[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

Putin visibly ‘shocked’ by US green-light for long-range missiles to strike inside Russia

The Problem of the Bitcoin Billionaires

Biden: “We’re leaving America in a better place today than when we came into office four years ago … "

Candace Owens: Gaetz out, Bondi in. There's more to this than you think.

OMG!!! Could Jill Biden Be Any MORE Embarrassing??? - Anyone NOTICE This???

Sudden death COVID vaccine paper published, then censored, by The Lancet now republished with peer review

Russian children returned from Syria

Donald Trump Indirectly Exposes the Jewish Neocons Behind Joe Biden's Nuclear War

Key European NATO Bases in Reach of Russia's Oreshnik Hypersonic Missile

Supervolcano Alert in Europe: Phlegraean Fields Activity Sparks Scientists Attention (Mass Starvation)

France reacted to the words of a US senator on sanctions against allies

Trump nominates former Soros executive for Treasury chief


Neocon Nuttery
See other Neocon Nuttery Articles

Title: Sarah Palin Needs to Step Aside ... And James Dobson Is Just a Sorry Religious Hustler
Source: The Fountain of Truth
URL Source: http://www.geocities.com/fountoftruth/palin.html
Published: Sep 6, 2008
Author: Doug Newman
Post Date: 2008-09-06 01:01:47 by snoopdougg
Keywords: None
Views: 21463
Comments: 147

I commend Bristol Palin on deciding to go through with her pregnancy and her plans to marry Levi Johnston. I also commend Sarah Palin for not rushing her daughter off to an abortionist because a pregnant, unwed 17-year-old daughter might tarnish her political image.

That said, Sarah Palin needs to step aside and let someone else be John McCain’s vice presidential nominee.

In a constitutional world, vice presidents would have a simple job with just two duties: break ties in the Senate and hope and pray that the president doesn’t meet an untimely demise.

We do not live in such a world. The vice presidency, like every other aspect of the federal government, has grown grotesquely out of control. Indeed, you can safely say that George HW Bush ran the show for Reagan and Dick Cheney has done likewise for Dubya.

By accepting John McCain’s offer, Sarah Palin stepped out of the relative serenity of Juneau -- 31,000 people and two McDonald's -- and into a political shark tank that will only become infinitely more unforgiving in the coming months and years.

Is it “unfair” that Palin’s personal life is being so heavily scrutinized? Was it "unfair" when so many people made so much of Bill Clinton's personal life? (And why do we hear next to nothing about John McCain’s sordid, philandering past?) Every politician ought to have their life pried apart in such a fashion. Especially in today’s world when you consider how intrusively they micromanage our lives. Have you filled out one of their 1040s recently?

No human being ought to be entrusted with as much power as we allow our presidents and VPs. When you pull back the curtain and you meet these Great and Powerful Ozzes, you find bumbling incompetent fools. They are no better or smarter than you or I. Why are we so desperate to elevate these people to such levels of power and glory?

I have heard people ask what would happen had Bristol Palin been a black girl in the ghetto. She no doubt would not have the financial cushion she will very likely have access to. She would be been written off by all the Republican media jabberers as a product of 75 years of liberalism. But no-o-o-o-o. Her mom has just been tapped to run as VP representing the GOP, which many think stands for God’s Official Party. So just sit down and shut up if you have any questions about anyone's personal life.

It is bad enough that family breakdown has produced such tragic results in the inner city. How many prison inmates and gang bangers came from a stable family environment with both Mom and Dad having a solid influence in their lives?

While suburban kids might not face the same financial challenges as their ghetto counterparts, I have seen too many bad things happen when parents overemphasize careers at the expense of their children. Time and again, I have seen kids from affluent suburban backgrounds in places like the Jersey Shore, north suburban Phoenix and south suburban Denver go off the deep end. In every case, there was a dearth of parental involvement at home.

Yes, plenty of kids of dysfunctional homes have turned out just fine. But when a kid's life spins out of control, they almost always have had more than a few issues at home.

