Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin made two weekend appearances that increased speculation that she'll run for president in 2012. Palin gave a speech to the Tea Party convention on Saturday in Nashville and then appeared on Fox News Sunday. Palin acknowledged that she's considering a run for the nation's top job.
"I think it would be absurd to not consider what it is that I can potentially do to help our country," Palin said on Fox News. She said her decision would be based on whether running for president is the right thing to do for the country and for the Palin family.
Not surpringly, President Barack Obama has been the target of Palin's speeches. She mocked him in her Tea Party address Saturday, and also said Obama has a long list of broken promises in his first year in office.
Palin has strong support among members of the Tea Party movement and she has committed to making several speeches at future Tea Party events. Bloomberg news reports that Palin is scheduled to apeak at a Tea Party rally in March in Searchlight, Nevada, which is the hometown of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The Democrat is up for re-election this year and faces strong opposition.
Sarah Palin's turn before the teabaggers was an exercise in emptying the US Constitution of meaning while seeming to exalt it.
She praised US military personnel for defending the constitution.
But she complained that constitutional protections were offered to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the underpants bomber.
She said it is 'our' constitution, reducing it from a universal document (the Declaration of Independence says 'all men' are endowed with inalienable rights) to a tribal one.
She said Abdulmutallab could otherwise have been questioned. But why should he have answered, rights or no? Holder's methods got him talking. (Nor is it likely constitutional to arrest a lawbreaker on US soil and whisk him off to military detention.)
Then she said we need a commander in chief, not a professor of constitutional law.
But Obama is designated by the constitution as commander in chief. Is she denying that status to him?
And if the constitution is so great and worth dying for, why is it bad to study it systematically?
So at every turn she invoked the constitution to undermine the constitution.
She is not about law, but is about power. We've had enough narcissistic sociopaths in politics.
And note that Jerry Brown, e.g. Would not be put on CNN addressing 600 leftwing democrats in prime time.
Well all of this is going to get sorted out, I think.
J.D. Hayworth, former U.S. Congressman from Arizona is expected to formally announce his candidacy on the 15th in a run for one more of those "people's senate seats" presently occupied by John McCain. Hayworth opposes the hunting ban on lead bullets in his state and enjoys a A+ grade from the National Rifle Association.
McCain like his political disciple, Governor Schwarzenegger, has already eaten the apple of bad science on the cause of Pb toxicity in Condors, and for all practical purposes rejects the U.S. Constitution by systematically eroding Second Amendment rights for the same voters who put him into office. All of this while the economy continues to fail miserably due in part to their preoccupation with appeasing insatiable environmentalists. Well guess what, Palin or not many of those constituents are now preparing for his removal.
http://tinyurl.com/ya3xu5o
On a side note:
OFFICIALS: HUNTERS EMBRACING LEAD-FREE BULLETS TO HELP CONDORS
PHOENIX (Wednesday, Nov. 14) _ Eight out of 10 hunters with big game permits in the California condor’s range are taking advantage of a program offering free lead-free ammunition intended to save the condors from contracting lead poisoning, state officials said Wednesday. Environmental groups have called on the state to ban lead ammunition to protect the condors.
Slug BC-CNS-Condors-Lead. By Sonu Munshi.
I could not find a correction/retraction to this great big lie in an article published by the CRONKITE NEWS SERVICE (WALTER CRONKITE SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM AND MASS COMMUNICATION) Arizona State University. (The same Mr. Cronkite who told Americans we had lost Viet Nam after Tet)
Sooner or later Palin will have to decide to end the conflict this creates as she supports the Constitution at Tea Party events. I hope sooner.
I hope she runs and wins because we are certainly not getting anywhere fast with current administration. Lets face it there have been screw ups over the years with people in both parties so its not a dem or republican thing. Its simply who can make and execute some key decisions to turn this country around.
Edensap...It's "The Tea Party Movement",not "The Teabaggers" as your juvenile ilk likes to refer to it(but you know that)... so you lose any credibility and objectivity right out of the chute and while Palin scored ratings and interest...I doubt even your beloved Obama had many viewers for his staged pre Super Bowl laugher.
...as long as 'side-notes' are in play....
"...The civic, patriotic and political language we use to describe ourselves remains unchanged. We pay fealty to the same national symbols and iconography. We find our collective identity in the same national myths. We continue to deify the Founding Fathers. But the America we celebrate is an illusion. It does not exist. Our government and judiciary have no real sovereignty. Our press provides diversion, not information. Our organs of security and power keep us as domesticated and as fearful as most Iraqis. Capitalism, as Karl Marx understood, when it emasculates government, becomes a revolutionary force. And this revolutionary force, best described as inverted totalitarianism, is plunging us into a state of neo-feudalism, perpetual war and severe repression. The Supreme Court decision is part of our transformation by the corporate state from citizens to prisoners."
