              How does pointing out that the two groups of nuts are competing to see who is less homicidal… make you feel any better? What does it have to do with your atheism?

    3. You should have complained to the owner about CNN being tuned in. Boycotted his store. Called the local newspaper and demanded action. It’s how the libs would have handled it had FOX news been on the TV.

  6. Beck must be doing a great job…he is getting to Mr. Spooky Dude…they fear him. Vote Conservative Tuesday. It is a vote for our freedom.

  7. “NOVEMBER 2nd 2010 , the SILENT MAJORITY will finally CAST their VOTES for the real change in America that is needed NOW !”

    VOTE CONSERVATIVE , AMERICA , REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER . (period)

    1. How’d that Silent Majority thing turn out for you guys the first time around? Happy with the choice you made?

  8. Nut job! You can tell by his voice that he is a very unhappy person. Can’t Soros come up with someone more intelligent? Oh, Right, the intelligent ones are on our side. Sorry Soros! You lose!

Comments are closed.