Is it Time for Champagne?

This photo of Champagne-Ardenne is courtesy of TripAdvisor

Ever since I concluded who and what Sarah Palin is, somewhere around September-October 2008, I tried to make sure that I shared that information with anyone who might listen.  I became an avid consumer of the former half-term governor's public history and an anthropologist digging through her not-so-public life, blogging about what I discovered.  No Alaska paper or news outlet escaped being scoured, or quoted when relevant.  Many people across the US and the world explored the mystery and mystique of the "hottest governor of the coldest state." I absorbed what they had to say and learned all I could from them. Pro- and anti-Palin sites alike did not escape my scrutiny.  I came to know, with a certainty that grew daily, that the superficial second-place beauty queen should never, ever get elected to a national political office.

My computer's hard disk holds nearly a thousand images, hundreds of documents and stored Web pages, and several dozen video clips that record my passage through the Palin family's grifting trail out of Wasilla and back again. I have no intention of deleting any of it, at least not yet. But with Mrs. Todd Palin's announcement that she would not seek the Republican nomination for US President, and the abrupt media silence surrounding her subsequent travels and events, can we finally put her behind us? Is it over, is it time to break out the champagne?

You know those scenes at the end of scary movies, when the monster lays defeated? Just when you think you can celebrate, up rises a gnarled, bloody claw-like hand making a final attempt to claim one more victim. I keep looking over my shoulder, hardly willing to believe that it is truly and well over. Perhaps it's because the nasty and indisputable truth about her fake pregnancy has yet to be laid bare. As a woman and mother, this to me was her most egregious deception. I was and still am convinced that should this hoax be exposed, she would never again have a shot at any office of power in government.  Finis. The end.

I would like to uncork a bottle of bubbly and share the spirit with all of you—I'm just afraid of calling it too soon.  Besides, it would feel better to toast her going out with a bang rather than a whimper.

It Would Have Been More Honest...

...had the 2008 McCain-Palin ticket slogan been:

Given the order that Sarah Palin says she maintained by bowing out of consideration for a run at the presidency in 2012 (God, family, country), one wonders why she never blinked back in 2008.

Religion in Politics

Never discuss religion or politics in polite company, so the saying goes, because you're bound to offend someone. But what about inserting religion into politics? If we let the Constitution be our guide, and if we not only read but understand the intent of the founders of our nation, we cannot and should not ever mix the two or blend them into one.

This is, of course, contrary to what Sarah P. and the other Dominionists and many so-called TeaPartiers would have us believe. One nation, under God, they say. And that means their God, and how they perceive their God's wishes and rules. Their goals are to infiltrate the 7 mountains of human experience and "affect the seven spheres, or mountains of society that are the pillars of any society.

Trouble is, there are many world religions and within those, many sects that hold differing guiding principles. Trouble also is, even within so-called Christianity, there are multiple interpretations of the bible. The bible is divided into old and new 'testaments' and quite frankly, they don't agree with one another. We have Jesus on the one hand saying, "Turn the other cheek," and the old testament saying, "An eye for an eye."

Equal, productive, valuable members of our American society adhere to different religions, among them Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity (each with almost countless variations), Mormonism, Zoroastrianism, Bhuddism, Shinto, Confucianism, Jainism, Taoism, Sikhism, Bahai... not to mention those with lesser followings like Spiritism, Tenrikyo, New-Paganism, Rastafarianism, Juche, Primal (indigenous), Unitarian, and of course Atheism and Agnosticism.

The founding documents of our country clearly and explicitly state that no religion or religious practice should be put forward as the law of the land. In the land of the free, how can we suffer the notion that we are free except when a religious majority (or minority) decides we are not?

Let me put it this way.  If you believe that homosexuality is a deviant behavior abhorrent to your God, fine.  I feel sorry for you, but don't lay down laws that make gays and lesbians unable to enjoy the state or federally-granted benefits any other heterosexual couple does.  If you believe that life begins when a sperm joins an egg, fine... I believe life begins when the baby takes its first breath after being expelled from the womb, so don't make laws that make it very difficult for a woman to have an abortion. Essentially, if your God tells you something, fine... let it be so for you, but don't try to legislate that version of morality on everyone else.  Your God is not the same as other people's God. And nowhere in our Constitution does it say your God is the right and only God.  Am I missing something?

My Sentiments Exactly

I'm reposting this because it resonates deeply. I volunteered to go to Vietnam as a chopper medic, but being an enlisted female and all, they wouldn't send me. I served stateside at the Travis AFB hospital in California, first stop for the wounded as well as the body bags.

H/T to 'gypsyrose' who added it to a comment under this Joe McGinniss blog post.

A Vietnam Veteran’s Letter To Sarah Palin – author unknown

For some time now, you have been an amusing, albeit mostly incoherent annoyance. But today you crossed a line. With that high cut helmet, carefully designed to allow your professionally coiffed hair to flow freely, you have tried to hijack a moment that you can’t even begin to understand. You decided that an event that has for years been intended to call attention to our POW/MIAs would make a really cool photo-op, as well as a great kick-off for your next get-rich-quick scheme.

Well, Sarah, you picked my war this time. I had several buddies, two of whom died within a couple of meters of me, and you zoomed right past their names on The Wall today; winking and smiling all the way. You weren’t invited, you weren’t welcome, but when has that ever stopped you?

Did you make a few extra bucks for your PAC? If so, I hope that helps you sleep tonight. Because you see, Sarah, my buddies have been sleeping for 40 years; and if they knew that a two-bit grifter like you would one day be making money off of their sacrifice, they might not be resting as easily as I hope they are tonight.

I’m a Christian, Sarah, and I don’t say this lightly … God damn you, Sarah Palin.

Update: Phil Munger of Progressive Alaska blog has also posted this letter, and credits someone named 11 Bravo. Thanks, 11 Bravo, whoever you are!

One More Reason (as if we needed another regarding Mrs. Palin)

There are SO many professions and even mundane-type jobs where it is essential to think before acting. Would your employers or customers or co-workers forgive you when time and again you jumped to conclusions? Even carpenters can't afford to be hasty (measure twice, cut once), much less CEOs and Presidents.

But then, we have Mrs. Palin, who wants to help the media become more truthful because she has a degree in Communications or Journalism or something. Getting those pesky whos, whats, wheres, whys and whens is difficult, you betcha!

I wonder who made this mistake.  Someone jumped the gun and someone tweeted as SarahPalinUSA that the White House was only proposing a very small budget cut.  Someone grabbed this information from a site called The Blaze and ran with it!

FYI,

The Blaze is a news, information and opinion site brought to you by Glenn Beck and a dedicated team of writers, journalists & video producers.

The article that no doubt inspired Mrs. Palin to tweet her little chastisement of her arch-enemy, President Obama, even put up several great graphics showing just how tiny the current administration's budget cuts were.

Unfortunately, The Blaze shares premature-conclusion-jumping syndrome with Mrs. Palin today, since the pie chart is egregiously incorrect. The cuts proposed amount to at least $75 billion (with a B), far more by several magnitudes than the $775 million all the RWNJ's are cackling about.

Not only The Blaze, but dozens of other Beck-groupie sites are screaming about this paltry $775 million set of cuts.  Just Google "775 million budget cuts" to see who all ran with this false story.

