IMPALIN' PALIN

.
With the upcoming release of her book ‘Going Rogue’ and a scheduled appearance on Oprah Winfrey’s show, Sarah Palin is “ramped up” (one of her favorite terms) in the news again. I figured now would be a good time for me to very briefly weigh in on the subject of Alaska’s favorite moose-hunting politician.

The big question is: Does Sarah Palin have a future in national politics?
And the answer is: It depends upon how conservative she really is.

In September of last year, Chuck Baldwin (the Constitution Party’s candidate for president) posted the following on an internet website:

When the no-compromise constitutionalist, Ron Paul, was asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer if he would consider being John McCain's running mate, he said no. His reason for that was that should McCain do something fundamentally counter to his constitutional convictions -- such as bombing Iran without a Declaration of War (or other possible unconstitutional actions that Paul knows McCain is predisposed to) -- he would have to resign. Knowing this, he (Paul) could not in good conscience accept a McCain invitation to join his ticket (not that McCain would ever ask him to be his running mate; Ron was not even invited to participate in the Republican convention, for Pete's sake).

Herein lies the problem for Sarah Palin. How can a principled conservative support the policies and actions of an unprincipled globalist such as John McCain?

Indeed, how could one? Well, a truly principled conservative could NOT. And this says a lot about Sarah Palin. No genuinely conservative, self-respecting politician who honors our Constitution could possibly allow their good reputation to become tarnished by hanging on the coattails of a scoundrel like John McCain. A REAL “Constitutional conservative” like Ron Paul would have turned McCain down. But Sarah Palin didn’t.

By offering Palin, a woman with a conservative reputation (gotta grab that female vote!), the vice presidential spot on his ticket last year, John McCain proved that he was a poltical pimp who would do anything necessary to take up residence in the White House bedroom. In accepting John McCain’s offer as his vice presidential running mate in the last election, Sarah Palin proved that she is a political prostitute who would compromise her conservative principles (if she actually possesses them) in order to further her career. She was like the would-be actress who disrobes and takes her place on “the casting couch” in hopes that putting out a little for “the man” today will help her score the part that will make her a household name movie star someday.

That Sarah Palin is a social conservative I do not doubt. But her political conservatism is much more in question.

In a neutral or slightly pro-Palin Time magazine cover story on July 20, 2009, Palin is quoted as having said: “The debt that our nation is incurring, trillions of dollars that we’re passing on to our kids, expecting them to pay off for us, is immoral and doesn’t even make economic sense.”

That’s certainly true, but where is Palin’s loud and straightforward condemnation of this nation’s primary economic problem: the private central bank known as The Federal Reserve? How is it that all these so-called conservatives who laud the idea of prudent economics and who extol the wisdom of our Founding Fathers – people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck – always seem to leave the obvious need to dismantle The Federal Reserve out of their recipe of solutions?

This same Time magazine article further mentioned the stamp of approval that highly influential Neoconservatives Fred Barnes and William Kristol gave Sarah Palin upon meeting her in June of 2007. That alone SPEAKS VOLUMES about Palin’s supposed political conservatism.

During the October 2, 2008 presidential debate with Joe Biden, Sarah Palin made two comments that nearly made me choke. I was quite surprised when it later went unreported by the many supposed conservatives in the independent media and in Blogland. Where was the Fox News comment?

The following comes directly from the transcript of the aforementioned debate:

PALIN: Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. You mentioned education and I'm glad you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and God bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right? I say, too, with education, America needs to be putting a lot more focus on that and our schools have got to be really ramped up in terms of the funding that they are deserving. Teachers needed to be paid more. I come from a house full of school teachers. My grandma was, my dad who is in the audience today, he's a schoolteacher, had been for many years. My brother, who I think is the best schoolteacher in the year, and here's a shout-out to all those third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate.

Education credit in American has been in some sense in some of our states just accepted to be a little bit lax and we have got to increase the standards. No Child Left Behind was implemented. It's not doing the job though. We need flexibility in No Child Left Behind. We need to put more of an emphasis on the profession of teaching. We need to make sure that education in either one of our agendas, I think, absolute top of the line. My kids as public school participants right now, it's near and dear to my heart. I'm very, very concerned about where we're going with education and we have got to ramp it up and put more attention in that arena.

Shortly afterwards, Sarah sed . . .

PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation.

