This is the exciting new source for everything related to John Ziegler. Here you can easily find enormous amounts of contemporary and archived audio, video and written content from Ziegler's career as a broadcaster and commentator.
I have a really hard time with people who claim to be crusaders for the conservative cause but who are really only in it for either personal and/or economic aggrandizement. In my media career I have found that vast majorities of the elite among conservative politicians and media stars fit into this pathetic category. One of the most aggravating aspects of the heat I have taken over the past year for my efforts to shine light on the injustice of the media coverage of the 2008 election is that I often get accused of being one of those who only craves personal attention and has less than pure motives (which considering I was a long time radio talk show host, a career infested with such scoundrels, I can actually begrudgingly understand).
To me, now more than ever, the conservative movement must purge itself of those in its “leadership” who are not worthy of the cause they claim to champion. Over the past year I have begun to suspect that David Keene, the head of the American Conservative Union and the Chairman of CPAC (the largest annual gathering of conservatives) may fit into this category.
I have spoken at the last three CPACs and it always seemed pretty obvious to me that the vast majority of speaking slots and agenda items were determined by factors that had nothing to do with relevance, talent, worthiness, or benefit to the movement. Instead it was clear that personal relationships and donations/sponsorships ruled the day. Human nature being what it is, I hardly found this surprising and mostly put it in the “annoying” category.
That began to change earlier this year when, because I was promoting my just released documentary “Media Malpractice,” I was a co-sponsor of CPAC. As part of that designation I flew from Los Angles to Washington twice to attend planning meetings (including once the day after my grandfather’s funeral). At both of these affairs I raised the issue of “sellouts” to the movement being given prime speaking roles and there seemed to be general agreement that this was a bad idea. At one meeting David Keene clearly indicated to the group that this would be taken care of. However, when the schedule came out, the names I had specifically mentioned had indeed been given plum roles and, while I can’t prove it, all signs point to economic reasons motivating these decisions to reward people who are clearly bad for the cause.
I will fully acknowledge that I felt badly mistreated by the selection process, but that did not influence my perception of that procedure, but rather only made it easier for to see and voice what I have witnessed about its obvious flaws. But the ultimate tipping point for me came a few months ago when David Keene made some statements about Sarah Palin after her resignation that sounded like they could have easily come from Keith Olbermann and not an extremely influential conservative leader.
Keene claimed she was “whining” about media coverage, “bitter,” “resentful,” had “bailed out” on her governorship, and was not ready for the “major leagues.” He also mocked her inability to appear at this year’s CPAC (not that I am implying this had anything to do with his motivation!).
As someone who has dedicated their lives over the past year to trying to correct the historical record about Sarah Palin, almost nothing infuriates me more than having a “conservative’ buy into the media lies about her, especially when they don’t seem to know all the basic facts. But when that person is the head of the ACU and CPAC it is particularly maddening because Palin bashing from someone like that essentially provides cover for anyone else who wants to take an unfair shot at her. For all intents and purposes Keene was acting as an accomplice, after the fact, for a public lynching.
Then I learned of a couple of extreme ethical lapses by Keene in the realm of his personal political allegiances and his political lobbying firm.
Politico reported that it certainly appeared as if the ACU (through a letter from Keene deputy Dennis Whitfield, with whom I had met in 2008 about potentially funding part of “Media Malpractice”) was offering Federal Express Keene’s op-ed support on a legislative issue if they paid ACU a couple of million dollars.
I also became aware of a 2003 National Review article (subtitled, “The ACU Chairman Sells Out”) which focused on his support for then liberal Republican Arlen Specter who was long-time Keene “friend” and, coincidently I am sure, the head of a senate committee in front of which Keene’s lobbying firm regularly does business.
It also turns out that Keene gave Specter (now a key Democrat) $2,000 as late as the 2008 election cycle. For sake of complete disclosure, I have been very open about having given money to a Democratic friend currently in congress, but I am not the head of the American Conservative Union and I have been very clear that my “support” was not an attempt to back up my friend’s non-existent conservative credentials.
So, with this as the backdrop, I went to Western CPAC in Newport Beach this past weekend as a scheduled speaker and an exhibitor. I also went with the full intention of getting David Keene to address at least some of these issues.
It became clear to me that the best way to do this was, rather than going way off the topic of my speaking panel (I was there to talk about my arrest at USC’s Katie Couric journalism award ceremony) and making an unnecessary scene that probably wouldn’t even make sense, was to get an interview with David Keene. Keene agreed to do a sit-down interview and the guys from Orange County Films (who had videotaped the Couric episode) volunteered to shoot whatever happened that day.
Here is the three part video of what transpired, which was edited by Orange County Films.
The two men not clearly identified in this video are Jon Fleischman from flashreport.org and Gary Kreep who moderated the panel I was supposed to be on. Gary, I later found out, is a big-time “Birther.” So Birthers were more welcome to appear at WCPAC than people who ask David Keene tough questions in an interview to which he willing agreed!
For the record, contrary to what WCPAC claims here, I had absolutely no intention of “disrupting” the panel I was scheduled to be on. All I wanted to do was to get David Keene to explain himself, which I had already tried to do. I didn’t make the “scene,” David Keene did.
I am sure that there will be those who will wrongly think that I did this for personal attention. Those that know anything about me understand this is not the case. I will gain absolutely nothing from this and will likely lose quite a bit. My only goal was to try to shine light on the issue of whether David Keene as individual should be a leader in the conservative movement as well as this broader issue of far too many members of the conservative establishment being motivated by the wrong factors.
One of the reasons that I did this was that I am well aware that I am the only one who would be willing and able (or stupid enough) to do something like this to expose apparent frauds like David Keene and CPAC. I am also very well aware that I will likely fail in this attempt for some accountability.
This will largely be because many “conservative” commentators (some of whom personally witnessed at least part of what happened), who in a semi-rational world would jump all over this story, I am sure will turn the other way so as to not jeopardize their relationship with CPAC and their precious speaking spots. Ironically, this reality is a large part of how this situation was created to begin with. The conservative media protects a guy like Keene out of fear and then he actually begins to rationalize that he has done nothing wrong because, after all, almost no one has called him on any of it and there have been no repercussions at all.
This entire episode has greatly furthered my already strongly held belief that the vast majority of the conservative “movement” is “led” by fakes, flakes, freaks, frauds, phonies and sell outs who are far more interested in protecting their own little thiefdoms than promoting the cause. That may not surprise veterans of the political process and human nature, but I would still like to believe that the principles of freedom, liberty, limited government, national security and the constitution deserve much better than that.
There are many reasons why conservatism finds itself clinging to a quickly dying minority in America, and this issue is right at the top of the list. If I have given up my career in the movement to spark a change, it will be well worth it. Regardless, I know that, while I am hardly perfect, I have fought a just fight and always did what I thought was right.
In 2008, John Ziegler wrote, directed and produced the documentary “Blocking the Path to 9/11″ and created www.HowObamaGotElected.com as a precursor to his next film, “Media Malpractice… How Obama Got Elected,” which came out in early 2009 and screened in over 20 theaters. A trailer video for that documentary has been viewed by at least 2.3 million people on You Tube.
I went to USC to witness and ask questions about Katie Couric getting the Walter Cronkite journalism award for her interview of Sarah Palin. I intended to also give away copies of my film but I was literally prevented from doing so. I did not go there hoping for or expecting any sort of confrontation, especially with law enforcement. I am simply shocked and horrified by what happened here, as should every freedom loving American. I did absolutely nothing wrong and I was handcuffed, detained and literally abused by law enforcement at the event. The video below will speak for itself, but I will have plenty to say about this very disturbing episode.
Here is what people are saying about Meda Malpractice
"I just viewed your film. "You Nailed It"!!! There were even parts you covered from the primaries; I did not know about. One example is although, I knew about the "Lobbyist Letter" of McCain's " disappointment to Obama. I had NO IDEA there were "interviews" to back it up!! You covered the following from the primaries PERFECTLY: *The Wright issue, Bill Clinton & the "Fairytale" comment, Donna Brazile "1st" to say Racism (Although, J.Jackson Jr & Roland Martin were contenders for that spot), Gerry Ferraro, Hillary's "response to the Muslim" question & how she was set up, The "With-Holding" of results from the IN county to "Down-Play" her win. The General Election Coverage was "Spot-On" too. GREAT JOB!! You managed to show-case what "we" witness. "Without Injection yourself" into it. Well done!!" ~Toni T. (PUMA)
"This is a very good DVD. A number of times while viewing it, I almost punched a hole in my monitor. How dare the media decide who the nation should vote for is a very scary situation that should never happen." ~Charlie B.