CBS explains,

[Glenn Beck's Web site] uses an op-ed by White House Budget Director Jacob Lew to suggest that Mr. Obama was proposing to cut $775 million from the budget, and goes on to mock that amount as insignificant.

The problem? Lew wrote in his op-ed that he was only discussing "a small fraction of the scores of cuts" in the budget proposal, not the total proposed cuts, as a Democratic official pointed out to Ben Smith. Now, it's difficult to quantify the exact total of those first year cuts, and there is new spending that actually increases the deficit projection for 2012. But the cuts themselves are certainly more than Palin suggests: there are $2.5 billion in cuts to the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program alone, for example. Smith writes that the proposed cuts, in total, add up to about $75 billion.

I can't begin to imagine what a nightmare it would be should Mrs. Palin ever, ever get into a position of having to make decisions for the country. She can't even fact-check what she tweets because she is so damn eager to blast President Obama.

To Commenters at and Owners of Immoral Minority and Palingates

Background

Since August 2008 I have been an active reader of and occasional commenter on Mudflats, Immoral Minority, Palin's Deceptions, Bree Palin, Team Truther, Palingates and a good handful of others.  I also devoted many posts (granted, infrequently) on my own blog to 'things Palin' over the years. During this entire time I have used the same screen name, Ennealogic, so if you want to go back through and check what I wrote and where, Google is your friend.

I feel I know many of you who have also kept the same online name. Many of you have also posted a comment or two here on occasion. Some of what I have to say is for those who remain without an online persona, though, so please read carefully.

To those posting at Immoral Minority (IM)

Some of you are flaming not only the blog Palingates, some are also casting serious aspersions on Patrick and Kathleen who are as of today no longer contributing there, and even more, some are naming individuals who frequently comment on the blog in a very disparaging way. Why?  Who does this? Nearly everyone who frequents Palingates and leaves comments there has a screen name, unlike at IM where nearly everyone posts as "Anonymous," so I guess you can feel safe that your commentary will never be noticed for its viciousness.  But the point is, what on earth is there to gain from discrediting the #1 Political Blog of the Year? I remember when Mudflats earned that distinction, and it was well deserved.  I believe Palingates definitely earned the distinction too, for its unassailable, detailed, researched, backed-up posts on 'things Palin.'

If you do not like the articles, you certainly do not have to read them.  I don't frequent blogs whose approach I disdain.  Why belittle a blog in a comment on another blog which supposedly has the same aims?  And if you do not like the tone of the comments, or the frequency with which one or another person made a comment there, why read the comments?  Or why not just skip over that person's comment?  Why go to Immoral Minority and make such snide comments there when both Palingates and IM share the same goal of making sure that the ex-half-term Governor of Alaska has no political future?

To Immoral Minority's Owner

Gryphen, my little blog has received significant views as a result of your linking to it. I do not do what you do, nor do I do it the way you do it, but my goals, too, for Hypocrites and Heffalump Traps (at least for the last 2-1/2 years) are the same as yours when it comes to 'things Palin.' I appreciate your notice of my past posts and thank you for maintaining the link to my blog under the 'Sarah Palin's Least Favorite Blogs' category.

But I have to wonder, knowing full well that you do review all comments before approving them, why you would give a pass to so many negative and truly harmful comments towards Palingates, towards Patrick and Kathleen, and towards those who comment there, on today's topic titled, "Is the Internet broken? Nah!" post. I have never seen this kind of laxness at Palingates.  And I would not allow it here, either.

One last thing, I was dismayed when you stopped linking to Palingates, yet in spite of whatever the dust-up was about, they continued to link to you. It seemed like Regina and Patrick and Kathleen had their heads on a bit straighter at the time.  They each made it clear that creating divisions was a bad thing and that we readers should just let it go.  They had the moral high ground.  Will you be re-linking Palingates now, given your glowing support for Regina in today's post?

To those posting at Palingates

Some blogs have followers, some have readers, some have commenters, and some end up forming a community.  I've been online since 1993 - through bulletin boards, chat rooms, discussion groups, and a wide variety of online discussion boards. I am not a 'joiner' type of person, but I've never before experienced such a community as Palingates became. You know, like the bar "Cheers" where everyone knows your name. I never once felt like I could not leave a comment, even though my contributions were more infrequent than others.

Yes, we talked about pets, illnesses, families, hopes and dreams and upcoming travels, disappointments, grief, and yes, even joys. That did make up a fair part of the total commentary on any given post. At the same time, people contributed freely of their time (and money to subscribe to databases) to provide links, documents, and images to further the understanding of a particular topic relating to 'something Palin.'  Maybe it was a bit much for some people to understand our embracing MrsGunka for instance, or Sleuth's missing dog. Who but the heartless would begrudge this kind of human contact, though?

Some folks used rude words, but no more than I have in my own mind. Some folks were suspicious (this was rare, though) of others who honestly did sound like trolls.  Some folks were tireless in their efforts to promote Palingates far and wide, and Palingates was the better for it. Some folks shyly introduced themselves and were welcomed. Some folks strayed off-topic frequently, but it never vexed me.  Instead, it showed me that some folks have a much larger heart and far greater generosity of spirit than I've allowed myself.  Daily I was refreshed in my own humanity.  Daily I was challenged to dig into the topics du jour. Daily I was amazed at the prolific number of angles that were addressed and investigated.

So .. to those posting at Palingates, I salute you all.  The rough and the smooth.  The raunchy and the gracious. The caring and the self-correcting.  May we find a way through the current upheaval to more firmly knit this community.

To Palingates' owner

Regina, I imagine you have gathered from the few comments I made today that I am very distressed about the way this all came down. The last thing I ever expected from Palingates was that I would read about a rather major shake-up in contributors from a post on Immoral Minority.

I have to chuckle—as Patrick pointed out recently, mine was the first comment on the new Palingates blog. And what I'm left thinking here is, "this was a failure to communicate," as the root of the recent developments. Look, it is no small feat, as I'm sure you know, to gain so much of a following to a simple blog. I can't maintain that kind of effort here, not even. And I also do not know internal history.  Let's just say that I respect you, and Patrick and Kathleen all equally, and I am immensely appreciative of the work each of you has donated to a cause not as close to home as it is to us U.S. citizens.

Had I been in a similar situation, would I have acted as you did?  I do not know. I do think, had you handled this with a bit more aplomb, the bomb that went off with today's Brace yourselves post could have been defused.

And finally, to Patrick and Kathleen

Both of you have my profound admiration and respect. It is not common that a citizen of another country recognizes a threat such as the one that Sarah Palin might pose not only to America but to the world, much less take significant action to insure that this dominionist empty-head has her ambitions curtailed. I saw your vigor and drive long ago and was immensely delighted that you opened up the discussion about Babygate in Team Truther when our revered Alaskan blogs refused to touch it.

I have been a supporter, both in word and in financial contributions, and I will continue to be so. If it is indeed true that you will be launching your own blog, know that I will be there for the inaugural post.  My best wishes to both of you, and my deep gratitude for your persistence.

The Myth That Political Rhetoric Is Harmless

Sarah Palin opines, in her most recent video from an undisclosed location,

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently.

I like the part about "apparently apolitical," which must have been inserted to give her some wiggle room in case inconvenient facts emerge about what influenced the shooter's actions. Even so, she apparently didn't notice that the gunman specifically targeted a politician who just happened to be a Democratic congresswoman in the middle of performing her congressional duties. Since the accused had purchased his gun over a month ago, and no doubt ran across many other people in the time between November 30, 2010 and January 8, 2011, it's reasonable to assume his first target was carefully chosen precisely because she was political.  Nice try, Sarah.

