Sarah Palin: Obama Agenda Reeks of Complacency & Defeatism (Peace Through Strength Vs. “Enemy-Centric” Policy)

Earlier this week, I spoke at the Freedom Fest in Norfolk, Virginia; and, evidently, the media was asked to leave – not by me, that’s for sure. I want my message out, so despite reporters making up a story about “Palin people kicking us out” (uh, the “Palin people” entourage would consist of one person – my 15-year-old daughter, Willow – and I have no doubt she could take on any reporter, but I know for certain she didn’t “kick ‘em out” of the event). Anyway, here are some of the key issues I spoke about.

DEFENSE SPENDING

It takes a lot of resources to maintain the best fighting force in the world – especially at a time when we face financial uncertainty and a mountain of debt that threatens all of our futures. 

We have a federal government that is spending trillions, and that has nationalized whole sections of our economy: the auto industry, the insurance industry, health care, student loans, the list goes on – all of it at enormous cost to the tax payer. The cost of Obamacare alone is likely to exceed $2.5 trillion dollars.

As a result of all these trillion dollar spending bills, America’s going bust in a hurry. By 2020 we may reach debt levels of $20 trillion – twice the debt that we have today! It reminds me of that joke I read the other day: “Please don’t tell Obama what comes after a trillion!”

Something has to be done urgently to stop the out of control Obama-Reid-Pelosi spending machine, and no government agency should be immune from budget scrutiny. We must make sure, however, that we do nothing to undermine the effectiveness of our military. If we lose wars, if we lose the ability to deter adversaries, if we lose the ability to provide security for ourselves and for our allies, we risk losing all that makes America great! That is a price we cannot afford to pay.

This may be obvious to you and me, but I am not sure the Obama Administration gets it. There isn’t a single progressive pet cause which they haven’t been willing to throw billions at. But when it comes to defense spending, all of a sudden they start preaching a message of “fiscal restraint.” Our Defense Secretary recently stated the “gusher” of defense spending was over and that it was time for the Department of Defense to tighten its belt. There’s a gusher of spending alright, but it’s not on defense. Did you know the US actually only ranks 25th worldwide on defense spending as a percentage of GDP? We spend three times more on entitlements and debt services than we do on defense.

Now don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing wrong with preaching fiscal conservatism. I want the federal government to balance its budget right now! And not the Washington way – which is raising your taxes to pay for their irresponsible spending habits. I want it done the American way: by cutting spending, reducing the size of government, and letting people keep more of their hard-earned cash.

But the Obama administration doesn’t practice what it preaches. This is an administration that won’t produce a budget for fear that we discover how reckless they’ve been as fiscal managers. At the same time, it threatens to veto a defense bill because of an extra jet engine!

This administration may be willing to cut defense spending, but it’s increasing it everywhere else. I think we should do it the other way round: cut spending in other departments – apart from defense. We should not be cutting corners on our national security.

THE U.S. NAVY 

Secretary Gates recently spoke about the future of the US Navy. He said we have to “ask whether the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines, and $11 billion carriers.” He went on to ask, “Do we really need... more strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?”

Well, my answer is pretty simple: Yes, we can and, yes, we do because we must. Our Navy has global responsibilities. It patrols sea lanes and safeguards the freedoms of our allies – and ourselves. The Navy right now only has 286 ships, and that number may decrease. That will limit our options, extend tours for Navy personnel, lessen our ability to secure our allies and deter our adversaries. The Obama administration seems strangely unconcerned about this prospect.

OBAMA’S FOREIGN POLICY INHERITANCE

When George W. Bush came into office, he inherited a military that had been cut deeply, an al Qaeda that had been unchallenged, and an approach to terrorism that focused on bringing court cases rather than destroying those who sought to destroy us. We saw the result of some of that on 9/11. 

When President Obama came into office, he inherited a military that was winning in Iraq. He inherited loyal allies and strong alliances. And thanks to the lamestream media pawing and purring over him, he had the benefit of unparalleled global popularity. What an advantage! So their basic foreign policy outlines should have been clear. Commit to the War on Terror. Commit to winning – not ending, but winning the war in Afghanistan. Commit to the fight against violent Islamic extremism wherever it finds sanctuary. Work with our allies. Be resolute with our adversaries. Promote liberty, not least because it enhances our security. Unfortunately, these basic principles seem to have been discarded by Washington. 