"I ordered "Media Malpractice" seconds after learning it was available and I was thrilled to find it had finally arrived in my mailbox yesterday. I'm glad the response has been positive. After watching it with some friends last night (one in particular who supports Obama), I want to congratulate you on your amazing research, hard work and dedication to this project. You definitely have a great voice, both audibly on the radio, but also a great voice for explaining the complex situation America finds itself in with an entertaining style. I hope this project rewards you enough so that you can continue to make documentaries like these last two." ~Mark M.
" I just received my copy of Media Malpractice and reviewed it today. OUTSTANDING!!!! You really nailed it. Keep up the good work." ~Ed S.
Visit MediaMalpracticeMovie.com to view the trailer, read reviews, follow the news on the film and order your copy!
John Ziegler's 2012 Probabilities
(percentages change day to day based upon events)
Chart.
An Electoral College Tie: Far More Likely Than You Think
4/17/2012
While, from the perspective of the calendar, it is obviously very early in the presidential race, the outcome may be far more set in stone than most observers are willing or able to admit. I have said during the primaries (while making the case for Mitt Romney), that a presidential election is far more like a poker game where most of the cards have already been drawn, than like a sports contest where, theoretically, anything can happen after the start of play.
For all intents and purposes, the only cards yet to be dealt in this 2012 race are the VP pick, the debate and the economy cards. Frankly, there is a very good chance that Romney’s VP pick will purposely not move the needle, that the debates will be a wash, and that the perception of the economy (no matter how hard the media tries) will remain pretty much what it currently is. Given these assumptions, it is quite possible to make an educated prediction about how the election will turn out.
What is most amazing about all of this is how incredibly likely an Electoral College tie currently appears to be. Last night I went to www.270towin.com and predicted the election state by state. Without concern for the overall outcome my map resulted in a 269-269 tie. Remarkably, my map doesn’t contain anything close to a massive upset and makes perfect sense as a broader narrative for the election (in other words, there are no results which contradict one other like Romney winning Pennsylvania but somehow losing Virginia, which wouldn’t make a lot of sense).
This is not to say the map I came up with doesn’t need some explaining.
The most “surprising” outcomes I predicted are probably Romney winning Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire, while also losing Virginia. Each has a logical rationale.
Romney has campaigned heavily in Iowa twice now and the people there know him fairly well. Obama only won Iowa in 2008 by nine points and there is little doubt that he could easily lose five points off his vote total in any given state. That would make Iowa a true toss up.
Nevada has a heavy Mormon population and Romney has won it easily twice in primaries. Meanwhile, the state has been hit as hard as any other economically and Obama has twice made damaging statements about businesses not going there to visit. Romney has a real shot here.
New Hampshire is Romney’s second home and neighbors (with lots of its refugees) the state he governed. While its motto “Live Free or Die” is somewhat overrated, there is still an anti-government bent there. Obama only won the state by nine points in 2008. Per Electoral College vote, I think New Hampshire is the most important state in 2012 as many of Obama’s paths to 270 are blocked without him winning it.
The most significant state overall will likely be Virginia, and here I think it will be very close with Obama ultimately prevailing. The reasoning here is that the intensity of the federal workers in the northern part of the state to come out and vote against Romney will be stronger than the urge by the heavily evangelical southern section to vote for a Mormon. If I were working for the Romney campaign, I would urge them to buy at least a couple of houses in southern Virginia.
So, as you can see, an Electoral College tie is hardly far fetched. It may even be likely. If this scenario were to transpire it would mean that the newly elected House of Representatives would chose the president (assuming the media didn’t convince a Romney elector to bolt to Obama) in a state-by-state vote, which would almost certainly mean that Obama would be sent packing. Interestingly, the Senate would chose the vice-president, which could mean chaos if the Republicans don’t take over complete control.
Again, this is an early, though educated, predication. No ones knows for sure what will happen, but barring significant and surprising events, this particular scenario is far more likely (as well as potentially dangerous) than anyone seems to currently realize.
The Death of Andrew Breitbart
3/1/2012
Like a lot of people, I was once "close" to Andrew Breitbart. Andrew was a very popular guy and had a ton of "friends," but at one point I thought our relationship was at least somewhat unique.
We appeared to be kindred spirits and fellow Los Angeles-based warriors against media bias and we had worked hand in hand on several big stories. I had him on my old radio many times, he "starred" in my first documentary and I helped him debut his Big Hollywood website with their first big story, the exclusive excerpts of Sarah Palin's only post-2008 election sit down interview. He was one of three people with whom I spent my 40th birthday.
We had a very complex falling out a couple of years ago, the details of which, while interesting and publicly relevant, I will not get into at this time out of respect for his passing.
However, there are several important elements to his death that I wish to eventually address because I am likely the only one in a position to do so. Earlier today, I wrote a long piece (most of which was very positive) about this subject, but have since decided to delay its publication out of respect for his family.
For now, I will just say this:
If there is one tiny bright spot in all of this, the Andrew I knew would have been absolutely thrilled, surprised, touched and amused by all of the attention his death is getting. His hero Rush Limbaugh started his show with a tremendous monologue, his nemesis Glenn Beck devoted much of his show to the story, Drudge (belatedly) prominently led with it, the AP send out over ten different versions of it, and many prominent admirers (including some he really didn't like at all) and detractors tweeted their admiration and, at times, biased disparagement. There has even been some unfounded and irrational conspiracy theories how he may have been targeted for death. Man, he would have loved that.
In death Andrew Breitbart has finally gotten what he truly wanted (but knew he was highly unlikely to ever receive) in life: mainstream media acceptance. Nothing in his career would have ever made him more proud.
I just hope he somehow got a chance to experience it.
Penn State vs. Syracuse Equals Massive Media Double Standard
11/18/2011
It is early yet, but from here it seems pretty clear that the media has decided that the allegations of sexual abuse against a current Syracuse basketball coach are not going to be treated with nearly the gravity as those against a former Penn State football coach. This double standard is particularly obvious when it comes to the scrutiny of the two head coaches "involved."
While in the media's world the Penn State scandal is far worse (Sports Illustrated, which didn't even do a news story on the grand jury indictments last week, suddenly called it on this week's cover the worst in college history), a look at some of the facts might tell a very different story.
Here is a starting tale of the tape:
Number of known victims who are accusing Jerry Sandusky of engaging in overt sex acts with them: 2
(Learning this fact has confused quite a numbr of people, including some in the media, who have not carefully read the grand jury report. The reality is that, at most, depending on how you interpret "sex acts," only two witnesses currently claim Sandusky engaged in such activity with them and one of those could be open to interpretation. What has led to this confusion, other than the sensationalistic media coverage, is the fact that the two most talked about allegations do NOT currently have victims attached to them.)
Number of known victims who are accusing Bernie Fine of engaging in overt sex acts with them: 2
Number of Sandusky sex victims to go public: 0
Number of Fine sex victims to go public: 2
Number alleged Sandusky victims directly connected to Penn State football program: 0
Number of alleged Fine victims directly connected to Syracuse basketball program: 2
Number of years Sandusky was on Penn State staff after the school became aware of allegations of inappropriate behavior: 1
Number of years Fine was on Syracuse staff after school become aware of allegations of inappropriate behavior: at least 8 (and still going)
Number of victims publicly called a liar by Joe Paterno: 0
Number of victims publicly called a liar by Jim Boeheim: at least 1
Number of times Paterno has publicly asked for prayers for the victims: several
Number of times Boeheim has publicly asked for prayers for the victims: 0
Number of positive statements sent out by Joe Paterno supporting Jerry Sandusky after the allegations became public: 0
Number of positive statements sent out by Jim Boeheim supporting Bernie Fine after the allegations became public: 1
Number of libraries at Penn State built by Joe Paterno: 1
Number of libraries at Syracuse built by Jim Boeheim: 0
Number of national championships won by Joe Paterno:2
Number of national championships won by Jim Boeheim: 1
Number of times Penn State football has been on NCAA probation: 0
Number of times Syracuse basketball has been on NCAA probation: 1
Number of major media calls for Paterno to be fired: infinite
Number of major media calls for Boeheim to be fired: 0
Yes, there have been indictments in the Penn State scandal (getting an indictment is notoriously easy) and yes there are far more anonymous accusers of “misconduct” (not sex) and one more apparent witness, but the similarities in the two cases are far more than the differences.
