Sarah Palin's wink at the homosexual lobby

WND ^ | 2/17/11 | Alan Keyes

[pissant]

I think American voters would do better to think about the influence political leaders exert by their words and actions, instead of treating their speeches (not to mention their sound bites and 60-second spots) as evidence of anything but what they think we want to hear. This came to mind last week as I read the report about Sarah Palin's non-appearance at this year's biggest conservative non-event (or should that be biggest non-conservative, pretending-to-be-conservative event?). She released a statement intended to keep her distance from the individuals and organizations whose non-appearance was meant to convey disapproval of CPAC's trendy surrender to the homosexual lobby.

Why, you rightly ask, would someone touted as the maverick spokesman for the pro-life, pro-family tea-party grass roots of the GOP be anxious to make it clear that she had no problem with the push to make GOProud an icon of conservative legitimacy? "Palin suggested that conservative groups had more important issues to worry about than which groups were attending the conference. 'There are so many life-changing, life-and-death issues out there in front of us. You know, we'd better be concentrating on what is really important here. …'"

[little jeremiah]

I await clear delineation of her and any other potential presidential candidate on these issues.

Silence does not appeal to me. People can read into it whatever they want.

[Dead Corpse]

We need another firebrand. Sarah is it.

[Dead Corpse]

“if you are taking flak, you must be over the target...”

[Jacob Kell]

I suspect that Palin basically meant that if CPAC wants to have homosexuals and jihadists speaking for them, why should she care?

My friend, from what I know, Palin has never spoken at CPAC, and she doesn’t care much for it’s President. So how can this be construed as Palin be pro-gay? It sounds like she’s saying that whoever speaks at CPAC is their problem, not hers

[little jeremiah]

BTTT and you spoke for me as well.

[Ol' Sparky]

So how can this be construed as Palin be pro-gay?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/01/sarah-palin-re-tweets-in-support-of-gays.html

Sarah Palin Re-Tweets in Support of Gays

But Monday night the former Alaska governor re-tweeted a post from conservative talk show host and blogger Tammy Bruce, who is lesbian, appearing to indirectly cast support for gays and an end to the ban on openly gay members of the U.S. military.

“I know Gov Palin & this "anti-gay" meme has been a lie--plain & simple. She's a decent woman & friend to the community,” Bruce said later.

Note in this video, Palin says she doesn't think DADT should be repealed "right now," meaning she does have a problem with it being repealed in the future:

Palin Says Congress Should Not Repeal DADT 'Right Now'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_krYcGZhJk

There is no doubt in my mind that a President Palin will not reinstate DADT.

[aSeattleConservative]

I await clear delineation of her and any other potential presidential candidate on these issues. Silence does not appeal to me. People can read into it whatever they want.

Pay close attention to Palin's Libertarians connections in the upcoming months. That will tell the story.

[rbmillerjr]

Palin FB

“Today the White House finally produced its proposal for the 2012 budget. Beware of the left’s attempt to sell this as “getting tough on the deficit,” because as an analysis from Americans for Tax Reform shows, the White House’s plans are more about raising taxes and growing more government than reducing budget shortfalls.

The fine print reveals a White House proposal to increase taxes by at least $1.5 trillion over the next decade. If you want to know how minuscule their proposed $775 million-a-year budget “cuts” really are, please look at this chart. The proposed cuts are so insignificant – less than 1/10 of 1% of this year’s $1.65 trillion budget deficit – that they are essentially invisible on the pie chart. That speaks volumes about today’s budget.

- Sarah Palin

UPDATE: As J.D. Foster of the Heritage Foundation points out: “...the President proposes a budget that keeps the federal government on a thoroughly irresponsible and unsustainable course.” Please read the Heritage Foundation article and understand the $775 million in proposed cuts noted above are what the White House’s budget director Jacob Lew identified as reflecting what they perceive as some “tough calls.” Yet, as noted, they are a drop in the bucket; and the White House’s total proposed cuts for this year are still not at all enough to make us solvent.”

[rbmillerjr]

CYa sparky lol

[TBP]

Interesting article.