THE WAR ON TERROR

His administration has banned the phrase “war on terror,” preferring instead politically correct nonsense like “overseas contingency operations.” His Homeland Security Secretary calls acts of terrorism “man-caused disasters.” His reckless plan to close Guantanamo (because there’s no place to go after it’s closed) faces bipartisan opposition now. 

The Attorney General just announced that a decision about where to try terrorists like 9/11 master mind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would not be announced until after the mid-term elections. Is there something he’s afraid to tell us? 

The President’s new National Security Strategy does not even use the word “Islamic” when referring to violent extremism. Does he think the ideology of those who seek to kill Americans is irrelevant? How can we seek to defeat an enemy if we don’t acknowledge what motivates them and what their ultimate goals are? President Obama may think he is being politically correct by dropping the term, but it flies in the face of reality. As Senator Joe Lieberman noted, refusing to use the word Islamic when describing the nature of the threat we face is “Orwellian and counterproductive.”

AFGHANISTAN

In Afghanistan, it is true that President Obama approved deploying additional forces to the conflict – most, but not all the troops requested by commanders on the ground. But it took months of indecision to get to that point, and it came at a very high price – a July 2011 date to begin withdrawal. 

This date was arbitrary! It bears no relation to conditions on the ground. It sends all the wrong signals to our friends and to our enemies. We know our commanders on the ground are not comfortable with it. 

As that great Navy war hero, Senator John McCain recently put it: “The decision to begin withdrawing our forces from Afghanistan arbitrarily in July 2011 seems to be having exactly the effect that many of us predicted it would: It is convincing the key actors inside and outside of Afghanistan that the United States is more interested in leaving than succeeding in this conflict.” 

Does the President really believe the Taliban and al Qaeda won’t be empowered by his naming of a starting date for withdrawal? They now believe they can beat him simply by outlasting us. What sort of effect does he think this will have on the morale of our troops – and of our allies?

ALIENATING OUR ALLIES

It’s not the only area where the Obama administration has failed our allies. They escalated a minor zoning issue in Jerusalem into a major dispute with our most important ally in the Middle East, Israel. They treated the Israeli Prime Minister shabbily in Washington. When a Turkish sponsored flotilla threatened to violate a legal Israeli blockade of Hamas-run Gaza, the Obama Administration was silent. When Israeli commandos were assaulted as they sought to prevent unmonitored cargoes from being delivered to Hams terrorists, the Obama Administration sent signals it might allow a UN investigation into the matter – an investigation that would be sure to condemn our ally Israel and bemoan the plight of Hamas. Loyal NATO allies in central Europe were undermined by the cancellation of a missile defense program with virtually no warning. At the same time, Russia and China are given preferential treatment, while remaining silent on their human rights violations.

CODDLING ADVERSARIES

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration reaches out to some of the world’s worst regimes. They shake hands with dictators like Hugo Chavez, send letters to the Iranian mullahs and envoys to North Korea, ease sanctions on Cuba and talk about doing the same with Burma. That’s when they’re not on one of their worldwide apology tours. 

Do we get anything in return for all this bowing and apologizing? No, we don’t. Yes, Russia voted for a weak sanctions resolution on Iran, but it immediately stated it could sell advanced anti-aircraft missile to Iran anyway, and would not end its nuclear cooperation. In response to North Korea’s unprovoked sinking of a South Korean Navy ship, China warned us not to take part in military exercises with our ally.

And while President Obama lets America get pushed around by the likes of Russia and China, our allies are left to wonder about the value of an alliance with the U.S. They have to be wondering if it’s worth it.

AN “ENEMY-CENTRIC” FOREIGN POLICY

It has led one prominent Czech official to call Obama’s foreign policy “enemy-centric.” And this “enemy-centric” approach has real consequences. It not only baffles our allies, it worries them. When coupled with less defense spending, it signals to the world that maybe we can no longer be counted on, and that we have other priorities than being the world leader that keeps the peace and provides security in Europe, in Asia and throughout the world.