Mrs. Palin goes on to dissemble,

We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.

Let's face it, nobody I know conflates 'taking up arms' with voting. And if there should be any doubt about the meaning of "Don't retreat, instead RELOAD"—the words she used in her Tweet to point to the now-infamous crosshairs map— may I present this image brought to you by "Second Amendment Task Force:"

I don't think about voting when I see this...

Mrs. Palin's overarching concerns in this incompetently-timed and self-obsessed video are (1) for her own potential culpability in the massacre and then (2) for any dampers that may be placed on her free speech as a result of the tragedy. To mitigate the first concern, she rigorously insists that any fault must lie clearly, and only, on the perpetrator—accountability, personal responsibility, and all that. Unfortunately, she is entirely unpracticed in this herself.

To stave off the second concern, she turns to her oft-used attack mode:

No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.

Who is she talking about here, though, "those who embrace evil and call it good?" Is she calling me evil because I am blogging for cooling down the rhetoric?  Who is so intolerant that they would seek to "muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults?"  The catchphrases and Facebook rants and hostile imagery linked to self-righteous Sarah are real, not imagined. The very language she uses against her perceived opponents here is exceedingly hostile and supercilious.

Can't someone hand her a mirror and make her really see?

That paragraph above is quintessential Sarah Palin. I can think of several occasions where she has shrilly decried imagined insults, and several more where she along with members of her adoring flock have tried to deter others from speaking out about her; they cry foul and assist her in playing the victim.  I can think of only a few people, none of whom are ever mentioned as a candidate for the U.S. presidency, who are as intolerant of those holding a different opinion than the once-upon-a-time-governor-who-quit has proven to be.

Mrs. Palin's very good buddy Glenn Beck is on the record for inciting unhinged people to do violent things. David Brock's "A Message to Sarah Palin" is a superb accounting of Beck's accountability thanks to his hate-filled rhetoric. Daily radio show or not, Mrs. Palin is in the same camp and of the same ilk as Beck.  She still "stands with" him.

It is little wonder that she did her self-serving causes no good with the January 12, 2011 "blood libel" poor-me video. Now, if she would just quietly slink off to a remote desert cabin and stay there for a very, very long time.  She is welcome to shout her inanities at the top of her lungs as long as only lizards and cactii can hear it.

After January 8, 2011 in Arizona, What Now?

Talking heads are asking, "What was the cause of the tragedy in Arizona and how can we prevent it in the future?"

U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, D-AZ

Most everyone mentions better regulating guns and banning extended ammunition clips, repairing an imperfect mental health care system, and toning down violence-inciting rhetoric and imagery.  Out of these three, what can we do right now? The issue of hate-filled speech, raised by victim Gabrielle Giffords (YouTube) herself over the past year, is the simplest to work on right now—assuming, of course, that those who spew vitriol recognize that threatening, belligerent speech does, indeed, have consequences.

We must disavow and eradicate inflammatory, bullet-riddled imagery in political speech. That was the main issue that Sheriff Clarence Dupnik raised in his initial comments to the press shortly after the mass shooting event. Isn't it credible that a manufactured climate of despair and fear, along with not-so-subtle urgings for patriotic citizens to take matters into their own hands, played a part in the Arizona massacre and assassination?

Some in the public eye are using this time for introspection, for self-examination, by looking to see where they may have contributed to the tinderbox climate.  Keith Olbermann offered a heartfelt special comment, along with others (such as Bob Schieffer) who seem to have taken this sickening incident in Tucson to heart.

Then there are those who can't seem to find enough ways to deny their own contributions to the volatile rhetoric:

Sarah Palin for example...

And Rush Limbaugh of course.

Some even double down by fomenting further hate, fear and aggression like Glenn Beck.

I'm so crushed by these events.  It's all I can do to keep from crying again and again for what could have been: a future for the innocent victims who perished, whether they were a judge or a young girl or a retiree or a Congressional staffer; freedom from devastating trauma for the injured; intervention for the apparent shooter who didn't get help when it was needed. 

It is not yet too late, though, to call out anyone who profited from creating and perpetuating the venomous political climate in which we find ourselves, in an effort to get them to stop.  It is what we can do, right now.





Recommended:

Let's Get This Straight 
from Shakesville

What the Right Gains From Poisoning Our Political Discourse and Inspiring Violence
from Alternet

Was Jared Loughner's Act Political?
from Cenk Uygur

Sarah Palin, FYI Reacting Precludes Responding

Mrs. Todd Palin, Hawaii December 2009, without makeup or hairstyling or wardrobe

For a long time quite a while ago I studied what is called the 4th Way.  Brought to the west by G.I. Gurdjieff, and transmitted by J.G. Bennett to the group who formed The Claymont Society, the teachings were designed to assist us in transforming ourselves. We learned that man could be said to have three centers: thinking (consciousness), feeling and moving (body).  These three centers each have their own brain, if you will—thus my domain name.  We also learned that we act, by and large, automatically.  We are asleep almost all of the time, even though we would say we are awake. To become what we can—and need to—become, we need to truly wake up.

Our moving brain is what allows us to drive a car and not have to pause to think before slamming on the brakes when the car in front of us suddenly stops.  We also do not have to remember to breathe, or to keep our hearts beating.  Learning how to type is great once it is automatic. Usually, this is all good, except when our feelings take over our bodies.

If we do not learn how to exert some sort of control over our feelings, our emotions run rampant. In a pique of anger or distress we can summon up enormous power that can equally help or destroy.  Where does the superhuman strength come from that allows us to lift heavy objects off a trapped loved one?  At the same time, from where does the ability or even planning to strike out at a perceived foe come?  Only when we can separate ourselves from our feelings do we have the possibility of choosing our next actions.

In our normal states our thinking brain simply serves as a storage system. We replay over and over the memories that tie in to our emotions, and more often than not, these are negative ones. Yet when we find ways to still our minds—perhaps through meditation—we can watch what the sensitive screen displays without letting any one event get caught in the instant replay. The ability to separate ourselves from this screen opens us up to new ideas, new possibilities and creative thought while giving us the possibility of true consciousness, even if briefly.

Mrs. Palin likes to proffer platitudes, but doesn't see that her own actions belie her words. This tweet by the bitter twitter is vitally important because it demonstrates that she has no idea that there is a world where people don't react, but instead, respond. She slams her famous guest, Kate, for failing to 'man up' and be a mighty meat-eating, rain- and cold-surviving matron like her.

Reacting is part and parcel of being asleep and acting automatically. We see, over and over again, how she simply reacts to things: perceived slights in particular. Life holds so much more! One needn't simply suffer from reacting which usually produces the opposite effect that one was after. If one takes the time to become aware of one's emotions, and thus rises above one's automatic thoughts and actions, one has a far better chance to guide the body (speech, gesture, dress, behavior) in a measured and positive response.

Life provides circumstances, and then we truly do have a choice of simply reacting to them (most often negatively) or taking the time to formulate a response.  I won't hold my breath waiting for Mrs. Palin to begin a study of anything, much less the 4th way. The good part is many people sense, inside themselves, that she misses the mark on even her most 'heartfelt' snipes.

