Palin ambitious, weak, lacking convictions

Will conservatives let the liberal, atheist, humanist, and fiscally conservative but socially liberal news organizations pick their presidential candidate for them again? Are conservatives really that stupid? It is becoming more and more obvious that the anti-social-conservatives’ top choices for the Republican presidential candidate are Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin. Why atheist humanists would like Mitt Romney is obvious: he is the most liberal Republican candidate for president ever—he was the first governor to sign a bill legalizing gay marriage. And as a candidate for the senate, he billed himself as more pro-choice than Ted Kennedy. But Sarah Palin is the one they are giving the most press coverage. She is their very first choice. Why?

Why the Radical Left wants Palin to be the Republican Presidential candidate

The athiest, humanists supporting the socialist, communist Democrat Party want Sarah Palin to be the Republican candidate for two reasons:

  1. They view her as a vain, and therefore weak, woman. They view her so because she obviously considers herself beautiful, and because she likes to wear sexy clothes to show off her figure. The November 2009 issue of Newsweek shows her “wearing a red, long-sleeved workout pullover, black shorts, and running shoes. She’s leaning on a barstool that has the American flag draped over it. And she’s smiling” (Sarah Palin Newsweek Cover Brews Debate). She wasn’t happy with the problems caused her by that photo, but the the fact is, she posed in those clothes for that picture, knowing it would be published in a magazine. So, the fact that the photograph was taken by a different magazine than Newsweek makes no difference. And she didn’t learn her lesson from the fallout of that picture. More recently, she was photographed wearing a form-fitting blouse that had people all over the Internet asking, Has Sarah recently had breast implants? Then to make matters even worse, she actually answers the question: “No, I have not had implants,” declared Sarah Palin to Gretta Van Susteren (Sarah Palin speaks out about breast implant rumors), making sure we know that her breasts are just naturally large. What kind of wisdom does that show?!
  2. In case of a Democrat loss, the atheist, humanist leaders would much rather have a person with no convictions in the White House, than to have a true conservative whom they cannot manipulate. Sarah showed that she had no convictions when she became the running mate of super-liberal John McCain, and then lied, saying that he would make a great president, when she knew all along that he had voted liberal more often then just about any other Republican senator. More recently, she has said that pairing up with extreme-super-liberal Mitt Romny for the 2012 White House run “sounds pretty good” (Sarah Palin disappoints). Those are amazingly disappointing words coming from a woman who claims to be a pro-life, pro-traditional-family conservative.

Why the fiscally-conservative but socially liberal commentators want Palin to be the Republican Presidential candidate

Former Republican presidential candidate, Pat Buchanan, recently wrote a column titled What’s the Mama Grizzly Up To? in which he praises Palin saying, “no politician in memory has conducted a more brilliant pre-presidential campaign, if that is what she is about, than the lady who calls herself “the Mama Grizzly.” (To which I answer, So what? Have you already forgotten Barak Obama’s brilliant pre-presidential campain? Brilliant campaining does not qualify one to be a good president.) Why does Buchanan praise Palin? Because she is out to get into the white house, no matter what damage her methods do to the values and morals of the country in the process. Of course he doesn’t say that, but it is clear that moral values are not his first concern. Winning, so as to rescue the economy, is the first priority of all of the Republicans who are conservative only fiscally. Buchanan gives the following examples of Palin’s “brilliant pre-presidential campaign”:

  • Palin endorsed liberal Terry Branstad over conservative Bob Vander Plaats in Iowa

    Terry Branstad is not [a conservative]. This ex-governor of Iowa, who served four terms ending in 1998, is a moderate. Yet Palin endorsed him in his comeback bid over a conservative backed by Dr. James Dobson and Mike Huckabee.

    After his victory Tuesday, Branstad, too, is headed for the governor’s mansion in a state that hosts the first big battle of 2012 — the Iowa caucuses.

    By bringing conservatives to Branstad’s camp, Palin can claim some credit for returning him to office, though Mitt Romney backed Branstad earlier and his and Branstad’s staffs are said to be wired.