Together with this enemy-centric foreign policy, we see a lessening of the long, bipartisan tradition of speaking out for human rights and democracy. The Secretary of State said she would not raise human rights with China because “we pretty much know what they are going to say.” Democracy promotion programs have been cut. Support for the brave Iranians protesting their government was not forthcoming because President Obama would rather try to cut a deal with their oppressors.

When the world’s dictators see the United States unconcerned with human rights and political freedom, they breathe a sigh of relief, because they know they have a free hand to repress their own people. 

This goes against the very ideals on which our republic was founded. There is a long bipartisan tradition of speaking out in favor of freedom – from FDR to Ronald Reagan. America loses something very important when its President consigns human rights and freedom to the back burner of its international priorities. 

A DIFFERENT VIEW OF AMERICA 

We have a President, perhaps for the very first time since the founding of our republic, who doesn’t appear to believe that America is the greatest earthly force for good the world has ever known.

When asked whether he believed in American exceptionalism, President Obama answered, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Amazing. Amazing. 

I think this statement speaks volumes about his world view. He sees nothing unique in the American experience? Really? Our founding, and our founding mothers and fathers? Really? And our history over the past two and half centuries?

Really? He sees nothing unique in an America that fought and won two world wars and in victory sought not one inch of territory or one dollar of plunder? He sees nothing unique in an America that, though exhausted by conflict, still laid the foundation for security in Europe and Asia after World War II? He sees nothing unique in an America that prevailed against an evil ideology in the Cold War? Does he just sees a country that has to be apologized for around the world, especially to dictators?

President Obama actually seems reluctant to even embrace American power. Earlier this year when he was asked about his faltering Middle East peace process, he said “whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower.” Whether we like it or not?! Really? Mr. President, this may come as news to you, but most Americans actually do like it. And so do our allies. They know it was our military might that liberated countless millions from tyranny, slavery, and oppression over the last 234 years. Yes, we do like it. As a dominant superpower, the United States has won wars hot and cold; our military has advanced the cause of freedom and kept authoritarian powers in check. 

It is in America’s and the world’s best interests for our country to remain the dominant military superpower, but under President Obama’s leadership that dominance may be slipping away. It’s the result of an agenda that reeks of complacency and defeatism. 

(I went on from there to talk about our need to end the negative, defeatist attitudes of those in leadership. I spoke further on American exceptionalism, and Willow and I ended a great evening with some great patriots. Sorry the media chose to report anything other than what actually happened at the event.)

- Sarah Palin

(Video) Hugh Hewitt On Sarah Palin: Take On Anyone On Any Subject, Intelligent & Accomplished

'You Can't Trust Journalists'

Sarah Palin Interview With Regular Guys: Dark Days Coming To An End In Nov

Sarah Palin Interview with The Regular Guys Part 1


Sarah Palin Interview with The Regular Guys Part 2

(Video) Pro Sarah Palin Vs Anti Sarah Palin Protestors!

Palin Protesters BATTLE Pro-Palin supporters!


Pro Palin Supporters at Sarah Palin Speech at CSU Stanislaus


Sarah Palin Protest at CSU Stanislaus Part 1


Sarah Palin Protest at CSU Stanislaus Part 2

(MSM Video Coverage) Sarah Palin’s CSU Stanislaus Speech Sets Fundraising Record

CNN: Palin event sets records

Washington (CNN) – "The gala is on track to be the most successful fundraiser in the university's history," University of California Stanislaus spokeswoman Eve Hightower told CNN, adding the foundation will exceed its fundraising goal.

According Hightower, the event netted $200,000 plus there were $58,000 in donations of "in kind services." Tickets for the dinner were $500 apiece with sponsorships for tables ranging from $5,000 to $50,000. The spokeswoman said the event "sold out in record time." […]

The papers did not detail the fee she would receive for the speech. She's believed to fetch about $100,000 per appearance.

Sarah Palin's CSU Speech

ADN: Despite protests, Palin visit raises record amount for school

Turlock, CA --  In a 34-minute speech, she poked fun at controversy sparked by the March announcement she would appear at the public school and the outcry over her confidential contract, a portion of which students said they found in a university trash bin."Do I have my straws?" she said, referring to the contract with the school's nonprofit foundation. She said that she felt sorry for the Washington Speakers Bureau, which on her behalf negotiated "with the entire state of California."