[For a simple exercise of how much control we have over our bodies... try this:  hold both hands out in front of you.  Rotate your hands/arms in a clockwise direction, both of them.  Now, hold both arms so your fingertips are facing each other.  Again, try to rotate both hands in a clockwise direction... :)]

Time to Pull the Plug on Palin

It should be clear by now that neither Republicans nor Democrats want anything more to do with Mrs. Palin.

The not-so-liberal media has avoided dealing with her most egregious failings, although of late, no less than the Kennedys, the Bushs, Karl Rove, and other right-wing luminaries have tried to spread the message:  Mrs. Palin, you don't have what it takes to run for President, much less any national political office and probably even state office.

Her reality show is struggling to get back up to its initial ratings.  Her latest book is struggling to gain wide acceptance.  Her daughter lost her bid to win DWTS, and her PAC is paying more money to her and her foreign "consultants" by far than it is to Republican or TeaParty hopefuls. Sixty-three thousand dollars (wow, that sounds like a lot to me) went to purchasing her own book so it could be machine-signed and given out as a free bonus.

Yet, the media clamors to know if Mrs. Palin is going to "run" for the highest office in the land. Every tweet or Facebook posting draws commentary as if it were something important.  It is time, no -- past time -- for our 4th estate to do their job and begin to vet this would-be candidate.

May I recommend Palingates.  Mrs. Palin's abysmal history, from when she was mayor of a village of 5000 to when she was appointed as Oil and Gas Commissioner (a job she quit) to when she was Governor (another job she quit) besieged by ethics complaints (BECAUSE SHE ACTED UNETHICALLY!), is out there for all to see.  Yet so few seem to focus on these essential flaws.  Media, start doing your job. The material is all out there, easy to find thanks to the tireless efforts of bloggers, yes bloggers, some of whom are not even American.

A Palin presidency would affect the entire world, and the world is watching ... and wondering when in hell the American media will begin to do its prescribed duty.  Vet Mrs. Palin, please, NOW.  Take note of her ties to a secessionist organization.  Take note of her fake pregnancy (pdf).  Take note of her connections to dominionism and the Seven Mountain proponents. Take note of her abysmal record of raising her own children - one an unwed mother who is likely pregnant again, another a school bus vandal, another yet a house vandal.  Take note of her legacy as half-term governor, where elders were abused, where indigenous people were abandoned, where the environment was sacrificed in the name of profits, where ethics and transparency were simply feel-good words and not guiding principles.

A majority of the media along with a sliver of America made Mrs. Palin what she is today.  I hold out no hope that her minions will wake up anytime soon, but if the media doesn't hold to its basic tenets (to report the story, not to suck up to someone for access) we will be subject to month after depressing month of shoring up someone who would give Goebbels a run for his money in another era.

Stop pretending this narcissist has anything at all to recommend her as a candidate for US president.  It's time, Time.  It's time, WashPost.  It's time, HuffPo.  It's time, NYTimes.  It's well past time actually. Pull the plug.  The country will breathe a collective sigh of relief, and we all will have a fighting chance again to stop corporations from merging with government to give us our new fascist state.

Reviewing Mrs. Palin's Qualifications for Office

It may indeed be nobler to stop exposing Mrs. (quitter) Todd Palin for the fraud she is, and stop exposing her cult-like followers for the fools they seem to be, and this thought nags at me frequently. But the laws of physics, insofar as they apply to the media-physical world, require that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Would that Mrs. Palin herself, for a time at least, cease and desist. Yet she persists, be it via Twitter, Facebook, Fox, or whatever other unassailable outlet behind which she can hide (think TLC or Harper Collins).

There would then be no need to provide a counter to her inanity, or the slavish ramblings of her bots, either, and I could go on cleaning house and planning Thanksgiving dinner for my family with only thoughts in my head of turkey and whether I have enough matching silverware for the table.


I took a rare cruise over to the C4P site and discovered a post that attempts to answer the question, "Is Sarah Palin Qualified to Be President?" They declare,

The opinion leaders sincerely want to know whether Governor Sarah Palin is "qualified" to run for president. Why else would they keep asking the question, right? So ... let's examine a few of Palin's populist credentials that stack up surprisingly well against the more conventional resumes of five recent presidents. In the second part of this series, we'll explore five additional qualifications Palin brings beyond her elected offices, appointments and volunteer work -- the real-life experience that could be pivotal in a presidential run and successful presidency. Stay tuned.

(New York Magazine has a great story on this burning question, in which they detail the three ways that fellow Republicans evade the question.  Number 1 - Avoid answering it altogether. Number 2 - Compare her experience with President Obama's. Number 3 - Answer in only the technical sense: age 35, US citizen, sure.)

The C4P post lists the top five reasons she is qualified.  Here they are, in order:

1. Ten Years in Municipal Government
2. Ten Years volunteer work in the Parent-Teacher-Association
3. Two years pro-life advocacy
4. One year as an oil and gas commissioner
5. Two and a half years governing the largest state in America

Don't all laugh at once, please. We should take a look at each of these in turn, and in so doing, revisit information we all know already but probably bears repeating.

Ten Years in Municipal Government

This refers to 4 years as a city council member and 6 years as a Mayor. Let's keep in mind that the population of Wasilla at the time was a little more than 5,000.

Time's headline read, Mayor Palin: A Rough Record.

Palin was a highly polarizing political figure who brought partisan politics and hot-button social issues like abortion and gun control into a mayoral race that had traditionally been contested like a friendly intramural contest among neighbors.
(...)
Palin limited her duties further by hiring a deputy administrator to handle much of the town's day-to-day management. Her top achievement as mayor was the construction of an ice rink, a project that landed in the courts and cost the city more than expected.

The Washington Post's headline was, As Mayor of Wasilla, Palin Cut Own Duties, Left Trail of Bad Blood.

Politico remarked,

Palin, who portrays herself as a fiscal conservative, racked up nearly $20 million in long-term debt as mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla — that amounts to $3,000 per resident.

And the Washington Independent informed us about Mrs. Palin's delight at having scored Federal earmarks for the tiny town:

Wasilla City Council Informational Memorandum 99-62, prepared on June 14, 1999... outlines some of the state-funded projects that Wasilla City secured that year, including $1.2 million for storm water treatment and $605,000 for pedestrian pathways.

Then, slapped in the margin, former Mayor Sarah Palin — reformer extraordinaire — scribbled the following message: "FYI This does not include our nearly one million Dollars from the Feds for our Airport Paving Project."

In summary, Mrs. Palin made enemies, left the little city in significant debt, and actually enlisted a lobbyist to secure earmarks from the "Feds."  The picture we have is of a polarizing figure who was fiscally irresponsible, and who had to hire a city administrator to do her job, too!  Not exactly a glowing resume item.  But let's move on to the next.

Ten years volunteer work in the Parent-Teacher-Association

I am not sure where the C4P author comes up with this item or why it counts for anything, although he/she does reference the oft-proved-false "Going Rogue" as a part source. Mrs. Palin's PTA claims were checked out by Politifact at length.  They published this:

After tracking down paper records going back more than a decade, he said, they were able to confirm that Palin was a member of the Iditarod PTA for two years, during the time she served as the mayor of Wasilla.

How being a member of the PTA for any length of time is a qualification for US President still boggles my mind. Hundreds of thousands of women and men could put this on their resume, but they normally don't even if they were an officer or a pro at fundraising or event-organizing, none of which seems to be the case with Mrs. Palin.