Despite that, there seems little doubt that the media will not presume Jim Boeheim had the same knowledge as they have with Joe Paterno and won’t hold him to a brand new standard that they have seemingly made up after the fact in order to justify an obsession with a very juicy story during a slow sports week.
Both Paterno and Boeheim might be “guilty” and both might be innocent. We just don’t know yet. But we do know that one is getting the benefit of the doubt that the other did not.
My Night With Herman Cain and Why He Isn't Finished Yet
11/8/2011
I have seen a lot of strange scenes in my life and career, but few could ever top the Herman Cain event I attended Monday night for its pure “Alice in Wonderland” feel.
I was among about 300 conservatives who attended a private speech the presidential candidate had been scheduled to give for weeks. When dinner was delayed awaiting his arrival, some of us wondered if Cain was going to cancel due to the obvious firestorm surrounding the numerous allegations of sexual harassment which came to an apparent crescendo earlier in the day with a Gloria Allred sponsored press conference. As it turned out, the delay was only due to typically bad LA traffic from Jimmy Kimmel’s studio to the hotel.
Any doubt about how supportive this group would be of Cain was erased immediately when he finally walked in the door and received an extended and nearly unanimous standing ovation as he tried to make his way to his seat through the adoring crowd. While this reaction did not surprise me (as proven by the testimony of even O.J. Simpson, accused celebrities tend to get notoriously positive reactions in person), I found it to be sad, pathetic and politically dangerous.
Cain was treated like a rock star throughout his address receiving numerous standing ovations, including when he promised that the next day’s press conference would be a “smackdown…only we are going to be doing the smacking!”
It was almost as if we had entered an alternative universe where reality had no power. I am honestly not sure if Ronald Reagan had risen from dead whether he would have been treated as enthusiastically as Herman Cain.
To be fair, he was an absolutely hilarious and fantastic speaker. But to say his words were wafer thin for a leading presidential contender would be an insult to the width of wafers.
There was only one moment when reality briefly reared its ugly head. That was when, after at first appearing be the first guest speaker ever to not take questions from this group, Cain returned to the podium and said he had time for two questions.
As fate would have it, I got the chance to ask the second question.
After joking with him that we might be able to get rid of the national debt by putting a debate between him and President Obama on pay-per-view, I reminded him that many of the voters who will determine the winner of the next election don’t know who he is yet and warned him they will be educated by a media more than able to destroy him like they did Sarah Palin. I then asked him to please convince me that in such an inevitable atmosphere that he could possibly defeat a media darling like Obama.
His answer basically boiled down to a delusional hope that conservatives could go around the media to educate voters to the truth. He then slipped into bombastic platitudes and left the stage to yet another standing ovation (which at least gave me the chance to slip out the back and get to the front of the line for the valet).
It was very clear to me that what I witnessed was strong evidence that while he would need a miracle to win the nomination and absolutely would get crushed in a general election, that Herman Cain is not going to fade away immediately. His supporters simply want to like him too much and are way too invested in is success to let the truth get in the way of their fairy tale.
Then came Tuesday’s “smack down” press conference and Cain certainly didn’t disappoint his supporters when it came to standing strong. The visual setting and the audio were perfect. Cain’s new southern lawyer was commanding. Cain himself was eloquent and defiant during a statement that was neither overly read nor memorized. His answers to the remarkably tame/softball questions were all well executed. He emerged without a new mark on him.
At least for now.
However, his strategy seems to be to not just “double down” but go “all in” that each of his many accusers are flat out lying and that only he is telling the truth. This is not only dangerous because it practically invites even more accusers, but also because you can make a very strong argument that Cain’s campaign has already lied (or, to be extremely charitable, radically changed their story) at least twice during this saga regarding knowledge/nature of the settlements and who is behind the stories.
In short, only those who have already drunk the Kool Aid are going to believe Cain’s story, but those who have, probably will.
But if you were going to throw a Hail Mary pass, Cain’s was a least a spiral and Fox News (by far the most important out let in a Republican presidential primary) was more than willing to try and catch it. The panel of buffoons known as “The Five” which followed the press conference gave Cain rave reviews with only the lone Democrat giving his performance just a “B” instead of an “A.”
Meanwhile, the Drudge Report (the second most important outlet in a Republican presidential primary) once again clearly took Cain’s side, benignly highlighting his nonsensical conspiracy charges and attacks on his accusers.
I continue to point out that the conservative media has a profound financial/ratings self interest to prop Cain’s candidacy up and that they have been incredible soft on him to date. You can decide for yourself if those two facts are connected.
So we are now in a situation that is beyond bizarre. A guy who is not qualified to be president and who can’t possibly win a general election is leading the Republican race and his supporters don’t seem to care that he is at best a fraud (for reasons that have nothing to do with his treatment of women) and, at worst, a “monster” as one of his accusers has now called him.
The reasons Cain’s base of support (I am guessing at least 10 percent of the Republican primary voter population will stay with him no matter what) isn’t going to completely leave him are as fascinating as they are frustrating.
First, they desperately don’t want to nominate Romney and they see Cain as that last viable alternative. Second, they have a startling lack of understanding of (or simply don’t care about) the harsh realities of a general election against Obama. Thirdly, they understandably hate the news media so much that they refuse to believe anything negative about their guy (especially when Gloria Allred is attached), even when they would buy the very same allegations about a liberal in a heartbeat. Fourthly, the conservative media has kept their customers largely in the dark about many of Cain’s most blatant vulnerabilities. Fifthly, the fact that he is black acts like a Teflon shield easily deflecting any doubts from conservatives who instinctually fear attacking a person they so desperately want to be the man they hope him to be. Finally, the desire of conservatives to have their own Obama or Clinton is so great that it overwhelms their rationality and prevents them from accepting that the rules (written by liberals in the media) simply don’t allow for that.
The whole thing is beyond depressing and makes me further question the entire movement. What is most wretched personally is that I am quite sure that, just like with Sarah Palin, I will be further unfairly attacked for simply pointing out the obvious truth about a presidential contender whose nomination would certainly lead to four more years of President Obama.
I am beginning to believe that this result may be exactly what we deserve.
John Ziegler on Herman Cain's Campaign and Why the Conservative Media is Not to be Trusted in their Coverage of Him.
10/13/2011
An Open E-mail to Sarah Palin
10/5/2011
The following is an actual e-mail "Media Malpractice, How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Targeted" Filmmaker John Ziegler sent to Sarah Palin's personal e-mail address after she announced she was not running for president.
Dear Governor Palin:
Wow. So, is this really how your political saga is going end? By letting down your remaining supporters and telling them, with a straight face, that you can do more to impact change as a Fox News Contributor than you can as President of the United States?
I was almost positive you would run because it appeared that your brand demanded it from a career maintenance perspective. I had even written a long letter blasting you for being either selfish or delusional in making a decision to run which could help President Obama get reelected. While I applaud you for making the right decision, thanks to the way you made it, I must also question your real rationale.
One of the many reasons (other than the conversation I had earlier this year with Todd about working on your campaign) I was so sure you would give it a shot was that I figured you were way too smart to go this far with a blatant tease without a legitimate exit explanation.
While you have used the “I don’t need a title to impact change” line before (to justify your politically inexplicable resignation as governor of Alaska), I never figured you would actually try to float that as a last minute reason for not pursuing the most important job in the world. It is hard to believe that even the most crazed of your fans will buy that, but I am sure at least some of the remaining lemmings will.
Of course, there is no way you actually believe it yourself. First of all, how is this “issue" new information? You mean to tell us that in the last year since you started talking openly about running for president that this never occurred to you before? If it was a decisive factor now, why wasn’t it that way several months ago before you started acting like a candidate? Why did you selfishly put your supporters through the long wait and stunt the process for the actual candidates?