The gala was the most lucrative single fundraiser in the university's history, netting more than $200,000. It thrust the campus into the national spotlight, with Democratic leaders condemning her confidential fee and liberal groups calling her a poor choice for the university's 50th anniversary gala because she had no ties to academia or the area. […]

"We must embrace our entrepreneurial drive, and allow America to remain the world's standard-bearer for excellence," she said. "Attorney General Jerry Brown and friends, this is California, do you really not have anything better to do?" […]

"My phone has been ringing off the hook all day with people still wanting tickets," foundation President Matt Swanson said Friday afternoon.The gala brought in $450,000 gross. University officials estimated they spent $190,000 and got $50,000 in in-kind donations, such as drinks and supplies.

Black, gold and crystal table settings, white flowers, lights and gauzy drapes transformed the university's cafeteria for the $500-per-ticket event. Swanson said the foundation sold about 370 tickets, in addition to several higher-priced sponsorships.

Guests dined on a five-course dinner that included buckwheat blini with smoked salmon, caprese salad, seared scallops and filet and halibut. They were greeted with a signed copy Palin's autobiography, "Going Rogue," on each seat.

Students To Protest Palin Visit

San Francisco Chronicle: Palin decries 'Dumpster divers' at Calif. campus

Sarah Palin leveled criticism at California's attorney general and others raising questions about her visit to a cash-strapped university, telling supporters that students had better things to do than dive through Dumpsters to find out how much she earns speaking. […]

"Students who spent their valuable, precious time diving through dumpsters before this event in order to silence someone ... what a wasted resource," she told the crowd dining in the campus cafeteria. "A suggestion for those Dumpster divers:  Instead of trying to tell people to sit down and shut up ... spend some time telling people like our president to finally stand up," she said. […]

"Jerry Brown and friends, come on. This is California," Palin retorted. "Do you not have anything else to do?" The California Democrat said Palin was wrong to politicize the inquiry, which he said would be objective. "I don't think she understands the process," he said Friday. "It's about the operation of the foundation to see if they handled things professionally."

Officials say the university foundation that organized the fundraiser is legally exempt from public records requirements. Friday's sold-out dinner will bring in more than $200,000, making the gala the most successful fundraiser in the university's history, said university foundation board president Matt Swanson. "We're not here to make a political statement, we're here to make money," Swanson said. […]

"We cannot believe the stuff that has gone on with our campus over Sarah Palin's visit," said Alicia Lewis, 26, who was one of the team that retrieved the paperwork from a trash container in April. "Now they're fencing the campus off? It's outrageous." […]

About 100 protesters stood outside on the campus's leafy grounds raising up a Sarah Palin-shaped pinata and signs lettered "Spill, Baby, Spill" and "Open The Books," and chanting about school budget cuts.

"I was expecting quite a few protests," said Palin, who was accompanied by her daughter Willow. "It's been nothing but absolute loveliness here in this part of California, in spite of some of the hoopla around this dinner." […]

A group of about 30 Palin supporters from local tea party chapters also came to campus Friday afternoon, waving large American flags and carrying placards that read "Support Free Speech."

Denver Post: Palin pokes fun at California university protests

Protest Planned For Palin Visit


Stan State Student: Who Do We Believe?


Palin Goes To Modesto Hair Salon

Sarah Palin: Cost of Legal Warfare – A Few Words About Today’s Defense Fund Agreement

First off, let’s keep in mind that this is about a legal defense fund. According to the Summary of Findings in the decision released today by the Alaska Personnel Board, nothing illegal and nothing unethical occurred because not a penny has been distributed. Governor Palin did nothing wrong. And in fact, everyone is in agreement that Governor Palin acted in good faith. Now, let me explain how we got here.

It is no secret that Governor Palin has been subject to political and legal attacks on an unprecedented scale. Since these attacks originate from her opposition, sometimes it can be a badge of honor to be the focus of such irrational hatred. But there is a cost to all of this. 