Two years of pro-life advocacy

Yes, Mrs. Palin is unapologetically anti-choice, and bases her belief in Christian dogma - the supreme wisdom of her God who only bestows pregnancy on those who can handle it. Rape or incest? No worry. Women should not be allowed to make a choice in these situations because God knows best. Advocating a religious belief has never, in my life anyway, served to qualify someone for political office. What if a Muslim candidate listed, as a qualification, that they'd advocated for prayer rugs in the workplace for two years?  Would that boost their appeal? Or perhaps, a Mormon who advocated for polygamy? Or what about advocating for refusing blood transfusions, as Jehovah's Witnesses believe?

One year as an oil and gas commissioner

In truth, Mrs. Palin served for less than a year and quit this job in protest when the Alaska Department of Law ruled that she could not engage in any discussion about whether or not then (and now) AK Republican Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich was under investigation for ethic violations. According to Alaska Daily News at the time, Mrs. Palin said,

the experience was taking the "oomph" out of her passion for government service and she decided to quit rather than becoming bitter.

Many have speculated that the job was too taxing because she didn't want to learn what was needed to do it, she didn't like commuting to the job, and that she used this incident as a way to bow out. Use the Google to verify.

Two and a half years governing the largest state in America

This item is so funny on its face.  First of all, Alaska may have the largest land mass of any state but it is 48th out of 50 states in population, with North Dakota and tiny Vermont filling in the last two slots, so touting Alaska as the "largest state in America" is a clear resume-padding statement. Alaska has a population roughly equivalent to Memphis or Boston. Its population suffers from a myriad of problems including domestic abuse, rape, alcoholism, and other substance abuse. Use the Google, there are too many reports to link.

The other aspect that is so funny is Mrs. Palin is only one of three governors in the history of the US who quit, mid-term.  The other two were Eliot Spitzer (sex scandal) and Jim McGreevy (came out of the closet). Her final words were a quote from General MacArthur,

"We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction."

I strongly recommend viewing (if you have not before and if you have the stomach for it) her speech on YouTube.  HuffingtonPost has the video and the transcription here.

Conclusion

If these are the top five reasons to support a Mrs. Palin run for the Presidency, all I can say is, "Good damn luck." Republicans (and major media outlets) are already back-pedaling on support and continue to do so. Democrats already know what a no-nothing piece of scolding fluff she is.  Independents are watching and waiting and probably laughing. Maybe the second part of C4P's Palin resume will have something worth bragging about.

I'm not holding my breath, and meantime I wish you all a fine Thanksgiving. May all beings be well and happy, friends.

The Pregnancy That Never Was

Before September slips away totally, I thought I'd post about a difficult topic:  proving a negative. When you find signs or evidence that someone actually DID something, you prove the positive.  The culprit can be convicted even with circumstantial evidence.  Proving a negative is much more tricky.  In this case, the negative statement is, "Sarah Palin did not give birth to the child who became her political prop during the 2008 election season."

Perhaps this is why so many in the other media have had such a hard time with the subject of Sarah's "wild ride" and its implications.  Here's what I mean.  They simply took for granted that she was the miracle mother who survived the 11-hour Dallas to Wasilla journey while leaking amniotic fluid to produce a 6lb 2oz, 5-week (at least) premature Down syndrome infant in a facility that was not even equipped to handle twins.  In order to challenge this story, one would have to prove the negative—that it never happened.

But what is missing from this story tale?  Are there not enough missing pieces to make the whole puzzle unsolvable?  Here's a partial list of what we have not seen as evidence to support this fantastic tale:

• Official or family pictures showing Mrs. Palin's normal progression through pregnancy
  -The reason?  She didn't TELL anyone, even her family, of the pregnancy.
  
• Hospital records of a live birth on the day specified (April 18, 2008)
  -Curiously, the local hospital suddenly stopped publishing birth announcements and went 'dark' in April 2008.
  
• A birth certificate
  -Mrs. Palin has claimed she provided this evidence but nobody has seen it.
  
• Medical records indicating routine pre-natal visits
  -Again, Mrs. Palin claimed she opened her medical records but nobody has seen them.
  
• Travel documents and time sheets accounting for normal pre-natal visits
  -Scrutiny of Mrs. Palin's official calendar reveals no time off or travel for such visits.
  
• Contemporaneous accounts by any patient or visitor who witnessed the birth mother arriving, remaining at, or leaving the hospital where birth occured
  -Apparently, nobody saw her at Mat-Su Regional Medical Center, or they chose never to talk about it.
  
• Pictures of the birth mother in bed with child and/or being visited by family members in the hospital
  -We saw Mrs. Palin's parents with an infant identified as Trig in a single picture but not one of her with the baby, with her children, with her husband, or even with close friends and well-wishers in the hospital
  
• Contemporaneous accounts by anyone in Texas during the Governor's conference who had contact with Mrs. Palin at the hotel or at the conference itself or anyone seeing her on travel between Alaska and Texas and back (that support her state of pregnancy)
  -We only have Mrs. Palin's recounting of Governor Perry mentioning her pregnancy, but there is no supporting evidence this happened, and the Alaska Airlines statement declines to confirm her "state of pregnancy"
  
• Anecdotal evidence from anyone regarding the state of and progression of the pregnancy who may have witnessed her doctor's visits, trips to the store, interactions during the course of her government business or unofficial snapshots during public events
  -Instead of this sort of confirmation, we have legislators who were there, where Mrs. Palin was, on the job, saying she sure as heck did NOT look pregnant
  
• Baby shower pictures for showers given before birth, as is the norm
  -The only baby shower we know of was some weeks after the supposed birth, and the baby in the pictures is clearly NOT the same baby that was shown being held by Mrs. Palin's parents in a news release
  
• Evidence of any maternity outfits instead of the omnipresent long black jacket, black scoop-necked top, and black pants or skirt plus colored scarves
  -Surely a woman well-known for caring about clothing and appearance (she gets custom manicures for her toes!) would splurge and buy one or two stylish maternity outfits, but not Mrs. Palin...
  
• Baby pictures and/or stories about Trig's early treatment for Down syndrome or prematurity
  -Apparently the birth was so easy and the DS disability so trivial that Mrs. Palin never thought to talk about or write about or schedule appointments about taking care of her new "blessing from God"
  
• Correspondence from/to family members and friends or staff discussing any aspect of the pregnancy
  -Many of Mrs. Palin's e-mails requested through the FOIA were released but not one contained what would be normal information about her pregnancy except for a curious one, "How to answer questions about the pregnancy..."

There's a saying that the absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.  But in this case, the overwhelming absence of any evidence that Mrs. Palin was indeed pregnant is most telling. Surely there would be some publicly accessible documents or images that would add weight to Mrs. Palin's assertion that she was indeed pregnant with and actually gave birth to the child called Trig.

The only evidence for the positive is Mrs. Palin's own story, told and re-told and embellished and told again, plus the appearance of the mysterious Gusty photos right after Mrs. Palin's selection as the VP nominee.  That's basically it.  Is the reason there is no other evidence to support her crazy tale because it simply does not exist?

Anyone with knowledge or information regarding facts that either support or refute Mrs. Palin's "pregnant with Trig" claims:  Please contact me (find my e-mail in my profile) or better yet, send information to the secure and anonymous hotline at Palingates.blogspot.com.

