Tag Archives: Sarah Palin

Shut Up Already, Palin Is Qualified


ALL THE SNARKY NOISE FROM THE LEFT leaves me with one realization when speaking of vice-presidential candidates and their levels of experience and readiness: the Left is not very swift. I found this at another website.

Need a reason that the Republican VP candidate is more qualified for President that the democrat presidential candidate?

Question: What is America ’s first line of missile interceptor defense that protects the entire United States?
Answer: 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard.

Question: What is the ONLY National Guard unit on permanent active duty?
Answer: 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard

Question: Who is the Commander in Chief of the 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard?
Answer: Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska

Question: What U.S. governor is routinely briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counter terrorism?
Answer: Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska

Question: What U.S. governor has a higher classified security rating than either candidate of the Democrat Party?
Answer: Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska. According to the Washington Post, she first met with McCain in February, but nobody ever found out. This is a woman used to keeping secrets. She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is.

The Weather Underground

The Weather Underground's Bill Ayers
Weather Underground Bill Ayers

IT SEEMS TO BE OKAY for certain corrupt individuals to violently overthrow the government of the United States whom they declare as racist oppressors, but the same crowd, including Barack Obama and the roll call of Democrats now in power have little empathy at all for the victims of truly oppressive governments who rape, torture, and murder its own citizens. Iraqi Kurds come to mind (and yes, we too, were against the invasion). But frankly, we are merely standing at the near edge of the killing fields to come...

We have been aware of this Obama-Ayers connection for well over a year. Glad somebody is finally grabbing onto the flames and riding the fury that is sure to follow. That somebody has a name, And her name is Sarah Palin. Now perhaps, more genuinely good folks will come to understand where Barack has been spending some of those "missing years" in his official biography.

But time moves along. Creep sets in. So where did the radical left take refuge? In the media and in academia, personifying the long march through the institutions. Students now leave the “education” houses more indoctrinated than educated, more susceptible to influence. And who is the corporate, elitist peddler of this influence? In short—the corporate media.

They couldn’t care less about their responsibilities to the American people, because the American people need fixing. They need to be saved from themselves. Such is the leftist worldview.

Imagine if we discovered that John McCain had launched his career from the Unabomber’s front porch. Do you think he would still be a reasonable presidential candidate? Oh course, some hide and seekers might, probably those same hide and seekers who think an Obama candidacy is a viable option for sane and dare I say it—patriotic—Americans.

One question remains. How can candidate Obama be the most liberal US Senator as well as this year's designated corporate shill for the banking interests who control the media, Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, and most of the other institutions that matter in the financial life of this nation and Western capitalism at large?

Perhaps this is our answer. Malleability and "transitional fall guy" are key concepts here that may encourage thought. The puppetmasters know no shame, and everybody wants to be a star. A loathsome result, this dichotomy often returns.

Meanwhile, there is this story that the McCain campaign will surely exploit in the coming days:

It seems that Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies (which was nothing more than a boot camp for radicalizing America's youth) in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Obama plans to use this nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian program, "Universal Voluntary Public Service." Kind of makes one pine for the old days when the Weather Underground was still underground, doesn't it?

Read it all.

Krauthammer Punks Gibson

"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "

New York Times, Sept. 12

Gibson's pre-emptive strike against Governor Palin...

Informed her? Rubbish. The mighty New York Times got it wrong. And the unusually glib Charlie Gibson got it wrong. There is no single meaning of the Bush Doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration—and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different. Gibson said to Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine."

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?" Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right to anticipatory self-defense."


I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush Doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto treaty, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush Doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." This "with us or against us" policy regarding terror—first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan—became the essence of the Bush Doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq War was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly is dependent on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in the world is the survival of freedom in all the world."

This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.

If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume—unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise—and that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.

Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.

Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.

Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.

Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Read it all in Charles Krauthammer's Washington Post punking of ABC's snarky Charles Gibson.

Palin Rumors Debunked

A FELLOW NAMED CHARLIE MARTIN has set up a page listing and confirming or debunking all the rumours about Gov. Sarah Palin. I know it's a tough job but really, let's have some civility around here. This is America, my friends. I suggest anyone writing about this woman in the future to check with this page, ah yes, gather gather a few details, before repeating something that is blatantly false. Thanks to The Audacity of Hypocrisy and Deception for offering this information.