The fallout for these kids manifests itself in numerous ways, with teen pregnancy being just one of them. What did Sarah Palin sacrifice to advance her political career? I am not judging or condemning. I am just asking.

A hundred years ago, it was perfectly legal for a 10-year-old to walk into a drug store, plop down cash and buy heroin. And we had no drug problem! Why? Because parents and churches had a far stronger influence instilling morals and responsibility in children.

Today, the divorce rate is well over 50 percent, too many parents run off in every direction imaginable at the expense of their children, and way too many preachers think and talk like politicians whining, weeping and wailing about how the government doesn’t do enough to solve problems. America’s moral collapse has less to do with a "failure of government" than a failure of way too many people to heed the words of a bumper sticker one sees from time to time along Colorado’s Front Range: “Focus on your own damn family.” (More on the Focus thing in a few paragraphs.)

I have never raised kids, so anything I say on the subject is just an opinion and worth no more than you are paying me for it. However, I am going to pretend for a minute that I write an advice column.

"Dear Dougie,

“I have been a successful professional woman for the last 15 years. I earn $175,000 annually. Recently, I received an offer from a competitor that would more than double my income, but would also require almost constant travel. I have a four-month-old daughter with Downs Syndrome and a 17-year-old daughter who is four months pregnant. What should I do?”

-- Tempted in Scarsdale

"Dear Tempted,

“Family comes first. No one can adequately substitute for your influence and presence around the home. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Children spell love T-I-M-E. (1) You should reject this financially tantalizing offer and tend to your most important duties, i.e. those of a mother.”

As VP, Sarah Palin would be one heartbeat away from the presidency. Should something happen to a President McCain early on in his administration, can you imagine this scenario that I heard on the radio the other day?

“Madame President! You have a call on the red phone from Russia!”

 “Could you please take a message? I am changing a diaper.”

You only have 24 hours in a day. Something has to give. Sarah Palin has children that desparately need her presence right now. The Palin family cannot afford this.

I am just asking questions about a vice presidential nominee that are asked all the time about families out here in real life. America doesn’t suffer from a “lack of leadership in Washington” – barf -- nearly as much as it does from family breakdown. No president or “policy” can reverse this. Politics is merely a great big game of “let’s pretend”. The “family values” agenda is no exception.

Enter James Dobson of Focus on the Family. I used to have a lot of respect for Dobson back when his main focus, if you will, was on families, marriage, child rearing and Christian morals and values. Occasionally, he gave you a political opinion. That was his prerogative.

Then, he joined Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and the rest of the Religious Right and yoked himself unequally with some of the most un-Christlike people you can imagine. Millions of Christians followed him by drinking this Kool-Aid.

Earlier this year, Dobson said there was no way he could support John McCain for president. Then, he warmed up to the idea. Now, with the Palin nomination, Dobson and Focus have jumped right on board. Tom Minnery, a senior Focus official cited “’the pro-life, pro-family platform adopted by the party,’ and the selection of Palin.”

If she becomes VP, Sarah Palin is going to have to make some serious sacrifices in the family department. She stands to be gone from them almost continuously for up to eight years. Her "values" will have to be put on hold.

Don’t dare think that Sarah Palin is Ron Paul Lite. Establishment Republicans went out of their way to deny Ron Paul's very existence. There is no way they would pick anyone of his ilk to be VP.

Dobson has become just one more sorry religious hustler. While, he may not have a fleet of Lamborghinis or a private jet, he has used his Christian influence for a most un-Christian purpose: seducing millions of Christians into endorsing evil in high places. To hear some people talk here in Colorado, Dobson's words have the weight of Holy Writ.

I got an e-mail recently from someone who thought that Dobson actually supported McCain the whole time and that he just wanted to be schmoozed. I can get with that. Dobson positively basks in his newfound role of Christian political crusader.

Sarah Palin needs to step aside. In the eyes of God, her duties as a mother are far more important than her political career. In so doing, she would be a far greater role model -- and a far greater antithesis to Hillary Clinton -- than she could ever be as VP. Edward VIII abdicated the British throne “for the woman he loved.” Why can’t Sarah Palin do likewise for the sake of her family?

