"Hey...New York Sun...talk to the hand!"
Posted on 02/13/2010 3:30:40 PM PST by neverdem
The significance of Governor Palin’s speech at the Tea Party Convention in Nashville lies in the new facets it discloses of the emerging doctrine we call Palinism. We wrote of this in an editorial issued December 2. It marked Mrs. Palin’s willingness to let Israel decide how to regulate its settler movement, her statements in favor of a strong dollar and concern over the collapse in the greenback’s value against gold, and her recognition that the unemployment question is connected to the tax question. For all the eagerness of her critics to set her down as a lightweight, the early signs were of a view that is plenty sophisticated and full of savvy.
This was underscored in Nashville, where two themes caught our attention. One was on national security, in which she placed herself squarely in the war camp and in opposition to the view that the terrorist attacks confront us with a law enforcement problem. “Treating this as a mere law enforcement matter,” Mrs. Palin said, “places our country at great risks because that is not how radical Islamic extremists look at this. They know we are at war. To win that war, we need a commander in chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern.”
From the recognition that a war is being waged against us flows a lot of things, including a comprehension that peace overtures are not to be reciprocated. When an officer of the Third Reich parachuted into England in search of peace — we speak of Hess — he was thrown in prison for the rest of his life. When Horace Greeley got involved in an effort to find a peaceful settlement to the Civil War, President Lincoln was probably tempted to have him brought up for treason. Mrs. Palin did not...
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
Nice to see someone write something about Palin that actually has some common sense and truth attached.
Finally, What Sarah wants to do - short video part of "Part-3" below
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other videos: This is the 30 minute interview with Chris Wallace from Fox (2-7-10), in 3 parts:
I listened to Sarah Palin at the Tea Party Convention and it reminded me of the time I listened to Ronald Reagan’s first State of the Union Message. My reaction was everything that man is saying is what this country needs. I trust him.
In spite of the general clamor and continual left wingnut B.S., most Americans will come to believe that this woman speaks the words that resonate with their perception of what America should be and she is the only one to trust to get us there.
Let’s hope so :)
Excellent piece. Good to read a cogent analysis of where the 45th president will take us and why.
Cheers!
Sorry, but I’ve never considered any politician who favors path to citizenship amnesty for illegal aliens as being strong on national security.
Do you have a source for that?
Why make stuff up?
Cheers!
Define what you mean by path to citizenship. Do you mean a path as sending them back, letting them apply through the current system, and eventually becoming a citizen? Or do you mean granting them citizenship with an amnesty bill like Reagan had done? If the latter, why don't you believe Reagan was strong on national security?
NO ONE who enters this country illegally should be given ANY opportunity, through ANY means whatsoever(earned, path, revolving door, etc.) at ANY time to EVER become citizens!
Doing so is rewarding criminal behavior and is AMNESTY.
Attrition through enforcement of our existing immigration laws (self deportation) is the answer.
I’ve listed the source numerous times and the replies are always the same....”She says she opposes amnesty”. Don’t they all? “She did’t really mean it, she was under the thumb of McCain at the time.” So who’s fault is that and what’s her excuse now? Look, if she truly opposed McCain’s SB2611 for amnesty, she would have NEVER hooked up with him or continue to support him. He’s a progressive and thus far, she agrees.
I don't recall seeing them. Regarding her replies as part of McCain's campaign, what do you think she could have done, denounce McCain during the last weeks?
OK, which potential candidates support a policy that nullifies any future attempt at citizenship for those who crossed the boarder illegally? Also, since you consider Reagan weak on national security, do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
Here is a link to the interview. She, like all the Rhinos, says she opposes ‘amnesty’, but immediately goes on to clarify that she favors a path to citizenship...which IS amnesty.
http://www.univision.com/content/content.jhtml?cid=1716304&pagenum=2
As regards your second question....I question her choice to be his running mate in the first place. After all, she had complete knowledge of McCain/Feingold and of McCain’s efforts with Kennedy to pass SB2611. McCain is bad news and a progressive, yet she continues to support him. In doing so, either she is being deceitful in rejecting and standing down on her own illegal immigration/national security principles, or, she is in agreement with his. Neither of which is good.
You’re either a one-issue voter who can’t even name a single candidate that fits your own litmis test, or your a leftist troll. Going by your own litimis test, Reagan was weak on national security.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.