Secondly, exactly what change have you impacted since resigning from office? Being generous, you raised legitimate questions about a healthcare bill which ended up passing, you may have helped energize a base that assisted in winning back the House, and you were heavily tied to three senate candidates who lost otherwise very winnable races (btw, if “titles” are so unimportant, why did you even bother trying to help those campaigns to begin with?).
Finally, what change do you think you can possibly “impact” in the future now that everyone knows there is no chance of you ever having real political power and your base of current support is sure to wither away? You do realize (as I warned you about after your resignation) that people/media will stop caring about what you say/write once they know for sure you are never going to be president, right? If you still don’t believe me, just ask any promising athlete whose career is cut down prematurely by injury (as yours was by an unfair kneecapping by the media) how they are treated once a comeback is no longer achievable.
It is certainly possible that you may not accept this premise because you are under the understandable delusion (thanks to the media’s obsession with you) that you are somehow special and not bound by the same rules which govern mere mortals. After all, if you didn’t think you deserved extraordinary consideration, you would never have had the audacity to even float the idea of a presidential run after resigning office in a way that was clearly designed to get rich and stay famous.
If this is indeed the case, you are finally in for a rude awakening.
The only reason the liberal media has been obsessing over whether you might run for president is that you would have added to the entertainment value of a Republican race with which they are already getting bored. As you recently accurately (and, given your family’s penchant for participating in such endeavors, rather ironically) observed that they see the whole thing as a “reality show” in need of a new wacky character to spice things up. Plus, they would love for you to have somehow been the nominee to insure Obama’s reelection.
The conservative media has been going along with this charade as well because they see their own ratings as more important than the cause of beating Obama and because they fear offending your fans who are some of their most important customers.
Now that you aren’t running you have made yourself almost totally irrelevant. Unlike with Chris Christie (did you notice how much more passionately the media pined for him than you?), no one with an actual chance will want your endorsement. Once the nominee and the new VP candidate are chosen you will be very old news, and with no elected office (or, thanks to you’re your incredible lack of popularlity in Alaska, even the theoretical chance of one), you will have no opportunity to alter your narrative or make any news.
My guess is that you won’t even end up speaking at the convention because you are too big for a minor slot and too dangerous for a prime one.
If the Republican ends up winning you will no longer have a purpose at all (unless you go really rogue and decide to be the chief conservative critic of the new president) and 2016 is obviously not an option, especially with no way to significantly enhance your resume. If they lose, by the time 2016 comes around a whole new wave of Republican superstars will be ready to take the plunge and you will have already shown yourself to be afraid of getting in the water even when people were still begging you to get in. By 2020 your name will be almost as remote as Dan Quayle’s and you will have been out of office for almost five times as long as you held it.
About the only way you could retain any semblance of political potency is to become the conservative Ralph Nader, constantly threatening a third party run. This would be roughly the “fall from grace” equivalent of Tiger Woods being reduced to doing a dating reality show for attention.
Now, if you realize all of this, then I praise you for making a selfless decision for the betterment of the cause. There was a time not long ago when I truly believed you when you said you were letting your principles guide you and, “If I die politically, I die.” You are now, clearly, about as politically dead as someone of your celebrity could possibly be.
However, based on my personal experience, I have lost my faith in your ability to correctly perceive reality or to be totally honest with yourself and the public. Therefore, I question whether this realization was truly the motivation for your decision not to run.
For instance, on several occasions you have gone out of your way to boldly state, in the face of a mountain if evidence, that you could beat Obama. Pretending for a moment that you actually think that is true, then why in the world would you not even give it a try when the stakes for the country are so high and you claim to have the fire in the belly? Given that your family has already been through far more unfair scrutiny than any other in American history, there wouldn’t seem to be anything left to lose on that front.
The funny thing is that since I told you both personally and publicly that you can’t possibly beat Obama, just about everything you could have possibly asked for has happened. Obama’s approval ratings have dropped dramatically and the economy has stagnated. Michele Bachmann has faded and Rick Perry appears to be following that same path. Chris Christie has made it clear he isn’t going to get in.
And yet you still decided to disappoint your supporters and give up perhaps your last chance to show the American public that the media was wrong about both you and Obama during the 2008 election.
It seems to me you made this decision because you are more than smart enough to realize that, despite the wind blowing strongly at your back and field opening up perfectly, you really can’t win either the nomination or the general election. The facts show that you simply don’t have following that the media has projected, and it seems you don’t want that to be exposed.
The documentary about your resignation you essentially commissioned grossed a shockingly meager $116,000 despite unbelievable free publicity from both ends of the media spectrum desperate for you to get in the race to help their own bottom line. Your PAC’s fundraising numbers have never been spectacular and just before your decision they put out a fundraising letter all but asking supporters to show how much they want you in the race (now that you have decided not to run, are you going to return the money?). Evidently, the response was not nearly what you had hoped or expected.
Finally, your poll numbers (when you say polls are “for strippers” it makes me nervous that you really don’t believe in science) are anemic even among Republicans and you consistently do worse against Obama than almost any other candidate. You also have to know that your two biggest weaknesses (organization and electability) are also the two most important qualities in a protracted nomination battle, the only type of contest you could have even theoretically won in such a crowded field.
The bottom line is that it seems to me that you have made the right moral decision for all the wrong reasons. Ironically, you think you are preserving your political career by not exposing yourself to a potentially embarrassing loss, but in reality you are ending it. This is the exact conclusion for which the seeds were sown during your resignation. As you recall, my warnings about such an inevitability began a rift between us that ultimately resulted in the end of over two years of colorful and consequential contact.
As someone who attended your spectacular convention speech and who put their fortune, career and reputation on the line in your defense, this is a very sad day for me. There is no doubt that you were dealt a horrible hand by a media determined to destroy you because you were once a threat to Obama. You made choices in dealing with your situation which have secured your family’s financial future and insured that you will always have a gig on television, but these decisions have also extinguished a flame which had the potential to light the conservative path for a generation. I still believe that had you stuck it out and remained as governor of Alaska things could have been very different today.
I certainly never could have imagined that things would have turned out this way when we met at your house for the most extensive interview you have ever done about the 2008 election. While I don’t regret my efforts to set the record straight about what happened to you, I do wish I had never taken up your cause and made the mistake of thinking you wanted honest and truthful counsel.
While I have made many mistakes and suffered greatly during this finally ending “Palin chapter” of my life, but at least I sleep well knowing my intentions were always pure. You once stated that in politics you are either eating well or sleeping well. Given the state of your life I wonder if your nights are nearly as restful.
About that Sarah Palin Cover Story in Newsweek..
7/6/2011
I read with great interest the glowing article in the current Newsweek which features a rare "mainstream" interview with Sarah Palin. This was hardly just because the take away line from the story is "I can win," though I will address that first.
Sadly, Sarah Palin, as I have written extensively before at great personal cost, is dead wrong in such an assertion. I have no doubt that she really does think she can win as I have learned that she usually is not prone to saying things she doesn't actually believe, but in this case her sincerity is no virtue. I would actually feel better if she was lying like most politicians do.
While the interview appears to have been done before either of the two newest polls from Alaska came out showing her losing to Obama and with deeply under water popularity there, it is currently hard to see how she even wins her home state.
This seemingly shocking (to those who haven't been paying close attention) reality is not just devastating because it is the state where she was governor two years ago and one where any conservative should easily defeat Obama. The real significance of this is that Alaska is way ahead of the curve on the issue which would easily bring down any Palin candidacy in a general election: her resignation.
While the rest of the nation has largely forgotten about her quitting, Alaska obviously has had a far more intimate experience with her decision which, at least to the average person, can only be understood when seen as a bid to get rich and remain famous.
When I get ripped by Palin fans for having the gall to raise this perilous issue and its obvious consequences in a 2012 general election, I often feel as if I am arguing with the same people who thought OJ Simpson was innocent.
How in the world are we even discussing whether someone out of office, already with 99 percent name recognition, 60 percent disapproval rates, and losing numbers in their home state can beat an incumbent media darling like Obama?!
And yet the stunningly sycophantic Newsweek article (by normal mainstream media Palin standards it makes an average Larry King movie review seem critical) makes no mention of these realities and will surely only feed the delusion that Palin is correct in her electoral assessment.