One of our earliest lurches away from true constitutionalism was the Twelfth Amendment. Until then, the VP was not the president’s running mate, but the person who got the second most votes in the Electoral College. If they had radically differing philosophies, oh well. This served as a brake on executive power.

Now, the VP’s role is to do the will of the president. Whatever independent, libertarian or constitutionalist principles Sarah Palin may have held must now be subordinated to the will of John McCain. In the words of Lew Rockwell:

"When a decent person accepts a job such as vice president, our first instinct is to celebrate that good people are in a position of power and influence. This is what the McCain campaign is counting on. But this is an illusion. The influence runs completely the other way. Good people become part of the party machine and surrender all their principles in order to survive.

“We are speaking here of the leviathan state that lives on a lie. To be part of that, you too must become part of the lie. It is perhaps possible to be the governor of a small state such as Alaska and not be part of the machine. It is not possible to be vice president of the United State and not enter into the deeply immoral arena that values the burying of all principle, and saying and doing whatever is necessary to bolster power.”

Sarah Palin is walking into the gears of a machine that will grind her into pieces for its own ends. It will require enormous courage for her to walk away with her soul intact. Yet this is what she needs to do and do now if she truly is the genuine article.


(1) While these last two sentences do not contain my original ideas, I sure wish they were.


If you would like to post this, please e-mail me and include this URL.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 127.

#16. To: snoopdougg (#0) (Edited)

Palin gave one of the better convention speeches I can remember. I also loved Buchanan's in '92 in Houston. These two are the only ones I can actually recall because the rest were so uneventful. The Collective membership should be drawn to her given Biden is a knows Zionist while Palin's allegience at this moment is less certain. This would be true to their political formula for choosing candidates, that is if they haven't all become die hard Dems.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-09-06   9:50:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Jethro Tull (#16)

Can you highlight some of the better parts of Palin's speech? You should have no trouble to either produce the memorable quotes or even paraphrase something.

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-09-06   9:55:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#18)

Without reprinting the entire thing, here's my impression; the tone was upbeat, funny, sarcastic, loaded with direct smack downs to the "community organizer" and his lack of accomplishments. The delivery was a wonderful contrast to the pomposity of your God-Man and his faux Grecian setting.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-09-06   10:00:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Jethro Tull (#19)

Okay, so to summarize, she had nothing to say (the only thing you could remember was her making fun of Obama's being active in a faith-based org), but she said it in a nasty way that made her stupid party feel good about her nasty emptiness.

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-09-06   10:04:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#21)

Nasty is your word, not mine. She was funny and liberalism deserves heavy doses of humor and sarcasm. How else does one counter "feelings" and an empty mantra of hope and change :)

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-09-06   10:23:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Jethro Tull (#27) (Edited)

Nasty is your word, not mine. She was funny and liberalism deserves heavy doses of humor and sarcasm. How else does one counter "feelings" and an empty mantra of hope and change :)

Her zingers were a riot. The fans of Ceasar are not amused. I'm now trying to figure out if they are racists or sexists. ;)

Wouldn't it be great if Sarah dressed up in a toga, with a crown of arugula, sporting sandals, perhaps a stone tablet and dragged in a couple of styrofoam columns to the VP debate? Throw in some thunderbolts.

Peppa  posted on  2008-09-06   10:30:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Peppa, christine, jethro tull (#31)

Wouldn't it be great if Sarah dressed up in a toga, with a crown of arugula, sporting sandals, perhaps a stone tablet and dragged in a couple of styrofoam columns to the VP debate? Throw in some thunderbolts.

Damn...excellent idea.

The numbers crunchers say Palin is more popular than the other three system losers, Obingo, Bidet and McKooK.

Someone out there is paying attention.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-09-06   10:36:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Cynicom (#34)

I have another one: how about Palin/McCain both in swimsuits, shown sprinting toward the symbolic 'finish line'.

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-09-06   10:39:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#35)

how about Palin/McCain both in swimsuits,

I hope you are red blooded American enough to at least not let partisan politics blind you to a rather comely young lady??????