Here are some of the debunked rumors:

  1. No she wasn’t a member of the (wild-eyed libertarian) Alaska Independence Party, although her husband once was
  2. No, she was never a Pat Buchanan supporter; even when Buchanan claims she was, she was on the board of Steve Forbes’a campaign in Alaska.
  3. No, she’s not anti-semitic. In fact, she has an Israeli flag in her office. (Contrary to popular belief, the usual Evangelical thinks Israel has a right to exist, granted by God.)
  4. No, she’s doesn’t believe that the Iraq War was directed by God. Yes, she did pray that proceeding with the war was God’s will. (Ever hear the phrase “Not my will, but Thine, be done”?)
  5. No, Buchanan doesn’t support her now; in fact he’s supporting Obama. (Buchanan did think her speech was amazing, but then so do 80 percent of the people who saw it.)
  6. yes, she was pregnant when she got married
  7. Yes, barring immaculate conception, Bristol appears to have had sex with her fiancee. No, Bristol didn’t receive only “abstinence-only” sex ed.
  8. yes, she did fire the public safety guy—but he said in the Anchorage paper that, for the record, she never, and no one else in her administration ever, tried to make him fire her ex-brother-in-law
  9. and yes, the state trooper (her sister’s ex-husband) she was worried about did: tase her 10 year old nephew; drive his state patrol car while drinking or drunk; did threaten to “bring her down”; and did threaten to murder her father and sister if they dared to get an attorney to help with the divorce.
  10. No, she didn’t cut funding for unwed mothers; yes, she did increase it by “only” 354 percent instead of 454 percent, as part of a multi-year capital expenditures program. No, the Washington Post doesn’t appear to have corrected their story. Even after this was pointed out in the comments on the story.
  11. No, she didn’t cut special needs student funding; yes, she did raise it by “only” 175 percent.
  12. yes, she did ask the librarian if some books could be withdrawn because of being offensive; no, they couldn’t; yes she did threaten to fire the librarian a month later; no, that wasn’t over the books thing but instead over administrative issues;
  13. no, the librarian wasn’t fired either; yes, the librarian was a big supporter of one of her political opponents;
  14. yes, the librarian was also the girlfriend of the Chief of police mentioned above; no, this is not the first time in the history of civilization that someone has been threatened with being fired over a political dispute
  15. yes, she was an Assembly of God Holy Roller. No, she doesn’t attend an AoG church now. Yes, she did leave the AoG because they were getting too weird for her.
  16. yes, she apparently believes in some variant of Intelligent Design
  17. no, she didn’t try to force the schools to teach it; she said if someone brought it up, it was an appropriate subject for debate.
  18. No, she doesn’t believe in “abstinence only” education. Yes, she thinks abstinence is an effective way of preventing pregnancy. Duh. Yes, she believes kids should learn about condom use in schools.
  19. yes, she kills animals and eats them, and wears their skins
  20. yes, she has on occasion tried to get money from the federal government.
  21. yes, she did finally turn down the money for the bridge. Yes, that meant changing her mind about it.
  22. yes, she was vetted extensively, not just in three days — I’ve got links to press reports about people coming to Wassila on 29 May, and we had her on our Veepstakes at PJM from the first day we ran it.
  23. Yes, Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech was written by a speechwriter. Duh. No, none of Obama’s, McCain’s, nor Biden’s speeches were impromptu off the cuff things either.

Camille Paglia Weighs In On Palin

Camilla Paglia

Here, straight from the old gal's keyboard is an endorsement you can believe in...

I've always had a special place on my intellectual shelf for Camille Paglia, ever since she broke ranks with the man-hating feminists of her era, initiating what came to be known as second wave feminism. I immediately latched on sometime in the early 1980s right after discovering teh art of Judy Chicago while the few punk rocks kids coming out of college I was meeting in DC were still mouthing the ever photogenic and portable Gloria Steinem. The unread, were, well, unread. Meanwhile, today we can read how Paglia nails Obama to the wall even though he is her stated candidate, but she takes it a step farther by telling us how much she loves the ballsy strength of Sarah Palin.