But despite my well-known interest in chronicling Palin-related media coverage, the remarkably softball nature of the article was not the most noteworthy element of the article to me. Instead, it was that it was written by Peter J Boyer.
After my essay "The Sarah Palin I Know" ran in the Daily Caller, Boyer emailed me and asked me to call him. He wanted to discuss the story of my two years on the fringe of Palin's world, having produced the only film for which she ever did an interview and been an informal advisor to her for a period of time.
Over several days we talked for well over three hours. He never told me exactly what story he was working on, but he strongly led me to believe that the article would focus on my experiences and crusade to tell the truth about Palin (both good and bad). You wouldn't know it from the story he ended up writing, but he seemed to totally understand how absurd it is to think she could be elected president in 2012. Numerous sections of it appeared written by a completely different person than the one I spoke to all that time.
As is almost always the case with reporters, I figured he would eventually either wimp out or screw me, so my expectations for what he would do with our discussions were low (if you wonder why I would bother to even talk with someone I expected to do me wrong, you are obviously smarter than I am). So when he went silent for awhile I figured the story was dead. When he emailed me saturday morning and laughably claimed that my narrative, though interesting, required more space than he had, I chuckled to myself and emailed him back that he was full of crap (I wish people just had the balls to tell you the the truth when they are doing you wrong).
But when I read his article on Palin I was truly outraged (keep in mind, having been treated almost universally horribly by reporters in my career it is almost impossible for me to be outraged by anything these jackals do). Not because my story is not mentioned (who in the world wouldn't ditch my tale after getting a one on one with her?!), but because it seemed pretty clear to me that Boyer had probably secured his interview with Palin at least in part by lying to me.
You see, at the end of one of our very long phone calls Boyer asked me to forward to him the last email I sent to Sarah and Todd before my Daily Caller essay ran. Since it appeared he was doing a feature on my experiences such a request made perfect sense and after several hours on the phone I stupidly started to trust him. When I forwarded the email I did so under the condition that he not use or disseminate their addresses.
While obviously I can't prove in court that he broke this promise (which he agreed to via email), the idea that within a couple of days of getting Palin's email he went from seemingly doing a story on my attempts to educate conservatives on why she can't win and making zero mention of having had any contact with her or her people, to suddenly doing an exclusive interview with her and Todd in Iowa and an extremely positive story on her, would be a coincidence of biblical proportions.
When I called him on it via email (surprisingly he did not return my phone call), he denied it, but absent an alternative explanation I will remain convinced he lied to me, especially since he was clearly deceitful during other elements of our interaction.
I realize that a reporter breaking an agreement and misleading a source to land a big interview is barely worthy of mention in our increasingly immoral society, but I am clearly a dinasour in this realm. Of course the ultimate irony here (or perhaps just proof that couldn't pick the winner of a one horse race) is that after spending most of the last three years of my life fighting against unfair coverage of Palin and paying a heavy price for doing so, I am still getting the short end of the stick even when she suddenly is getting news treatment far better than her increasingly likely presidential candidacy deserves.
Top 10 Developments Of the First Week of the New John Ziegler Show
6/14/2009
It was an extremely eventful first week of the new John Ziegler Show on KGIL. Here are the top ten incredible developments in order of when they happened:
1. KFI's John Kobylt calls KGIL's owner to whine (while apparently stuttering and stammering) about John Ziegler telling the truth about him.
2. KABC's Doug McIntyre writes John Ziegler three times (twice after telling him he would never write him again) to complain that their freindship didn't prevent Ziegler from calling him on his Obama sellout.
3. Governor Sarah Palin does an amazing 16 minute live interview in which she gives her first reaction to the David Letterman controversey.
4. John Ziegler goes on MSNBC to talk about the Palin interview and the Letterman flap and gets his mike turned off after calling MSNBC out on its bias.
5. Rush Limbaugh (on KFI among hundreds of other stations) spent two full segments on Ziegler's MSNBC appearance, strongly praising him.
6. Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly does a live interview on the show.
7. Video of Ziegler's MSNBC appearence goes viral on the internet.
8. Snippets of Ziegler's Palin interview are used in newscasts nationwide as the Letterman controversey grows.
9. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough comes on the John Ziegler Show.
10. Governor Palin mentions her interview on the John Ziegler Show while live on the Today Show.
Exclusive Sarah Palin Interview
1/6/2009
John Ziegler's Exclusive Interview With Sarah Palin
If someone would have told me five months ago that in early January I would pay over $1,400 for an incredibly inconvenient plane ticket and $120 for a 3 am cab fare to get from sunny Los Angeles to Wasilla, Alaska, I would have told them there was a better chance that the Dow Jones would be below 9,000 and a gallon of gas would be less than two dollars.
If they would have told me that I would be glad I made the journey (even with a seven-hour, weather-aided, stop in Seattle), I would have told them Sarah Palin had a better chance to be John McCain’s running-mate. Of course, as well all now know, all that turned out to be true. And even though I still have the flu I got just before the trip, I am thrilled I got to experience -11 degrees in Alaska.
Obviously, I went there to interview Governor Palin for my forthcoming documentary on the media coverage of the 2008 election. My understanding is that the only reason that Governor Palin did this interview (while rejecting hundreds of other requests) is simply because she has a sincere devotion to setting the record straight on what really happened during the campaign and determining why the news coverage was as dangerously slanted as it so clearly was.
Largely because of absurd claims by Democrats that she was violating ethics rules by answering campaign questions on state grounds (one of several ways in which the Democrats there, who used to love her, are now totally invested in the “take Sarah Palin down” industry), we did the interview at the Palin home. At 9 am, without a security guard or handler within sight, Bristol Palin, eight days removed from giving birth, politely answered the door and Governor Palin, not yet fully put together, rushed out to tell me and our crew to make ourselves at home.
One of the things you quickly learn when you visit the Palins is that the legend that has been created around who they are and how they live is no myth. It appears to be absolutely real and everything about them seems 100% sincere. From the stuffed hunting trophies on the wall, to the Track’s military photo by the TV set, to Piper’s crayon school projects on the kitchen cabinets, everything is exactly as you imagine it might be.
What was particularly valuable about the perspective I had was that, I am not Charlie Gibson, Matt Lauer or Greta Van Susteren (who I understand now gets her mail delivered to the Palin home); the conductors of the three most prominent interviews done in the Wasilla house on the frozen lake at the end of the drive that has the sign “Palins” posted on a tree at the entrance. Unlike them, I am virtually unknown nationally and there was absolutely no reason for anything to be done differently as a “show” for us. We saw the genuine Sarah Palin and it is patently obvious that this is the only one that exists. She is the real deal.
As a former TV sportscaster and radio talk show host, I have interviewed a lot big-time “celebrities,” and I can honestly say that, even though you could argue that Sarah Palin was the most prominent I have ever spoken to one-on-one, she was also by far the nicest, most sincere and, seemingly, honest subject that I have ever questioned.
For context, I admit to being a fan of Sarah Palin from before she was ever named John McCain’s VP candidate. I attended her convention speech and consider it to be by far the finest that I have ever personally witnessed. But, being a world-class cynic, I also wondered if maybe there was at least some truth the to the negative media narrative that had been created about her. Maybe she really wasn’t that smart, maybe she was indeed a “diva” or a “wack job.” Well, if anything of those smears are remotely true, Palin should move here to LA permanently because she is a far better actor (not to mention better looking) than the vast majority of actresses in Hollywood.
Our interview started early and ended late (ask Barbara Walters how often that happens at this level). The Governor fully answered every question I asked, even though some of them brought up media episodes that clearly got her upset and, when the subject turned to her kids being targeted, even a little emotional. She then posed for pictures and signed autographs for the entire crew and casually discussed all sorts of topics, including how the local newspaper is absurdly still trailing the “story” that her youngest son is not really hers at all (this while Todd walked around with Trig on his back and Bristol cared for her newborn Tripp in a nearby bedroom; even Trig conspiracy theorist Andrew Sullivan would have had a hard time not seeing the insanity in his own delusions).