“The Plans” for this nation, eh? Hmmm…

Was I really the only person who caught the contradiction in these statements? On the one hand, Palin tells the audience “our schools have got to be really ramped up in terms of the funding that they are deserving” and then on the other hand she feigns great respect for the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

Well, if Sarah Palin REALLY has so much respect for the work of our Founding Dads then she wouldn’t have been talking about “ramping up” funding for education. In fact, she would be pointing out that our founders made no provision for the funding of education in America by our national government. I’d love to have Palin point out for me the Constitutional justification for extracting taxes from American citizens to be redistributed in the name of education. It’s an odd thing, but I have spent a good number of years studying the U.S. Constitution and I have never found the Article and Clause that legalizes Uncle Sam’s plundering of We The People in order to nationalize (piss poor) education.

My guess is that a desperate Sarah Palin would pull out the Constitution’s “general welfare” clause in answer to my demand. Well, that sure isn’t going to get the job done for her. In clearly denouncing the concept that the “general welfare” clause could be used to justify anything the federal government sought to do, James “The Father Of The Constitution” Madison made the following statement to the House Of Representatives on February 7, 1792:

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare.”

Obviously, James Madison is one of those “wise” Founding Fathers who would vehemently disagree with conservative [Cough!-Cough!] Sarah Palin’s desire to “ramp up” funding for federal education [a.k.a. as “brainwashing”]. So much for her respect of the founding principles of this country.

One of my favorite quotes illustrating the hypocrisy of today’s phony conservatives in the realm of federal education comes from best-selling author Thomas Woods who offered his pithy and accurate description of one feature of ‘Constitution Day.’ He said:

“Constitution Day: Observed on September 17th, is the day on which federally funded American educational institutions - themselves unconstitutional - are unconstitutionally required to teach about the Constitution.”

At another point in the vice presidential debate, Sarah Palin made the following statement:

PALIN: No and Dr. Henry Kissinger especially. I had a good conversation with him recently. And he shared with me his passion for diplomacy. And that's what John McCain and I would engage in also.

Well, pardon me, but anyone who holds up Henry Kissinger as a valued example of American diplomacy in action has either no real understanding of our country’s history and Kissinger’s malevolent role in foreign diplomacy, or else that person intends to employ that same modus operandi in future negotiations with foreign powers. Either way, NO THANK YOU!!! Henry Kissinger is a representative of the unseen Elite political powers that have wrecked America; he is a Council On Foreign Relations member and a cancer in our country.

Sarah Palin also said in last year’s debate:

“That's what John McCain has been known for in all these years. He has been the maverick. He has ruffled feathers.”

No, ma’am, John McCain has not been a maverick (any more than you will turn out to be a rogue conservative element within The Establishment should you get yourself elected president). What John McCain has been is a TRAITOR. He has been a traitor to his political party – check out his voting record; he has been a traitor to his country – check out his Council On Foreign Relations membership; and maybe most disgusting of all, he has been a traitor to his fellow soldiers in Vietnam – check out the book 'AN ENORMOUS CRIME: The Definitive Account Of American POWs Abandoned In Southeast Asia.' To hell with John McCain! And to hell with anyone who would praise him!

The pseudo-conservative Neocons are making a lot of noise these days, trying to further inflame the general discontentment amongst We The People and capitalize on the flagrant Socialism of USAP. You can be sure that between now and 2012, the likes of Limbaugh and Beck will spout a whole lot of true American principles and quotes from the Founding Fathers in order to educate the masses about “some” of the ways we’ve gone wrong - while deftly ignoring some of the most damaging and important transgressions our government has institutionalized in opposition to our healthy founding principles.

And you can be just as certain that IF Sarah Palin is a genuine conservative (a rogue), she will be marginalized by the media and her own political party before the next election takes place. She will get “The Ron Paul Treatment” if she’s a true conservative (i.e., “a Constitutionalist”). However, if she is really just another phony “Conservative”-In-Name-Only Republican - as the evidence thus far seems to indicate and as I have every reason to suspect - then she will indeed be a viable candidate when it comes time to throw out the last bastard in favor of the new one. The last thing the Secret Elite who own We The People are going to permit is a rogue element inside their carefully crafted and controlled system.

My guess is that, to the detriment of the country, Sarah Palin will still be headline news three years from now. As even the July 20, 2009 Time magazine article pointed out: “A lot of conservative politicians stop wanting smaller government the minute the government is them.” Of course, an even greater truth is that a lot of conservative politicians aren’t REALLY conservative at all and have never HONESTLY wanted smaller government. Smaller government just isn’t part of "The Plan" for this nation.

ISAIAH 3:12

~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.