If Mrs. Palin was living the simple, rustic life she espouses, none of this would be an issue.  Instead, she flaunts her celebrity status and exerts an impact on national politics whether or not she seeks to run for office.  Once she retreats (or is exposed for the extreme fraud she has perpetrated on the American people), I will stop reloading.

Comment of the Day

This, one of 55 comments as of now, appears under a Politico story about GOP House members rejecting a plan to help 9/11 responders who still suffer from chronic illness as a result of their rescue and cleanup efforts:

Why should I werk for others to sit on their behinds pretending to be sick years after an event? Can they prove they were their? I think not. I cant wait for Nov so we can take back our contry from freeloaders and illigals. We need more real Amercans in charge not Socialists who want a free ride paid by my hard eared money.

Posted By: Sarah4Pres2012 | July 29, 2010 at 09:04 PM

It has to be a put-on, doesn't it? Either way, it's the best comment I've read all day.  :)

Critical Mass - Reaching for it [UPDATED]

Last August I went to Pittsburgh for a gathering of "mudpuppies" - these are folks who respect and support AKM, the founder and primary author of The Mudflats blog.  Fans across the country have organized several of these gatherings, called "Mudstocks"—a testament to AKM's superb writing on political subjects, but most especially, on Sarah Palin.

On this occasion last August both AKM (now known by her real name, Jeanne Devon) and popular blogger, current radio host, HuffPo contributor, and occasional guest on Countdown, Shannyn Moore were in attendance.  They had just both attended the Netroots Nation convention where Shannyn was surprised and honored to win the Gilliard Grant of Merit, an award named after Steve Gilliard who wrote, "I'm a Fighting Liberal."

Shannyn Moore and AKM, fall 2009, right after their Countdown and Rachel Maddow appearances

I've been a great admirer of AKM since September 2008 when, along with many, I discovered her blog in my quest to find out more about Sarah Palin, this person who was named by John McCain to be his running-mate in the 2008 presidential race.  AKM gave us the inside scoop on Alaska's governor, warts and all, and I was so grateful for her excellent writing, her enduring wit, and her razor-sharp and honest analysis.

I've also admired Shannyn and read her blog, listened to her broadcasts on KUDO Alaska, watched episodes of "Moore up North," and have even phoned in a couple of times to comment and ask questions during her radio show.  During the Pittsburgh Mudstock I shared a brief chat at an outdoor patio table with Shannyn while having a quick cigarette away from the rest of the attendees.

AKM and Shannyn, as far as I saw, are both warm, incredible, lovely, funny, delightful people and nothing I write in this post should be construed to negate that.  The fact remains that they both were building, and now have, reputations as trustworthy voices from the far North, the Alaskan front.

Early on at The Mudflats, AKM determined that discussions about "babygate" would not be allowed.  I imagine this was a rather wise decision at the time, since the rumors that bubbled up were quickly labeled as conspiracy theories. Those who create and propagate labels have an unfair advantage over those who seek the truth in any issue.  Shannyn did speak of and even allowed discussion about Sarah Palin's "wild ride" from time to time, but she resisted going beyond questioning the plausibility of the official scenario.

I don't know AKM's personal feelings on the "babygate" matter.  Shannyn's take is evident in a broadcast you can listen to in audio files included in this post at Phil Munger's Progressive Alaska blog.  Shannyn says the reason Sarah Palin doesn't clear up the questions by once and for all producing a birth certificate for Tri-G or authorizing the release of her own medical records is because holding back "is working for [Sarah]," even though Shannyn is not sure why.  Shannyn tries to make the point that as long as Palin conceals the real truth, she gets to play victim while claiming those evil democrats are out to get her.

Frame from the April 7-8, 2008 video taken by Elan Frank

My take is that a simpler answer to the question "why has Sarah not put an end to the questions?" is because she can't—because she was not pregnant in April '08.  She tries to make it "work for her" as best she can, of course, since she can't make it go away. Any documents related to her pregnancy or the birth of Tri-G would prove she's been lying.

Please take note of the fact that she and her bevy of lawyers have never threatened any of us who have stated publicly that we believe her story is a complete fabrication.  Why is that, when she was so very quick to jump about other things—like Shannyn's reporting about the federal investigation "iceberg" rumors, or Gryphen's Immoral Minority blog reporting about the divorce rumors?

She hasn't even mounted a personal campaign à la the David Letterman joke or the Family Guy criticism.  She simply lets her minions try to marginalize and disparage those who continue to work on the babygate story.  Where are her Facebook entries decrying the efforts made by Andrew Sullivan of the Daily Dish or RPK of Palingates or several others?  Where is the cease and desist order from Thomas Van Flein?

I suppose if you are trying to build your career as a trusted voice in radio, television or the 'net, you might decide it's best to turn a blind eye to certain topics.  As a result, though, Sarah's dark cloud continues to swirl and spread and even if she never gets elected to another political office, the damage she has done over the past many months and the damage she continues to do will take a long time to repair.

Sarah Palin, 11 days before Tri-G's "birth"

It is my firm conviction that should it be revealed that Sarah never did make an oh-so-righteous choice to have a DS baby, her entire pedestal will crumble. She will no longer have even one leg to stand on.  Her most fervent worshipers will have to reconsider their object of devotion and their support of her.

We need to reach critical mass.  That's the point where enough voices with enough substance and respect finally weigh in with their doubts and questions.  That's the point where it is no longer unseemly to ask the vital questions of someone who has most assuredly been running for high political office since July, 2009 when she quit as governor of Alaska.  We could surely benefit from the now respectable voices of The Mudflats and Shannyn Moore.  But thanks to the tireless dedication and documented research of Palingates and others, more and more people are encouraged to speak out.  Visit the Buckeye Surgeon blog for example.

It's time for others to stop being selfish.

UPDATE: Replaced photo of Shannyn and AKM with one that is much better.  Also, just in case I did not make it clear -- I respect the AK bloggers who have decided not to focus on babygate.  At the same time, I wish they would sanction a broader discussion on this topic.  The reason?  Her abysmal ethics and perpetual idiocy can be and are, regularly, excused by most Palin supporters ("so, she misspoke, so what?").  Sarah's courageous and sanctimonious "walking the walk" is her trademark, though.  It is the central supporting column of her political essence. Once it becomes common knowledge that she made it up, we'll stop seeing every Facebook entry and Twitter from this twit reaching headline status, and nobody will suggest that she has any credibility at all as a future political candidate.

Sarah Palin - Still Takin' It Personally

Mrs. Palin, former part-term, part-time governor of Alaska, swung by Cal State University Stanislaus last Friday.  She called CSU Stanislaus president Hamid Shirvani a bold man for not withdrawing the invitation for her to speak, and made it clear she had heard about the issues her WSB contract created.

She managed to diss, hiss and piss at a whole slew of people but managed to also glorify Glen Beck, falsely credit Ronald Reagan with having grown up and gone to school in California, put down "lowly" Eureka College (Illinois), and confused our Constitution with the "Constitution of Liberty," an essay in which the author explains why he is not a conservative.