The madness of the local paper's efforts to prove that Trig is not really Sarah’s baby was not all we learned in the post interview conversations. Conservatives will be thrilled to know that she immediately “got” and seemed to fully appreciate my joke that Pete Wilson (and not Arnold Schwarzenegger) would go down as the last Republican Governor in the history of California, If that wasn’t enough, when she looked at the back cover of my first film (“Blocking the Path to 9/11” www.blockingthepath.com) and saw the photo of one of the film’s targets, Keith Olbermann, she literally let out a groan and, pointing to his photogragh, declared, “THAT guy is so EVIL! What is wrong with him?”
Beyond the great interview for the film (from which there is still plenty of tremendous stuff yet to come), the most important part of my visit to the Palin house is that there is a big difference between thinking that something is true and knowing for sure that it is. I now know that Sarah Palin is exactly who I thought she was.
I also know now, with morally certitude, that the media assassination of her, her character and her family was one of the greatest public injustices of our time and I am totally justified in devoting my life to correcting the historical record in my forthcoming film “Media Malpractice…How Obama Got Elected and Palin Was Smeared” ( www.HowObamaGotElected.com )
O.J. Finally Cracks and the Goldmans Finally Get Their Day
12/5/2008
Over 14 years after he brutally killed two people, O.J. Simpson finally faced some real punishment today as he was sentenced for the armed robbery and kidnapping that came directly out of his attempts to avoid paying the Goldman family the judgment against him for killing their son & brother.
Simpson spoke to the court and, clearly frightened, nearly broke down as he please for the judge to go easy on him. Fortunately, this judge was no Ito (why is it that they only people who have any balls anymore are women?) and she would have no of it; reading Simpson the riot act while sentencing to a stiff prison sentence that finally means the end of his days of golf and casual sex. Hopefully it means that Simpson will die in prison.
As for the Goldmans, they finally got some sense of justice. Make NO MISTAKE, this was THEIR victory even though most people don't think that this episode had anything to do with them. It most certainly did! Simpson was forced into making the mistakes he made in Las Vegas as a direct result of their relentless pressure of justice for him. It was only because they never gave up the fight and never backed off the promise they made to Ron that Simpson was ever caught in the mistake that finally took away his freedom.
The Goldmans finally made that point in dramatic fashion (as JZ has been trying to get his friend Kim to do for over a year now!) today after the verdict.
The two videos below do not make up for the pain and suffering that the injustice that this case has caused, but they sure are nice to watch. The first is Simpson groveling. The second is the Goldmans finally taking in a true victory.
New www.HowObamaGotElected.com Poll Provokes Wave Of Coverage/Criticism
12/3/2008
A new poll commissioned by www.howobamagotelected.com for John Ziegler's forthcoming documentary "Media Malpractice... How Obama Got Elected" was released today and the results are provoking lots of discussion.
The poll was done after "popular demand" following the release two weeks ago of a Zogby poll that, for reasons that had nothing to do with bias, included only Obama voters. This new poll, done by Wilson Research Strategies was commissioned after Zogby caved to the left-wing pressure and refused to duplicate the first poll.
The results, which can be found at www.howobamagotelected.com basically show that McCain voters were better at answering simple questions about the campaign (like which party controls congress) than Obama voters, and there appears to be a direct link between the media outlets that voters were exposed to, what they knew (or thought they knew) about the campaign, and, ultimately for whom they voted.
Here are some of the more interesting articles written about this poll.
John Ziegler's op-ed as well as video of his appearance last night is here.
A WND article on the reaction to the polls is here
The Wall Street Journal (whose reporter, in an interview with John Ziegler actually questioned whether Democrats really controlled congress!!) did its best to try and minimize the results of the poll because the poll apparently failed to end world hunger and solve the financial crisis, here
Hot Air's Ed Morrissey writes about Ziegler's "vindication" here
Below are two great videos of interviews done with Ziegler today. The first is with Hot Air's Ed Morrissey.
The second video is a live head-to-head match up with Nate Silver the total fraud who started the criticism of Zogby poll by incorrectly calling it a "push poll." Listen as Ziegler confronts him on that and many other issues . It gets rather heated. This site is guessing that Silver does not post the interview on his blog, lest his blind followers see the light and see that he is indeed full of crap.
John Ziegler Makes Statement on Zogby Poll Decision
11/20/2008
It was revealed today on the Rush Limbaugh Show that the Zogby polling company has rejected John Ziegler's attempt to commission a poll of McCain voters to follow up on the poll of Obama voters that created so much controversy this week.
John Ziegler originally did not seek to poll McCain voters because he is doing a documentary on the media's impact the election and since Obama won, which stories "broke through" to McCain voters is of no direct relevance to the project. However, after challenging the left (on TV)to commission the same poll of McCain voters (no one took him up on it) and having Bill O'Reilly urge him to do so on his radio program, Ziegler asked the Zogby people if they would do the exact same poll as they did last week. Today they told him that they would refuse to do so.
Here is a Politico article that has been linked (in red) on Drudge and which includes extensive quotes from Ziegler.
Ziegler believes that there is little if any doubt that the Zogby company has been frightened into submission by that left-wing nuts that rule much of the internet media. In his most recent statement ,Zogby has made several comments that are both apparently factually inaccurate as well as in direct contradiction to his original statement in which he totally stood by the poll (as opposed to the "half-Obama" throwing under the bus that he is currently performing on his own poll) .
It is rather obvious to Ziegler that Zogby fears that if he were to do the same poll of McCain voters that the results would show a MASSIVE divide in the level of knowledge of THESE issues/questions in comparsion with Obama voters, and that this would lead to even GREATER attacks on him in the Obama-loving media. It is important to point out that NONE of this was the intent of poll.
John Ziegler's statement on all of the attacks on this project (ever-evolving with developments), can be read here.
Developing....
John Ziegler Releases Statement On Reaction To www.HowObamaGotElected.com
Below is video of the "B-cast" on which Ziegler appeared today to explain much of the story behind all of this.
John Ziegler Releases New Obama Voter Video/Website/Poll On "Hannity and Colmes"
11/18/2008
As part of his forthcoming documentary, "Media Malpractice... How Obama Got Elected," John Ziegler released a new web video along with the findings of a nationwide Zogby poll of Obama voters he commisioned. Ziegler appeared on Fox News Channel's "Hannity and Colmes" to give them the exclusive story before Zogby's official release tomorrow..
The purpose of the video/poll was to examine the impact of the news media on what Obama voters knew (or thought they knew) about the campaign.
The Youtube version of the video and Ziegler's appearance on Fox News are below. Please feel free to spread the videos as much as you can!
John Ziegler's Final Election Predictions
11/3/2008
In 2004 my day before the election predictions were arguable the best in the nation (right down to predicting John Edwards would come out and try to lay the groundwork for Florida recount part 2, though I got the time of his address wrong by a couple of hours). Here are my predictions for 2008..
Like 2004, the exit polls are going to be gruesome for the Republican side. Then, I think very early on it will look like McCain is holding his own and maybe even going to pull off a miracle.
Unfortunately, I still think the very best that John McCain can do is lose 278-260 in the Electoral College and, because he is being forced to defend such a large map with such limited resources, just a few votes going the other way could alter the final EC significantly. I think it is possible that Obama wins an EC blowout as large as 364-174 without winning the popular vote by that large a margin. There will be a LOT of very close states, but even if McCain runs the table it is almost impossible (without Pennsylvania or at least Virginia, both of which are VERY long shots) to see how McCain gets to 270.
As for the actual result, I am guessing 291-247, but that is very much on the optimistic side. As for popular vote, I say it will be 51.7 to 47.1.
May Tiger help us all.
"Blocking the Path to 9/11" now available on Amazon.com
10/14/2008
John Ziegler's film, "Blocking the Path to 9/11" is now available on Amazon.com
The Hollywood Reporter did a front page article on the film here
Daily Variety has come out witha laughably biased review of the film, which can be read here.
This website is considering revealing the bizarre e-mail exchange that John Ziegler had with the person who wrote the review.
Below is a video just released on YouTube of the September 11th double screening of the film in Orange County.The video was put together by orangecountyfilms.net
&fmt=18
McCain Waves Flag of Surrender
10/10/2008
John McCain waved the flag (not white, that might be racist) of surrender today. Just a day after being dramatically urged to finally tell the truth about Barack Obama, McCain told supporters that Obama is a good man of whom we should not be scared. He was jeered by the crowd and rightfully so. He might as well have conceded the election without even a proper fight.