Last year, those who willfully and excitedly violated or abused Alaska law showed they would do it again and again to either bankrupt Governor Palin or paralyze her success for Alaska. Governor Palin had a choice: plead guilty to things she didn’t do so that she could focus on the state and save money for the family – or defend her good name and reputation. She chose to fight back. In the end, Governor Palin and her attorney, Thomas Van Flein, successfully defended against well over two dozen complaints, lawsuits, and allegations. Time and time again during and after the 2008 Presidential election cycle, independent investigators proved that Governor Palin’s actions were sound, her judgment was proper, and her intentions were honest. In fact, the Personnel Board, the ethics board for the Governor of the state, never even had to take up a case as each was dismissed before making it to the next level. 

But it did cost the Palins financially. 

Seeing this nonsense, it was suggested to me from both sides of the aisle that one way to deal with the substantial financial cost these tactics were inflicting, was to create a trust fund for legal fees – just like all the other legal defense funds for prominent politicians who are targets.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, “Such funds have become increasingly common as scrutiny of politicians has intensified.” (“Palin Backers Set Up Legal-Defense Fund”, Wall Street Journal, p. A-3, April 24, 2009) 

When I approached Governor Palin with the idea, she had one primary directive – if it can be done lawfully, then I will support it. She also asked that, if possible, we keep it Alaskan.

One might think that creating a trust fund to collect money to pay legal fees should not be that complicated, but it turns out, it is exceptionally complicated. You should know that as many as seven lawyers were involved in the process; some of whom were and are nationally prominent experts in creating legal defense funds, in evaluating federal and state election laws, state trust law, federal and state tax laws, state reporting requirements and state ethics requirements. It is a sad commentary on public life today when the legal system can be used as a political weapon against an elected official, and it takes a battalion of lawyers to figure out how to fund a defense and counter-attack. 

In any event, the legal team concluded that the fund they had created was lawful in all respects. I relied in good faith on that advice and advised Governor Palin of that advice.

Ultimately, the Alaska Fund Trust was borne, and within a day or two, a complaint was filed against it challenging its legality. (And like everything else, the public knew because someone – likely the complainant – violated the law and publicly released the accusation.) And so started another prolonged legal battle – this time to determine if the legal fund created to defend Governor Palin against frivolous ethics complaints was itself ethical. Quite a circle really. We made it clear that no money would be paid out on until the matter had been resolved.

Thus, to this very moment, the money received was frozen and no one, not the Palins, not the Palins’ attorney, no one ever received a penny from the Trust on the Palins’ behalf. 

The Personnel Board initially appointed an “independent” investigator. That investigator, we later learned, had connections with, and was associated with President Obama. The Personnel Board had hired President Obama’s personal law firm as an “independent” investigator to review whether a fund created to raise money to eliminate a debt incurred as a result of Governor Palin’s opposition to President Obama was appropriate. We objected to both the illegal leak and the blatant political influence, and a new investigator was appointed.

The new investigator spent considerable time reviewing the old information and collecting new, but I think it proved to be too difficult to reverse an already-public decision. He concluded that the Trust fund violated Alaska law in two respects. His biggest heartburn was that we used the word “official” on the website. And he was distressed that we turned down an offer from a former White House Special Counsel to serve as trustee and instead chose an Alaskan whom Alaskans would recognize – Kristan Cole. 

Kristan sat on several state boards as a volunteer public servant. The investigator concluded that because she sat on such boards, Governor Palin as governor was technically her boss, and therefore she should not be the trustee of the fund. That is his conclusion and we respect that. The law is not clear on this aspect, and not one member of the legal team saw this as an issue, but again, we respect the conclusion here and it is not worth the time or money to dispute that. But we do want to thank Kristan for taking on that otherwise thankless task. What is it they say about no good deed? 

The other conclusion needs context. There was a point where it appeared that people around the country wanted to start legal defense funds for Governor Palin. The support and good will the people of this country have shown to the Palins is inspiring. But a concern was raised whether all these other potential funds would comply with various laws, including donation limits, limits against contributions from lobbyists or contributions from foreign nationals. So we used the word “official” in the website to distinguish the Alaska Fund Trust from ones we were not sure would be compliant. In our view, that was a solid and common sense reason to use the word “official,” but the investigator believes that it made it appear that the website was sponsored by the State of Alaska, and thus would be a use of Governor Palin’s ”official” office to raise money. We are not terribly persuaded that really would be the case or that any member of the public could be confused, but we respect the investigator’s evaluation of this point and it is not worth fighting about. Again, Governor Palin’s prime directive was simple – if this fund could be set up lawfully, she would support it. If not, it would not have her support. 