For the full video and a transcript of her speech, please refer to this Palingates article.  Here are the noticeable "mean girl" swipes I picked up in the speech:

• She incorporated "bendy straws" into her routine, making it clear that she was upset that details about her contract were made public.  
• She chided California's Attorney General "and friends" for bothering to question the CSU Foundation's practices and finances, duly brought to light by her contract. 
• She pooh-poohed the protesters she never saw thanks to over a mile of chain link fence erected to keep anyone but invited guests off campus.  
• She maligned the students who found an early version of her contract in the trash bin by calling them "dumpster divers" and insinuating that they were political operatives wasting their time. 
• She went on to trash talk the student protesters further by quoting Ronald Reagan's dissing of hippies, the one about Tarzan, Jane and a Cheetah. 
• She even got in a sideways jab at the professors at CSU Stanislaus whose e-mails expressing dismay in the Foundation's choice of a speaker went public. 
• She still hasn't gotten over the fact that the "lamestream" media noticed the crib notes on her palm, so this too is part of her speech routine no matter where she goes.  
• And last but not least, she couldn't resist bashing the president and all other elite broad minded intellectuals for seeing shades of gray when there is only black or white, for apologizing for America, for turning their backs on the war on terror and for respecting other cultures even when they are evil.

Any slight, no matter how small (discovering she demanded "bendy straws") or how large (losing the 2008 election), seems to gnaw at her immensely, and she can't help shooting venom at any and all who don't worship and praise her.  This simply can't be good for either her body or her soul.

Sarah, when are you going to stop taking everything personally?  I shudder to think of the new cabinet position you'd need and the huge staff required to keep track of all your "enemies" should you get into a public office. It'd be officer Wooten thousands of times over.

Palin Moratorium - Possible Pros

I'm a frequent reader of HuffPo and other online outlets that publish stories about Sarah Palin. I regularly see comments along the line of, "Why are you giving this idiot any space? I just wish she'd GO AWAY!" That got me to thinking... could we help make her go away? She holds no elected position and has not declared that she is running for one (yet). She's touted as some sort of political celebrity cum Teabag leader but even the Republican establishment is wary of being too closely tied to this "rogue." So why does she get national coverage when she has someone post a controversial statement on her Facebook (ffs!) page? I think part of it is that many people publicly take issue with how ridiculous those posts are. She's a train wreck in slow motion and we can't help but watch and talk about it.

I realize that implementing this notion will take concurrence by many other people besides me, but if there is a general consensus that this experiment is worthwhile, I'll do my best to recruit others to honor a moratorium for a yet-to-be-decided time period.

Here are a few reasons it might be good to experiment by voluntarily engaging in a limited-duration moratorium on writing or commenting (or even reading) about her latest speech to the Bowling Ball association or her Twitters or Facebook rants.

1. Starve the beast
2. Take a break, get perspective
3. Laws of physics

Starving the beast: we know for a fact that Mrs. Palin thrives on attention. What if we don't give her, for a brief period, the attention she lives for? My guess is she'll up the ante and say even more outrageous things than usual (or not, see Laws of physics below). We can keep track, make notes, and once the moratorium is over we will have lots of fresh material to work with and some extra time to do research and careful writing. Also, too, nature abhors a vacuum. If we don't call her out, maybe we'll create an opening for someone else who would not ordinarily do so. Remember, I'm only talking about a 10-day period here as an experiment. Let's also call this the "giving her plenty of rope" tactic.

Taking a break: many of us, myself included, swim in her polluted waters daily and our "OMG-NoSheDi'int!" meters have gone off the scale so many times that it may be time to recalibrate. There are a lot of other awful, sad, horrible and desperate events happening in our world. There are also other aspects of life worth rewarding, appreciating, and soaking up.  Taking a brief break would give us a chance to regain some perspective on the foulness of the wind blowing from her pie-hole and possibly regenerate the kind of energy that will support us in the months ahead.  I'm not suggesting we'll find her any less despicable, hypocritical, or ridiculous after a 10-day break. But we may be better able to articulate why she deserves calling out instead of just coming up with new ways to say, "This woman is an idiot."

Laws of physics: you've heard that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I think this can apply to the metaphysical world as well. That is, if we push back against her insanity, she feels the need to overcome that with something else. Our attention may actually be providing the incentive she needs to continue her crazy. It's a given that her die-hard followers are not swayed by truth or reason, so we might actually be vivifying her cult following by pointing out her routine inanities. After all, where would the Sea of Pee be without some of our more prolific bloggers to flog?

There are probably several possible cons to my suggestion, and I would happily host a guest post to give voice to those.  You'll find my e-mail address in my blogger profile—just drop me a note or write your comments here.

Don't forget to vote in the poll over there on the left at least!

Playing the Sex Card Since 1996

We normally disdain those who "play the race card" to get where they want. President Obama had to walk a very fine line but managed to avoid eliciting a sympathy vote because the color of his skin was out of the mainstream of previous candidates for the presidency.

But what about "playing the sex card?"

I propose that Sarah Palin has made liberal use of this card, very liberal use, especially when compared to other female political figures in recent history. To test this statement, I'll ask you to link up a public figure with the following statements:

She's a MILF!
I'd do her.
I think she is a tremendously sexy woman.

Let's see... are all these three referring to Hillary Clinton? How about Dianne Feinstein? Angela Merkel? Maybe Olympia Snowe. No? Margaret Thatcher? Geraldine Ferraro? Sorry, all wrong.

Women in politics have had to overcome barriers that their male counterparts never encountered. There are two ways to succeed in this male-dominated arena: Be more intelligent, more engaged and more thoughtful, or, be more coy and more sexy and focus on men's smaller heads. (Sorry, guys... not all of you.)

Sarah (Mrs. Todd) Palin has been playing the sex card for a long time. She was not all that attractive but with a little plastic surgery here and a few hair extensions there and plenty of Redbulls in between, she can prance onstage in an immodestly short skirt and sparkly high heels and rev up several "small heads" in whatever audience she addresses. Do not underestimate her charm when it comes to well-meaning but basically cowed males wishing for a female dominant to shackle, spank and teach them!

These days, if a guy in politics says anything against Mrs. Palin, that guy is labeled "misogynistic," a guy who hates women. Yet, she consistently presses forth the fact she is a woman. She consistently presses forth the fact that she has children. She consistently presses forth the notion that her children are being sexually abused. Which of those other woman politicians named above ever mentioned their children as any excuse for griping or bashing? None that I can see.

She consistently proffers Todd to go do the dirty work. Look, if a writer took up residence next door to me, I would go talk to him myself, I wouldn't send my alter-ego husband to do it. What does that say for her ability to handle anything?

Sarah Palin hides behind her husband and her children regularly. I know of NO other female politician who crumbles at the slightest affront. I also know of NO other female politician who has a cult following. (See conservatives4palin.com if you doubt me.)

There is something very, very wrong with this woman and the press she seems to get, even though she has NEVER opened herself to real questions from a real reporter since the Katie Couric mishap back before the 2008 election.

I am a woman. Thanks to the civil rights fight to give me a vote I can express my druthers in local, state and national elections. Thanks to a general acceptance of women in the field of technology, I manage to earn a living. Thanks to Sarah Palin, I and my sisters are in danger of being set back a century. I will raise my voice wherever I can and fight with whatever I have to make sure that backsliding never happens.

What other politician wanna-be ever.. EVER... had this: 'This Is Not Sarah Palin Inflatable Love Doll' Released By Topco Sales???