Incredibly Barack Obama is going to become President without even having to face a real campaign even though he "faced" Hillary Clinton and John McCain who are known for their alleged toughness. The War Hero has lost his nerve and the country will suffer because of it.
Below is a video of some of the key moments at today's event.
McCain Campaign Takes Gloves Off Just After the Fight is Over
10/6/2008
The John McCain Presidential Campaign has finally decided to tell (most of) the truth about Barack Obama's radical ties and the Democrat's culpability in the current financial crisis. Unfortunately, they have decided to do so at exactly the worst possible moment.
Now that Obama has been accepted by at least half the nation as a plausible/credible Presidential candidate and the the McCain campaign is finally far enough behind in the polls to look desperate, the long overdo attacks will be easily dismissed by the pro-Obama news media as a way of changing the subject from the "really important story" of the economy (I am sure that if similar charges were leveled by Obama against a McCain team that was winning, that the media wouldn't see them as quite the same "distraction").
As for the Palin-led attacks on Obama's relationship with domestic terrorist Bil Ayers, they are (despite the best efforts of the media to disparage them) dead on. However, the association that they should be concentrating on is the one between Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright . Unfortunately, McCain is afraid of being called a racist (despite Obama HIMSELF having called the issue "legitimate") and considering the bizarre fact that Palin has already been called racist by the Associated Press for talking about the Messiah's relationship with a white man, his fears are well founded, if also cowardly.
The bottom line is that if you are going to go after a guy's nuts (assuming Obama has any to begin with) you do so at the beginning so that he is neutered enough to never reach the 50% level. Hillary didn't learn this lesson and niether did McCain. This is what the Republican Convention should have been for, if McCain hadn't been pretending to be so concenred about a hurricane that neverly really happened.
As for finally trying to set the record straight on the Democrat's role in the sub-prime mortgage mess, McCain is being played a little bit like a comic book superhero by the villains who use his better nature against him. McCain couldn't tell the truth about this at the first debate because if he did so he would likely blow up the very fragile "deal" for the so-called "bailout" bill. This delay in telling the truth (for what McCain thought was for the good of the country) allowed the news media, Nancy Pelosi (who was not restricted in her words by such quaint notions of what was best for the nation) and perceptions about Republican Wall Street fat cats to cement the notion that Republicans (and even more tragically) and McCain himself were somehow to blame. Once the perception has been created it is almost impossible to reverse, especially when you are down in the polls and have the media dead set against. you. This will be a classic case of too little, too late.
The first video is classic Palin on the Ayers issue. The second is McCain going to town on the real causes of the economic crisis. As great as they are, they will likely only make for nice items in the museum for losers. Governor Palin and her family (as well as true conservatives everywhere) deserve better than this.
FINALLY!!! AFTER 13 YEARS SOME JUSTICE FOR O.J. SIMPSON!!
10/3/2008
Thirteen years to day after having been wrongly acquitted for two murders he clearly committed, O.J. Simpson was finally convicted on all twelve counts in an armed robbery that occurred in Las Vegas last September.
Despite the fact that the judge in the case kept out a lot of the most damaging and important evidence for fear of influencing the jury with elements of the double murder case, the jury was able to figure it all out in just thirteen hours of deliberation before coming back with convictions on all counts.
Though this case could be seen as rather complicated, the jury was able to see the simple fact that O.J. Simpson clearly took property (much of which was never his) with the use of force and wielded guns. While Simpson finally going to prison for a fourth-rate burglary is the modern equivalent of getting Al Capone for tax evasion, the verdict is just and finally brings some closure and healing to to a cultural wound that has been festering for thirteen years.
Personally, the best part of all of this is how and why it happened (and not just because I played a small role in the falling dominoes, which I will be writing about in more detail shortly). This case happened as a DIRECT result of Kim and Fred Goldman keeping their promise to the deceased Ron Goldman that they would never give up pursuing justice for Simpson. Because they kept up the pressure (even when 99% of others would have long ago given up) on the killer, he was forced to deal with the dregs of humanity and take risks that would eventually catch up with him. For those who believe "what comes around , goes around" this situation is a case study. But it never would have happened had Kim and Fred given up.
I know from speaking to Kim that they are both thrilled with the verdict. I told her that she and her father should be very proud of how they have kept their promise to Ron to never stop pursuing justice, and that our nation owes them a debt of gratitude.
Nothing will ever erase the evil that Simpson created the night of the murders, during the trials and in the numerous controversies that came out of them, but the fact that it appears that Simpson will never play golf again and will likely die in prison, gives me some hope that there is still SOME justice in the world.
Some random thoughts on the “shocking” 228-205 defeat for the misnamed “Wall Street Bailout” plan:
-- Thanks to extreme media bias, general public ignorance (stupidity) and Republican cowardice (caused mostly by the first two factors) the vast majority of Americans have no idea how we got here and are blaming all the wrong people. The root of this problem came from too much government-directed socialism and reverse racism in the home mortgage industry. There are no two people more to blame for this than Democratic members of Congress Barney Frank and Maxine Waters (watch the second video below to see why).
-- While I think that the plan is based in the repugnant belief that government is the answer to everything and pushing us far faster than we were already headed down the road to total socialism, I wish it would have passed because I think we are headed that way regardless of what we do and that we might as well go as gently as possible with no deep depression
-- While Nancy Pelosi’s speech on the floor before the vote was totally wrong and inappropriate and in a just world would mean the end of her Speakership, the notion that this caused Republicans to vote against the bill is both overrated and irrelevant.
--- However, while many have understandably mocked the notion that Republicans voted against the bill because they had their feelings hurt, I would ask you to put yourself in the position of a Republican member who hates the bill but has decided it is in the short-term best interest of the nation. You go down to the floor to eat your “crap sandwich” and Nancy Pelosi, whose party you are certain was responsible for the mess and who is doing NOTHING to pressure any of the 95 members of HER caucus (including some of her top leadership and closest allies) who voted against the bill to change their minds, decides that she is going to rub your face in it by blaming you for the crisis. Would you still be able to cast that vote?
-- The most important and underrated fact of the day is that those 95 Democrats voted against the bill with ABSOLUTELY ZERO pressure from Pelosi or the party, and yet they have the gall to blame Republicans (who had a third of its members vote against their principles and for the bill) for the loss. I urge you to listen to the radio interview with Karl Rove on this topic that is linked below. The facts here are devastating; unfortunately facts don’t seem to matter any more.
-- The most bizarre moment I saw today (even more so than Barney Frank being lavishly praised by Speaker Pelosi at the same press conference) came from Democratic South Carolina Congressman Jim Clyburn. At a press conference of Democratic “leaders” Clyburn had the audacity to claim that “67% of Republicans put their own political ideology over the best interest of our nation.” This of course begs the question; if Republicans who voted against the bill were putting “political ideology” over the best interest of the country, what exactly did the 95 Democrats (including 20 members of Clyburn’s own Black Caucus) put ahead of the United States? Naked cowardice? Clyburn then put the laughable cherry on this insane sundae by immediately calling for an end to “partisanship” (i.e. calling for a total and complete Republican surrender) in the process. You can read more about the Pelosi/Clyburn scam here.
-- Incredibly, all of this has made Barack Obama, who has been the biggest coward of all in this process (he didn’t call a single Democratic congressman to urge passage of the bill he said he sort of supported and was kind of nessesary for thegood of the country!) and has shown no signs at all of being willing or able to handle any of the issues in the crisis, a virtual lock to win the election and oversee the cementing of the feet of our economy into permanent and real socialism.
And today is only Monday!
Make sure to check out the Karl Rove interview below. The now infamous 2004 "Smoking Gun" congressional hearing is below that.
"Blocking the Path to 9/11" Wins Best Documentary at the Valley Film Festival
9/27/2008
Tonight, John Ziegler's film (which he wrote/ directed/ produced and narrated), "Blocking the Path to 9/11" won the Best Documentary award at the Valley Film Festival in North Hollywood.
Since, like most film festivals in the LA area, the Valley Film Festival is hardly known for its political conservatism, Ziegler was surprised that the film was even accepted into the festival and shocked that it actually won the award for best documentary against some good competition. Photos of Zig accepting the award and with the film's star Cyrus Nowrasteh answering questions, are below.