So Governor Palin has reached a point where she decided to agree to resolve this matter with the investigator rather than spend time and money fighting an ethics complaint about a fund that was created to reimburse her for the money she has spent fighting bogus ethics complaints drawn up by insiders and outsiders violating and abusing Alaska law. Really, this is simple pragmatism and common sense. 

As you know, we love a good fight, but we must pick our battles carefully. As a chief executive, Governor Palin makes the calls, and she knows that this battle, though important to her personally, does nothing for the country. She has bigger battles to fight, battles to restore our strength internationally and stand by our allies, battles to stop the downward slide of our economy, and battles to take back control of Congress. 

However, I know and you know that no public official should ever have to bear the financial brunt of these attacks. And Governor Palin can lawfully raise money now through a brand new – not official but let’s call it “real” – legal defense fund without any risk of offending an investigator or state law. And such a fund now exists at http://www.sarahpalinlegaldefensefund.org/donate.php.

Thanks to everyone who contributed to the Alaska Fund Trust. Your heart was in the right place. And Governor Palin and her family have been overwhelmed by your generosity. If you want to, you can contribute to the new fund. In the meantime, we will try to contact you to get your donation returned from the old trust.

Now – back to motherhood for me! And common sense.

P.S. One last thought as we approach the anniversary of Governor Palin’s “reloading,” thank God she had the fortitude and wisdom to look down the road and see what she did – the state’s bills would have amounted to millions upon millions more and her personal legal bills would be personally insurmountable. I don’t know who would want to hold office under these circumstances and with loopholes our Alaska legislators refuse to close.

- Meghan Stapleton, Mom, Wife, and Now More Knowledgeable Than Ever About Legal Defense Funds

Sarah Palin's Private Photographer Has Seen It All

Shealah Craighead works in pictures, not words, but she's got a lot of good Sarah Palin stories. Here's one from this winter:

It's Valentine's Day, and Palin is spending it at the Daytona 500. As Palin is greeted by the usual crush of fans, Craighead and other members of Palin's retinue are eyeing another celebrity in attendance, a certain dreamy jazz musician-slash-actor.

Afterward, Craighead can't resist the opportunity for some girl talk.

"You just sat next to Harry Connick Jr. for 10 minutes! Isn't he so dreamy?"

"Isn't he!?" replies Palin, laughing.

The stuff of scandal, it's not -- but it does help explain the role Craighead plays in Palinmania. Since shortly after John McCain tapped the then-Alaska governor as his running mate in 2008, Craighead has been Palin's personal photographer, the chief documentarian of both the public and private sides of her emergence as a singular mix of grassroots force and big-ticket celebrity.

Craighead has maintained that perch because Palin, who keeps an unusually tight inner circle, trusts and feels comfortable with her. And Craighead has preserved that dynamic by doing something that almost no one is able to do when it comes to Sarah Palin: Leave politics out of it. [...]

Craighead, 33, says she looks at photographing Palin as "a long-term documentary project." It's one on which Palin occasionally offers feedback. "She's very encouraging of my work. For me, that's what it means at the end of the day."

One current Palin staffer calls Craighead "a member of the family." But the even-tempered photographer stresses that she and Palin are not confidantes, and that instead the level of trust she enjoys was earned through the work she did during the 2008 campaign. Exclusive: Sarah Palin's Private Album

"[Palin] can kick back and be comfortable and take off her shoes and not be worried about 'Oh, she took her shoes off, let's photograph that,'" Craighead says. "I look for the details, I look for the highlights. I look for the moments in between the podium shots."  [...]

Although Craighead has worked exclusively for Republicans, she insists she takes no ideological sides. "First priority for me is doing the best job I can for my clients. I leave my part of thought and everything out of it," Craighead says. "I specifically registered as an Independent for that. I leave politics out of everything." She adds that she wouldn't want to be considered a "Republican photographer" and that her skills are transferable. "Making photographs is an excellent way to contribute what I can to history. And for me, I don't see party as an obstacle.