    The endorsement of Branstad suggests Palin, a politician of principle, has a pragmatic streak. She acts not only out of instinct but cold calculation. How else to explain the Branstad endorsement over a social conservative than a decision to befriend a future GOP governor in the first battleground state of 2012?

    In other words, she endorsed a liberal because she thought he was going to win anyway, and would then help her win in 2012. How then is she “a politician of principle”?

  • Palin endorsed Carly Fiorina over Chuck DeVore in California

    Carly Fiorina — another one of Palin’s mama grizzlies — won the GOP Senate nod on Tuesday. Palin had endorsed her over the more conservative Chuck DeVore.

    In other words, Palin endorsed liberal Fiorina because she thought Fiorina would win anyway, and that Fiorina would then help her win in 2012.

  • Palin endorsed John McCain over J.D. Hayworth in Arizona

    In Arizona, Palin, who is closer in her politics to J.D. Hayworth, came to campaign for embattled Sen. John McCain, who chose her as his running mate and made her a star.

    McCain’s aides have been anonymously trashing Sarah as an airhead who had caused the ticket’s defeat. She repaid their disloyalty with unqualified loyalty to McCain, who is unlikely to forget what she did, at some cost to herself.

    In other words, Palin supported John McCain because she thinks he is going to be the winner anyway, and will then help her win. If ever there was a lying, back-stabbing, anti-Christian, liberal man who needs to be permanently retired from office, it is John McCain. Yet Palin endorsed him over a conservative!

Buchanan sums up his article by saying, “Looking over Palin’s endorsements — McCain over J.D., Fiorina over DeVore, Branstad over Bob Vander Plaats and Rod Roberts — the lady is not running for Mrs. Conservative. The one explanation that makes the most sense of all the seeming inconsistencies in endorsements is that Mama Grizzly is thinking about moving the Wasilla brood into the big house.” Earlier in the article, Buchanan classifies Palin among “the better politicians.” I classify her with Charlie Crist.

Indeed, Palin isn’t running for Mrs. Conservative. In all truth, it is rapidly becoming evident that she isn’t actually a conservative at all. She has no conservative convictions whatsoever. Her conservatism is just talk to gain influence over conservatives so they will vote for her. She is really just a libertarian—sin and let sin. She doesn’t care what happens to the moral values of the country as long as she gets elected. As long as she becomes president, so what if a few hundred thousand more babies get aborted and the USA become another Sodom and Gomorrah? Palin is showing herself to be just a female power-hungry John McCain. It is this “let us do evil that good may come” attitude that the Apostle Paul condemns in Romans 3:8, and that we all should despise in a politician, especially when the only “good” he or she is concerned about achieving is getting elected. Will we actually pick another corrupt politician like what we already have?

Conservative words from a politician mean absolutely nothing if those words don’t determine who that politician endorses and how that politician makes decisions. A politician without convictions he or she would die for is worst than worthless. My son told me on the phone last week after seeing Palin endorsing liberal candidates, “Sarah Palin is a two-faced liar.” Yes, Sarah Palin disappoints again.

Other reasons Sarah Palin should not become president

Palin’s lack of convictions is her greatest drawback, but that is not her only drawback. Other reasons we should not elect her to the office of president are:

  • Palin has little experience. Granted, she has more experience than Obama—but not much. After suffering from the lack of experience of our present president, it would seem that we would want someone like Mike Huckabee with much successful experience next time. Not someone with almost no track record.
  • Palin quit to avoid criticism. She didn’t even finish her first term as governor of Alaska. That is a very serious fact to consider. Will she also quit as president when the liberals start relentlessly attacking her like they did George Bush? Why didn’t she stay and fight it out for Alaska? Why instead did she turn leadership over to a man whom she believed could do a better job under the circumstances? If that man could lead Alaska better than her under the circumstances, then perhaps he could lead the USA better than her under the circumstances. So, why not ask him to run for president rather then her?
  • Her family seems to be divided. Her husband is not a Republican, so he isn’t following her. His political stand is unknown. Who is the head of the Palin home? Who wears the pants? If Palin’s husband is actually the head of their home, as the Bible teaches he should be, then he will actually be the acting president if she gets elected. Otherwise, Palin is in rebellion against both her husband and God. Can a person in rebellion against God make a good president? We presently have such a president, and look where it is taking us. Ephesians 5:22-24 says, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” Those words are exceedingly plain and easy to understand. True Christians believe those words to be true. The atheist, humanist woman’s enslavement movement has divided the USA by gender by opposing God’s word in this matter. Even many Christian women have been influenced to rebel against God in this matter. Yet God is our only hope. If we can’t believe that God knows best in our marriages, then we won’t believe that He knows best in anything else either. It is that very unbelief that has brought America to the brink of destruction. It appears to me that if Americans again reject God and godly values in this next election, then it will be permanently over for the US of A.
  • Palin is the mother of a small child that needs her time and attention. As president, Palin would not be able to be a proper mother to her child. That is wrong. I have not the slightest doubt that my mother considered being a good mother more important than being ruler over the whole world. My brother and sister and I were more important to her than all the rest of the world altogether. For that reason, I love my mother greatly; she is greater than any president. It is degrading to motherhood to think that any political office is greater in importance than being a good mother.
  • The USA is at war with radical Islamists who consider women to be weak and vulnerable. Palin is a woman. Even if she is truly stronger than any man, they will not believe it, and they will be far more aggressive to attack her (and us) simply because she is a woman. Some of our soldiers will die because of this. One of them might be your husband or son or brother. Islamists look at it like this: if women are not weaker than men, then why do men totally dominate women in every Islamic country in the world? If women are so strong why don’t they dominate the men, instead of the men dominating them in every country of the world, including non-Islamic countries? What will happen if Palin gets pregnant while in office? What if she goes into menopause? How will the hormones influence her decisions? We are talking now about the office of president of the United States, whose decisions often determine if people live or die. This is no time for stupid atheist/humanist “political correctness.” This does not mean that women are inferior to men, but that they are made for different roles in life. Women will always make better mothers than men. Men are more suitable for war. Put a woman in a boxing ring with a man, and see what happens. Has there ever been a woman heavyweight boxing champion? No? Then doesn’t that tell you something?

Is a liberal Republican better than a liberal Democrat? No! In fact, a liberal Republican is far worse than a liberal Democrat. Why? Because most people consider a Republican to be conservative. How can Republicans fight the agenda of a person they voted into office? If a person claims to be pro-life and pro-family, but then endorses pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage candidates for office, that person is a hypocrite and traitor. Sadly, Sarah Palin has been clearly showing us recently that she is such a person—just another selfish politician who cares more for her own ambitions than for her country. Just more of the same of what we have had now for far too long.

Why Mike Huckabee is still the best choice for president

I am more convinced than ever that Mike Huckabee is by far the best choice we have for the next president of the USA. Mike Huckabee is a man of convictions. Time has proven that he sincerely means what he says. The following article by Huckabee is an example of how he stands by his convictions. Huckabee writes:

I received an astonishing email today from a concerned friend who has been very influential in the fight to end the scourge of abortion.

Apparently, a 2012 Republican presidential prospect in an interview with a reporter has made the suggestion that the next President should call for a “truce” on social issues like abortion and traditional marriage to focus on fiscal problems.

In other words, stop fighting to end abortion and don’t make protecting traditional marriage a priority.

Let me be clear though, the issue of life and traditional marriage are not bargaining chips nor are they political issues. They are moral issues. I didn’t get involved in politics just to lower taxes and cut spending though I believe in both and have done it as a Governor. But I want to stay true to the basic premises of our civilization.

For those of us who have labored long and hard in the fight to educate the Democrats, voters, the media and even some Republicans on the importance of strong families, traditional marriage and life to our society, this is absolutely heartbreaking. And that one of our Republican “leaders” would suggest this truce, even more so. Governor Daniels is a personal friend and a terrific Governor, and I’m very disappointed that he would think that pro-life and pro-family activists would just lie down.