In addition to winning the award for best documentary, here is a sampling of other praise for the film:
Joel Surnow, the creator of the smash hit TV show "24," said, "Terrific film. Great job. This movie needs to be seen."
Academy Award nominated actor Gary Sinise said, "I thought it was very well put together. Hard hitting. Pulls no punches and informative. Lots of information that the general public would have no way of knowing. You have done a terrific job and I am glad that you have liberals in there talking about it as well."
Famed film Director Ron Maxwell ("Gettysburg" and "Gods and Generals") wrote to say, "You guys did a terrific job with the film. It was riveting. A case study in cowardice and courage."
Acclaimed writer David Horowitz said, "I thought it was excellent, first rate. It was a very difficult story to tell and you did a superlative job. I actually have not a single critical comment to make. I wouldn't change anything."
Academy Award Nominated writer Lionel Chetwynd wrote to say that, "I was thoroughly engrossed. I think you touch on a lot of new ground here. You did a good job. Well done."
Mike Gallagher Radio Show Broadcasts "Blocking the Path to 9/11"
9/11/2008
In an extraordinary development, the nationally syndicated Mike Gallagher Radio Show commemorated 9/11 by using their entire broadcast to playing John Ziegler's film "Blocking the Path to 9/11"
On tomorrow's show, Mike is scheduled to interview many of the primary players in "Blocking the Path," including John Ziegler.
John Ziegler has written this column for Fox and Realclearpolitics.com about the film for the 9/11 anniversary.
Ziegler also did an interview with FrontPage magazine that can be read here.
The Media Research Center did the first of several scheduled stories about the film, which can be read here. Their second is here.
Fox News did an extensive article on the film's revelations here
The WashingtonTimes and realclearpolitics.com ran a column that praises the film at the end here
The New York Post ran a story in their famous Page Six column here.
Zig is Lone Voice of Dissent at Republican Convention
9/5/2008
John Ziegler attended the Republican National Convention as part of the official California delegation and to screen his new film there.
While there, Ziegler was one of the very few who were brave (stupid?) enough to speak the truth about the absurdity of canceling one full day of the convention because of what turned out to be a rather minor hurricane that Monday.
He also did many national television interviews on the subject that aired on CNN, NBC and ABC.
But without a doubt, the interview that got the most reaction was the one that appeared as part of a rather funny (and far more accurate than they realize) piece that the Daily Show did on the cancellation of the first day of the convention.
The snippet with John Ziegler which caused the Daily Show crowd to groan and boo comes in at about the 53 second mark in the video below.
Trailer and Clip For John Ziegler's Movie Released
I am not sure what is the most amazing part of the latest attempt by the Messiah to insert race where it isn't and shouldn't be.
Is it that he made even more explicit/absurd/outrageous comments a couple of weeks ago and that hardly anyone even noticed?
Is it that Obama called the McCain campaign racist with less than zero evidence and the news media declared itself unsure if Obama really "played the race card" and blamed McCain for taking the "low road" when he simply defended himself from the worst charge a white man can face in modern America?
Is it that Obama's campaign laughably tried to claim that the Messiah wasn't REALLY talking about race when he suggested (three times in a day!) that Republicans would remind voters he doesn't look like all the other Presidents on our currency, and not being called on that?
Is it that much of the Messiah's entire campaign is built on the totally fraudulent notion that he is "above race," when his career and and candidacy has been built entirely around carefully (and brilliantly) using his race to his advantage?
Or is it that this guy is still favored to be our next President?
Its a tough call. Watch the clips and decide for yourself. The first is the most recent race statement. The second is from the first episode a few weeks ago and is even more unfreakingbelieveable because it includes CNN "news" people falling all over themselves to congratulate Obama on blatantly playing the race card
The False Messiah Reveals His True Self Yet Again
7/30/2008
Those of us (sadly only about 25% of the adult population) who have been paying close attention to the real Barack Obama have almost become numb to the level of insanity and stupidity that the Chosen One spews on a consistent basis and yet, thanks to the love-struck news media, avoids criticism with shocking regularity.
However, today's candidate in what will inevitably be a very difficult Top Ten (Top 25?) list of "Most absurd things Obama has said and almost no one noticed" to pare down, was still startling because of the importance of the issue and the ease with which the average American idiot should be able to understand it.
The issue is the gasoline crunch and Obama's brilliant idea to fix it. The Messiah has discovered that if we all just pumped up our tires and got our cars tuned up more often we wouldn't have to drill for oil. The truly remarkable thing is that he really meant it.
Also, amazing is that this is the same guy who lamely claims drilling is a bad idea because it won't impact the price of gas today. Even if we accept that potentially faulty premise, that logic is much like parents deciding not to save for their child's college education because it won't help them pay for the European vacation this summer.
Sadly, though predictably, thanks to being once again given cover by Matt "I'm so far in the tank for Obama I can't see the surface" Drudge (who briefly linked to the Obama statement and then quickly took it down), the news media has almost totally ignored what easily could have been a game changer, or even ender, for the Messiah.
Watch the video below and be amazed.
Best weapon against Obama: How about fellow Liberals?
6/9/2008
My greatest fear in this election is that Republicans are so afraid of being called racists that they run a wimpy campaign. While McCain's aversion to using the Reverend Wright issue (which should be a game ender), indicates those fears are warranted, this Internet ad from the Republican Party gives us some hope that the forces of evil will not be able to continue with a completely free pass.
In this video is one of the most important (and by far the most underrated) statements of the campaign was when Hillary literally "endorsed" John McCain over Obama at least four times in one week. I have always felt that, if used properly, this statement is devastating to Obama and probably required him to keep Hillary off the ticket, which gives McCain an opening with the white female vote..
THIS is the guy were supposed to be so frightened of:
6/11/2008
The level of fraud that is Barark Obama may have no bounds. One of the many areas where the myth does not meet reality is that he is somehow extremely intelligent and an amazing speaker. Sure, with a huge crowd of people ready to faint at the mere mention of "hope" and "change," and a TelePrompTer filled with a speech someone else wrote (and is often plagiarized) he is awesome, but strip him of those props and he is quite ordinary.
Witness these two clips (especially the second one where the Messiah gets totally lost on Iraq) and ask yourself if this is a guy that can really continue to con the American people (even with the media's help) for the next five months.
BTW, I spoke to an Obama supporting friend of mine in North Carolina today and he was talking to be about the damage McCain's Vietnam torture had taken on his "cognitive abilities." I asked him if he was referring to times like when McCain had boasted on the campaign trail that he had visited "57 states" and "only had one more to go." He laughed and said that he had not heard about that, but indicated that he was not surprised that such a thing would come out of McCain's mouth. When I let him know that it was Obama and not McCain who had made such a remarkable gaffe, it seemed to have lost most of its significance.
The Obama Kool Aid is strong indeed.
Hillary Concedes, But Why?
6/15/2008
I never thought I would see the day when I felt sorry for Hillary Clinton, but that day has come. Even though she has won just as many votes, won more states and delegates over the last three months, and is clearly the stronger general election candidate, she was forced to get out of the race well before history would ordinarily dictate she should. But of course, when the Messiah, Barack Obama is involved, history, as well as logic and facts, seem to be rendered meaningless.
Hillary was forced by the media to give in, lest she make life even more uncomfortable for their Chosen One. The media's love for Obama is so great that it (much to my shock) even transcended what has normally been their carnal desire for some sort of contested convention. In 1976, 1980 and 1984 there were candidates who were much further behind than Hillary is and who felt zero media pressure to concede all the way to the convention. But Obama is crippled and, like a fight promoter who owns their boxer's next bout, the news media needed to call the fight so that their guy didn't get even more bruised than he already is.
Still, there is discontent in the Democratic party. Note the boos in the video when Obama's name is mentioned.
I have a really hard time with people who claim to be crusaders for the conservative cause but who are really only in it for either personal and/or economic aggrandizement. In my media career I have found that vast majorities of the elite among conservative politicians and media stars fit into this pathetic category. One of the most aggravating aspects of the heat I have taken over the past year for my efforts to shine light on the injustice of the media coverage of the 2008 election is that I often get accused of being one of those who only craves personal attention and has less than pure motives (which considering I was a long time radio talk show host, a career infested with such scoundrels, I can actually begrudgingly understand). 