...they're coming for your guns Bart.
Some people cannot speak about their America without citing Karl Marx. It's my hope that dems realize this and look at the effects of the Obama administration, alot of things will immediately begin to make more sense. Thanks for the reminder.
It is not surprising that Karl Marx comes up more and more often at this stage of our economic problems. In many ways Marx actually predicted the problems our capitalistic society is having. For example, for as long as a capitalist intends to stay in business he must exploit his workers to the legal limit. Similarly the worker must take the best job on offer; in turn the business provides higher wages and more benefits to attract workers that can get them the highest profit. At some point, in order to finance these added costs, the profit goes down and can continue declining to the point that the business suffers and may collapse. Marx believed there was a trade cycle of boom and bust. Marx did not believe capitalism could involve a harmony of interests; the worker's struggle for better wages and conditions of work, versus the capitalist's drive for ever greater profits. Sounds real familiar at the moment doesn’t it…. i.e. government unions and government cost overruns we are dealing with, eh? Another dialectic, (a word you taught me Bart), is the struggle between liberalism and conservatism in this country. Marx saw liberalism as a great improvement on systems of prejudice and discrimination, a liberal mind, an open mind does not allow for discrimination. Although intended to lead to human emancipation, in order to dictate these human rights and emancipation, a people must develop a regime of laws to protect those rights and government to enforce and regulate them. With more laws and bigger government capitalist society in effect takes away freedom. Here we are at a point in our society where liberalism has gotten us closer to anti-discrimination but the size of our government has become grossly out of proportion. As we legislate our freedoms, we are losing our freedoms daily. Marx struggled with these types of dialectics in all of his philosophical and economic writings. Marx believed that the natural progression of capitalism would lead it to socialism. Seems to me that some of his observations have been valid and we are living in the turmoil predicted by some of his theories. Nope, it doesn’t surprise me at all that Karl Marx comes up frequently these days. Marx would view the Obama administration as the predictable progression of capitalism. That progression is the fault of our society and cumulative history and not one man or his administration as many suggest.
Knowing enough of modern history to understand that it rarely goes as predicted by venerated social scientists like Mark without a little ignition, what he would think is no matter to me. What ideas Obama has toward those Marx wrote of in relation to all his own and our economy, I would characterize as another unuseful set America will do better without.
"for as long as a capitalist intends to stay in business he must exploit his workers to the legal limit."
I'm wondering what the meaning of the word "exploit" is in that context? Why can't the capitalist and his workers be in a mutually beneficial relationship?
Don't all these "poor exploited workers" have the same oppurtunity as anyone to make the effort, to risk it all financially and put themselves out there while dealing with all the problems that a business owner must endure.Sure they do...but it is easier to not and then demonize those that do.As a self employed person I try to make sure I take the time to thank those that employ my services and make my standard of living(best in the world) possible.As a former employer of hundreds not once was I thanked for all the risk and effort I put forth to create their jobs so that they could buy their houses,feed their families and send their kids to college.Bonuses became an expectation and received with a sense of entitlement not gratitude.I am not bitter...just disappointed so I find it very alarming and too quite disappointing that the failed policies of communism still seem appealing to many on this blog.
for as long as a capitalist intends to stay in business he must exploit his workers to the legal limit." Guys, those were Marx's words not mine. He is the one that didn't believe that workers and employers could not work in a mutually beneficial relationship not me. In fact, that is one of his failings. He wouldn't believe it. I was only making the point that Marx has been brought up recently because of the fact that many of his theories are being tested in today's world. The outcome of those theories is still up in the air. I found it interesting is all. In fact, I think his theories fall short because he left out the most important variable... humans. His theories only work in a vacuum. The human factor is unpredictable. That is his failing. I hope we prove him wrong; however, if we as a people don't get some control over our government, we risk going down Marx's rocky road.
Look! Up in the vacuum! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's a Marxist outcome!
There are no examples of Marxist outcomes in the real world which may be used to make an intelligent conclusion about the failure of Communism. Such a premise reminds me of a work camp story told once, must be a SOP. No boundary markers which cannot be sympathetically tested at the expense of society, culture, history, traditions, or heritage.
You are sure reading a lot more into this than my comments were meant to be. I didn't mean to threaten you small world view.