Source:

Palin's Private Photographer Has Seen It All

Sarah Palin Donates To Sharron Angle & Will Campaign In NV

Tea party favorite Sarah Palin may end up campaigning with Republican Senate hopeful Sharron Angle at some point, but not when Palin is in Las Vegas next week for a bowling convention, Angle’s campaign says.

The former Alaska governor is the keynote speaker next Wednesday at the 2010 International Bowl Expo put on by the Bowling Proprietors Association of America at the Las Vegas Convention Center and the Las Vegas Hilton.  Palin’s appearance raised the question whether she might be doing or saying anything while in town to advance Angle’s bid to unseat Sen. Harry Reid. 

Maybe later but not now, according to Angle campaign spokesman Jerry Stacy.

“Sarah Palin has already funded Sharron Angle’s campaign with a generous contribution, and we will work to coordinate an event at a later date,” Stacy said by email. 

He did not elaborate on how much Palin gave and when. Presumably that will show up when both Angle’s campaign and Palin’s political action committee update their public disclosures at the end of the month.

Palin was last seen in Southern Nevada on March 27, when she spoke at the Tea Party Express "Showdown in Searchlight" that made Reid a target of the tea party movement this year.

Source:

No Palin-Angle campaigning just yet by Steve Tetreault

Sarah Palin: Effective Rule of Law Vs Obama’s Ineffective Thugocracy

The Obama administration is an out-of-control, ineffective thugocracy, according to Michael Barone, political analyst for the Washington Examiner. Thomas Sowell, whose book, Conflict of Visions, Gov. Palin referenced in Going Rogue described how the United States is slipping into tyranny.

Obama's Leadership Philosophy: Ineffective Thuggery

In "Obama's thuggery is useless in fighting spill," Barone cited Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar's infamous "boot on the neck" quote and Obama's "so I know whose a-- to kick," as two examples of ineffective thuggery, while BP's gusher gushes unabated 65 days later and state and local governments do the heavy lifting to keep their beaches safe.

The now-reversed moratorium on off-shore drilling is an example of ineffective thuggery at work, for as Barone wrote, "[this] penalizes companies with better safety records than BP's and will result in many advanced drilling rigs being sent to offshore oil fields abroad."

Judge Feldman, who wrote the ruling reversing the moratorium was even harsher. "An invalid agency decision to suspend drilling of wells in depths of over 500 feet simply cannot justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the Gulf region, and the critical present-day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in this country," as quoted by an Associated Press report.

Gutting the Constitution and the Road to Tyranny

Sowell, of Investor's Business Daily wrote about an even more insidious form of thuggery, that went virtually unnoticed.

• Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere. 

• And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The $20 billion fund was arrived at absent due process of the law, Sowell argues, which is a dangerous precedent that will lead to the imposition of tyranny ostensibly "for the good of the people." In his article, Sowell describes how arbitrary power grabs and over-stepping constitutional bounds was the underpinning of the Nazi regime.

A Conflict of Visions

On Page 385 of Going Rogue, Gov. Palin provided a cogent synopsis of Sowell's Conflict of Visions:

• People who adhere to the unconstrained vision (the label applied to them is "liberal" or "left-wing") believe that human nature is changeable (therefore perfectible) and that society's problems can all be solved if only the poor, ignorant, disorganized public is told what to do and rational plans are enacted. And who better to make those plans than an elite bureaucracy pulling the strings and organizing society according to their master blueprint?

Gov Palin continued,

• Conservatives believe in the "constrained" political vision because we know that human nature is flawed and that there are limitations to what can be done in Washington to "fix" society's problems....we do not ignore history's lessons and waste time chasing utopian pipe dreams.

Conclusion

Gov. Palin wrote on p. 386 of Going Rogue,

• We don't trust utopian promises from politicians. The role of government is not to perfect us but to protect us -- to protect our inalienable rights. The role of government in a civil society is to protect the individual and to establish a social contract so that we can live together in peace.