This woman, Camille Paglia, just gets it, she really gets it.

Read it all at Salon.

Gravel On Palin

JUST WHEN YOU THINK the political ball couldn't bounce any wackier, here comes former Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK) with a lot of good things (and zero BAD THINGS) to say about the pick of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate. Indeed, quite a shocker! Thanks Senator. I was appalled at an earlier rant I heard from you a few months ago, but this interview is the most level-headed piece of political speech I have witnessed from the peace movement Left in quite some time.

Pale Lion Supporting PUMA Power

Sarah Palin gaining PUMA voters...

WELL, I TRIED TO STAKE MY CLAIM in common ground in this critically important election cycle by making contact with a rather impressive group of disenchanted Democratic voters, mostly women, calling themselves the PUMA movement (Party Unity MY Ass) with the following post to one of their most nurturing websites. Note also that my note was posted several hours BEFORE Governor Palin gave one of the most energizing political speeches I've heard in my lifetime, and that includes every single one of those delivered by the Anointed One, himself.

For those of you who have been living in a bubble, PUMA is a group of dedicated Hillary supporters who are horrified by the strong-armed tactics of the DNC, the liberal media cronies in on the fix, the Obama campaign with its burgeoning Obamabot youth brigades, and not least of all, Barack Obama himself as they tore through the primaries and national convention processes. The PUMA platform argues that all of these co-conspirators actively subverted the democratic process by stealing Senator Clinton's legitimate votes, manhandling Hillary and her delegates with gender-and-race based verbal and physical attacks, while overlooking many criminal or near criminal aspects of Obama and his political machine, and the list of grievances goes on forever. Just check the blogosphere for details. Here's my singular attempt at making friends with the PUMAs on their own turf.

I am a newcomer to The Confluence, and have been lurking for about four days, and have been immensely inspired, but this whole argument about Palin’s wholesale ambition getting in the way of her daughter’s privacy is rather bogus. Yes, as savvy political operatives, she, McCain, and the RNC, were probably well aware of the potential media frenzy to follow the announcerment of her candidacy, but shouldn’t the blame for this “media frenzy” be placed on those conducting the “media frenzy?” Not the victim.

And as some have pointed out here, it is quite possible that the Palin family indeed did vet this exposure issue in full knowledge of what would happen, and concluded that “life would go on” after the bloodthirsty media barbarians were finally quenched, and then dismissed by the public after being allowed to show the world what it truly means to hold to one’s own family values and strength of character.

Let’s face it. The people at this blog wish to send Obama back to from where he came. Perhaps the Palin family feels exactly the same way. I don’t think any of us will ever know the true motivations here of why Gov. Palin did not decline the invitation to join McCain, but perhaps, as an evangelical the idea to create an exciting enough ticket to do just what many PUMAs want to do was more than enough motivation. Gods will and all that…

But I must admit that to see Bristol Palin up on that stage (in photos only), she doesn’t seem to be “eating it up” as the saying goes.

I hope my intrusion ruffles no one here, and while I am a lifelong registered Independent in my early 50s, married male, uh, do have I to say white, but yes, I have tended to vote Republican or third party exclusively ev’ry four years, and with the addition of Palin, I am convinced to do so again, because I share the same moral outrage with what has happened to the democratic process exemplified by the collusion of the Obamacrux and the MSM as the PUMA Nation itself seems to be…

Best to all of you in this movement, and welcome to the Radical Center!

McCain/Palin ‘08

However, I was summarily ignored under suspicion of being just another Obamabot aiming to infiltrate their hallowed sanctuary. Quite unfortunate for both of us I think, as I was only reaching out to what I considered then, and still do, a strong ally in our mutual passion to see this Obama campaign permanently derailed, and the man himself sent to the dustbin of American political history. But, I will repeat myself here in wishing the PUMA movement all the strength of character EVERY decent American needs to muster in turning back this pernicious threat to our uniquely American democratic ideals.

Does that make me a Pale Lion? Today I am. Guess what? I ended up voting for Ron Paul. Before you go ballistic, just remember I live and vote in Washington, DC, Chocolate City, Democrat landslide country.