The Constitution and Mrs. Palin - Part 3

The First Amendment - Establishment Clause

Amendment I of the Constitution begins, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." This says to me that no single religious dogma trumps any other in our country.  Yet Mrs. Palin has been going around the country espousing and promoting the notion that the United States is a Christian country, founded on the Judeo-Christian belief set.

In an appearance on Fox channel with Bill O'Reilly (VIDEO), while discussing a court's recent finding that it is unconstitutional for the Federal government to declare a "National Day of Prayer," Mrs. Palin affirms, "I have said all along that America is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and, uh you know, nobody has to believe me though, uh, you can just go to our Founding Fathers’ early documents and see how they crafted a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution that um allows that Judeo-Christian belief to be the foundation of our laws and our Constitution, of course, uh, essentially acknowledging that our unalienable rights don’t come from man. They come from God."

The term "Judeo-Christian" first came into use during the Second World War. It was not part of the settlers' or the founders' vocabulary when the Declaration of Independence was written. Basically, Judeo-Christian necessarily refers to the tiny intersection of beliefs held in common by adherents of Christianity and those of Judaism.  In an article titled The Judeo-Christian Oxymoron, author David E. Ross notes wisely, "Actually, an appeal to Judeo-Christian values usually reflects an attempt to generate Jewish support for a political agenda that many Jews who are well educated in their religion would reject."

Further in Mrs. Palin's session with O'Reilly, she goes on to say, "I think we should just kinda keep this clean, keep it simple. Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant -- they're quite clear -- that um we would uh create law based on the God of the bible and the ten commandments. It's pretty simple."

If our founders truly desired that laws reflect the ten commandments, why did they not legislate against carving statues of anything in the heavens, on the earth or under the seas? Why is there no punishment when people take God's name in vain? Where is the law that says you can't go to movies or mow lawns on Sunday? And oh dear, of course, why did the founders fail to demand that husbands or wives who cheat on each other be stoned to death?

To which God, and to whose bible does Mrs. Palin refer?  The vengeful Old Testament God who forbids us to eat shellfish and despises homosexual behavior, or the New Testament God that claims Jesus as his Son, the same Christ who is every Mark Souder's refuge when he gets caught committing adultery?  But wouldn't either of these be a God firmly identified with a particular religion?

President John Adams, our 4th President, signed the Treaty of Tripoli that was passed unanimously in 1797: "The United States government is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

John F. Kennedy, a Catholic (like Mrs. Palin was before switching to Pentecostalism) and our 35th President said, "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute."

Thomas Paine, founding father, wrote, "My country is the world, and my religion is to do good."

If our country truly was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, I find it odd that Article 6, Section 3 of our Constitution says, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

James Madison, another founding father, said, "Religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

And Thomas Jefferson, rascally founding father that he was, said, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God."  No wonder Texas wants to remove him from their history textbooks.

--o--o--o--o--

I wonder what Mrs. Palin and friends would say if our Congress ordained a "National Week of the Hajj," or a "National Day of Tantric Sex," or a "National Month of Meditation and Silence."

--o--o--o--o--

The Constitution and Mrs. Palin - Part 2

The First Amendment - Freedom of Speech

Mrs. Palin has a curious take on the free speech part of the First Amendment of the Constitution.  Here she is, recorded by WMAL, an AM station in Washington, DC: "If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

When she railed against her running-mate's opponent during the 2008 race, her attacks were vitriolic and incessant.  She maintained that Barack Obama could not be "one of us" because he got his start in the living room of a domestic terrorist, and continued to "pal around with" Bill Ayers, a member of the Weather Underground when candidate Obama was not yet a teenager. As a result of her rhetoric, Palin rally attendees called for Barack Obama to be killed. In a twisted interpretation of the First Amendment, Mrs. Palin insisted that she not only had a right to say what she did, riling up redneck crowds at every campaign stop, but that the media had no right to call her on it.

 Let's take a look at that part of the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Nowhere in this amendment does it say that a person who speaks freely shall be protected from the press reporting on what was said.  Yet Mrs. Palin appears to regard commentary by the press as an infringement on her right to free speech.

At the same time, she seems not to recognize the hypocrisy of her personal view because through her attorney, Mrs. Palin threatened to sue Alaskan blogger Shannyn Moore for reporting the existence of rumors about a pending investigation of her potentially corrupt dealings.

So, let's get this straight.  If Mrs. Palin says wild and incendiary things on the campaign trail, her right to free speech should protect her from the media talking about what she said.  But if someone else mentions an extant rumor that names Mrs. Palin, that person deserves to be sued for daring to repeat what others have been saying.

I'd say that Mrs. Palin's understanding of this part of the First Amendment is wanting.

The Constitution and Mrs. Palin - Part 1

On the Role of Vice President

On one hand we have Mrs. Palin mocking President Obama, saying (VIDEO), "we need a commander-in-chief, not a constitutional law professor..." But when energizing Teaparty crowds she points to the Constitution as the yellow brick road to perfect freedom and prosperity: "...that the Constitution provides the path to a more perfect union — it’s the Constitution."

The pols that Mrs. Palin endorses often refer to the Constitution in their cry for smaller government. From Rand Paul's site we read, "The Federal Government must return to its constitutionally enumerated powers and restore our inalienable rights." The Teaparty platform recently adopted by Maine's GOP repeatedly mentions the Constitution. Hypocritically, the document demands that "legislation must adhere to the restrictions ... in the Constititution to protect the individual from intrusive government," while at the same time insisting on anti-choice and anti-gay marriage "family values."

Mrs. Palin and her supporters talk a lot about the Constitution, but has Mrs. Palin ever really read it, studied it, understood it? Back before she was chosen as John McCain's running mate she was quizzed about being a potential VP pick.

She continued, "I'm used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we're trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question."

Here is a 44-year-old Governor of one of our 50 states, who seems clueless about the executive branch of the Federal government and wants someone else to look it up for her! She clearly sounds concerned that the role may not be important enough, anyway. Well, Mrs. Palin, according to the Constitution, the Vice President is a backup in the event the President is removed, dies, resigns, or is unable to discharge the duties of the office. The Vice President also has an honorary role as President of the Senate, and is allowed a vote only in the case of a tie. That's pretty much it.

After accepting McCain's invitation to join him on the 2008 campaign trail, Mrs. Palin began to imagine the role of Vice President as something larger and more grand than what the Constitution calls for. In an interview with KUSA, a Denver NBC affiliate, she told a youthful caller that, "A vice president … also, they're in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom. And it's a great job and I look forward to having that job."

During the single 2008 Vice Presidential debate with Joe Biden, Mrs. Palin continued her quest to expand the role for which she was campaigning. In response to a question from Gwen Ifill about knowing what a VP does every day, Mrs. Palin responded, "Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are." It boggles the mind, truly it does.

After the debate, Carl Cameron of Fox News questioned Mrs. Palin on her comments regarding what the Vice President does, to which she responded, "The vice president, of course, is not a member, or a part of the legislative branch, except to oversee the Senate. That alone provides a tremendous amount of flexibility and authority if that vice president so chose to use it."

There is no tremendous flexibility and authority given to the Vice President by the Constitution. Was Mrs. Palin channeling former VP Dick Cheney who clearly broke the mold of Vice Presidents throughout history? I can only assume that Mrs. Palin envisioned herself as an inside agitator, proddin' them Senators to vote for rill Amerikuns and expandin' drillin' and preventin' women from choosin', also, too. But did she get her interpretation from the Constitution? I think not.