The foregoing clearly indicates a stark difference in visions between Gov. Palin and the entire Obama administration. Gov. Palin clearly supports limited federal government, and adherence to the Constitution, in this case the Tenth Amendment - enumerated powers. She subscribes to the constrained vision.

Obama clearly subscribes to the un-constrained vision with its concomitant centralized state planning bureaus, czars and commissars. As pointed out both by Gov. Palin and Obama his own words, he wants to "fundamentally transform" these United States. The past 65 days give a good glimpse as to where this transformation will lead. Obama wants us to be not a Shining City on a Hill, but a bankrupt, third rate, third world, ineffective thugocracy.

Regardless of his political leanings, Obama is absolutely unfit to serve. He is not a leader, not a commander-in-chief and not conducting himself as a President. He is not the best man for the job. None of the men who are presumed to be running for 2012 against him are the best men for job either.

The best man for the job is a woman!

Source:

us4Palin.com: Palin: Effective Rule of Law. Obama: Ineffective Thugocracy By Ron Devito

Sarah Palin To Rahm Emanuel: You're Fired! Poor Poor Little Rahm Emanuel To Leave In 6 Months

Rahm Emanuel just can't take it anymore.

That's what ‘Washington insiders' are telling the London Telegraph, which reports that the WH chief of staff is tired of sparring with both Republicans  and fellow Democrates and will quit in the next six to eight months.

"I would bet he will go after the midterms," The Telegraph quotes a 'leading Democratic' source as saying.

"Nobody thinks it's working but they can't get rid of him - that would look awful. He needs the right sort of job to go but the consensus is he'll go." […]

This year he battled Republicans on health care reform, watched the President's approval ratings plunge, and found himself embroiled in controversy when the Wall Street Journal reported that he had called a liberal group 'retarded' in a closed-door meeting, prompting Sarah Palin and other conservatives to call for his resignation. […]

The father of three also told 60 Minutes that the job is "a tremendous amount of pressure. And it's a tremendous amount to ask of your family."

According to the Telegraph's sources, Emanuel has told friends he is "very sensitive to the idea that he is not a good father for having done this," and that privately he has expressed a desire to run for Mayor of Chicago, his home town.

Source:

Rahm Emanuel, Obama's Chief of Staff to quit White House in six to eight months: report

(Video) Sarah Palin Endorsement: Tim Scott for South Carolina’s 1st District

I’m very proud to add my support to Tim Scott’s campaign to represent South Carolina’s 1st congressional district. Tim has a remarkable success story. He grew up in poverty and was raised by a single-mom who struggled to provide. With help from a mentor and his brave mom, Tim learned to appreciate the value of hard work and American opportunity. He went on to become a business owner and has served in public office with integrity on the county and state level. 

Tim is a pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-development, Commonsense Conservative who’s been endorsed by the Club for Growth because of his solid commitment to the principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility. 

He will represent the Palmetto State with distinction in DC, so I encourage you to vote for Tim in his run-off election next Tuesday, June 22nd. Please visit Tim’s website at www.votetimscott.com and follow him on Facebook and Twitter. 

- Sarah Palin

By Team Scott: Sarah Palin Endorses Tim Scott for Congress

Today, the Tim Scott for Congress campaign received the support of conservative leader, Sarah Palin.

Palin released the following statement about why she is supporting Tim Scott’s First Congressional bid:

“I’m very proud to add my support to Tim Scott’s campaign to represent South Carolina’s 1st congressional district. Tim has a remarkable success story. He grew up in poverty and was raised by a single-mom who struggled to provide. With help from a mentor and his brave mom, Tim learned to appreciate the value of hard work and American opportunity. He went on to become a business owner and has served in public office with integrity on the county and state level.

Tim is a pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-development, Commonsense Conservative who’s been endorsed by the Club for Growth because of his solid commitment to the principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility.

He will represent the Palmetto State with distinction in DC, so I encourage you to vote for Tim in his run-off election next Tuesday, June 22nd.”

Tim responded to Palin’s endorsement:

“I am excited to receive the support of Sarah Palin. She has been a trailblazer for the conservative cause and tea party movement going on across the nation. We share the same values of limited government, less spending and being a champion for our Constitution.”