Are you ready to stop fighting for traditional marriage? I cannot. I will not.

Can you let the tragedy of abortion go unchecked while we get our financial house in order? I cannot. I will not.

A strong leader doesn’t need to focus myopically on one or two issues – but a strong leader is willing to fight for and defend their principles while rising to meet new challenges and solve all of the existing systemic problems confronting us.

For me these issues are critical. Indeed they are founding principles of my personal conservatism and part of the ideological foundation of the Republican Party. (The Heartbreaking Truce)

Here is another example of an article written by Mike Huckabee that proves him to be a true leader, and not just another self-centered politicatian. Writes Huckabee:

To our HuckPAC family:

As we sort through election results, there were some victories of candidates we supported and there were some unfortunate defeats. I’ve read with interest how some pundits have tried to figure out why would we support candidates like Bob Vander Plaats in Iowa, Chuck Devore in CA and others instead of the well-funded, favored, and highly touted “establishment” candidates. Some thought that my support for candidates who weren’t the establishment picks would not be good for MY political future – so let me explain something to the self-appointed “insiders” who are trying to understand why HuckPAC and I support candidates:

I don’t support candidates based on how it will affect my political future, but how it will affect the future of the country. I don’t support candidates just because they may already have the money, momentum and machinery. More often than not, I like to help underdogs who actually believe in something other than getting elected – who are principled, pro-life, proven conservatives whose stand on the issues is based on conviction and not political convenience.

I was first to support Marco Rubio when he was 50 points behind and being laughed off as a non-starter in the FL Senate race. Many of the races we invested in were for candidates like Marco, whose campaigns were underfunded and dismissed by the media and the “political big boys” because they weren’t in the “club.” After all, I truly know what that feels like!

I am proud of the candidates we supported. Many of them will be back on the stage and when our country gets tired of politicians who accommodate any position to get elected, these candidates will emerge as real leaders. Find out if our candidates ended in debt, and if you can help them financially, please do it. Encourage them to stay in the fight either as future candidates or activists. Whether our candidates win or lose, I never feel bad when I support a person who stands for something. Believe me, I like winning rather than losing, but I’d always rather lose an election than my soul.

In some cases, there are good and supportable candidates who won in races where we helped someone else – we will endorse the winning candidate in many of those races and support his efforts. We will NOT however, endorse candidates who don’t believe in the sanctity of life, the sacredness of marriage, lower taxes, holding down debt, and balancing the budget.

Let’s move toward November with confidence and conviction – and if the pundits and old time politicians don’t understand that, then too bad.

Onward and upward! (Statement On Last Night’s Elections)

In addition to having the strongest convictions of any Republican presidential candidate, Huckabee is also the most experienced of the candidates, having successfully governed the state of Arkansas for almost ten and a half years.

The news media is trying to ignore Huckabee. That proves how much they fear him. He is the one man that they know will beat any of their liberal candidates if given a chance to voice his views.

For many other reasons why I support Huckabee for president, read Better than Ronald Reagan.

3 Comments to "Palin ambitious, weak, lacking convictions"

  1. Anonymous's Gravatar Anonymous
    July 9, 2010 - 7:30 PM | Permalink

    Huckabee is the better choice, but it takes political contributions (legalized bribes) to run for president. I don’t know why, but voters tend to vote for those with the most political commercials instead of taking a moment to understand a candidate’s stand or listen to the idiot tube on what mainstream commentators say about a candidate.

    There’s a great book out that I recommend. It’s about some small town in America where the citizens take a stand (finally someone does). I recommend it cause it’s about the times right now.

  2. N teat's Gravatar N teat
    June 27, 2010 - 12:50 PM | Permalink

    I <3 Palin 🙂

  3. June 26, 2010 - 6:29 PM | Permalink

    Tough Mo Jo…but so true!!


Comments are closed.