Cynicom  posted on  2008-09-06   10:43:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Cynicom (#37)

It's so funny to watch the stoopids (aka 'the conversatives') doing their conversative dance macabre. It begins with their screaming their lungs off, swearing that never-ever, for as long as they live, are they going to support freaking homosexualist liberals such as McCain. Then, once McCain gets the nomination, they quickly jump into neutral while secretly searching for ways to enthusiastically support their favorite traitor without losing much face.

The final stage is where, once they find some ridiculous 'reason' to support the creep, they offer their backsides wide open, begging to be penetrated. Dobson is one of them. And, anyone who believes that Rush or Honeybee are not going to enthusiastically vote for McFreak and his prop babe must be in a reality-denying mode or uninformed or completely brainwashed - if that which was washed could qualify to be called a brain.

It is also funny to watch some of this site membership, gently swinging into the McCain-loving camp. They are, oh yes, proud patriots and unflinching conversatives, or maybe freedom-loving libertarians but, in the end, they are going to beg everyone else to help bring McCain into the White House and therefore save the nation.

And I like it because, after all, what America is really all about is... massive entertainment.

To quote myself...

This is EXACTLY where this thread is moving.

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-09-06   10:46:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, jethro tull, peppa, christine (#40)

This is EXACTLY where this thread is moving.

Go way back Vast...

I have told you many times, why not try adding something of value to any discussion.

Lets put us all on the same page for a starter..

Many of us KNOW the government is the enemy. If you cannot come to terms with that very basic premise, then we will never have a decent discussion on anything political.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-09-06   10:52:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: Cynicom (#44)

Indeed, the gov't is the enemy. Therefore, what you must do, if you can do anything, is to act in ways that prevent the government from getting bigger or stronger or at least don't accelerate the move.

A McCain government would only accelerate the trend that Clinton/W shepherded. Obama is less likely to continue on that path while McCain is practically certain to give us a strict, war-dedicated, police state.

Now, you go ahead and facilitate McCain's victory.

I stated in the past that Obama is going to win by a landslide. Maybe I was too optimistic. One 'given' in my calculation was the assumption that those who go out and vote have some basic decency. But, the sad reality is that most of those rushing to vote this coming November are going to be the same people who not only elected Clinton, but they re-elected him. And, later, not only did they elect W, but they re-elected him.

So, when you stop assuming that 'basic decency' is part of the equation, because most people lost it, then McCain is more competitive.

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-09-06   11:05:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#49)

Obama is less likely to continue on that path while McCain is practically certain to give us a strict, war-dedicated, police state.

you're basing that on false hope.

OBAMA 'ENLISTS' - DEM AGREES US IS FIGHTING 'WAR ON TERROR'

christine  posted on  2008-09-06   11:25:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: christine (#55)

None of us knows the future and no one can fully control the future. However, it is quite clear that certain events are likely to move the overall trend a little to the right or a little to the left - think of how hurricanes move. Within that context, there is very little doubt that McCain is going to bring about more war and waste than his opponent while the growth and the intrusiveness of the welfare state is likely to be the same, regardless of who gets to sit on the throne.

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-09-06   11:30:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: a vast rightwing conspirator, Cynicom, Ferret Mike (#63)

Vast, you know I respect the pro-Obama crowd a great deal. I don't want to know how you've voted as that is personal and private, and sacred. But it would be very easy for someone who had only ever voted one party to come to the conclusion that the problems we face were mostly the other party's fault.

Think about that.

buckeye  posted on  2008-09-06   11:48:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: buckeye (#79)

For prez, I voted thusly: Bush, Bush, Dole, Buchanan, Kerry.

Is this good?

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-09-06   11:50:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#82)

Is this good?

Well you've come to different conclusions than I have about the political system. So my suggestion wasn't helpful. If Kerry had won in 2004, I'd bet that we'd still be in Iraq, Afghanistan, and we'd still be shaking the saber at Russia over South Ossetia. We'd still be tasing protesters at national conventions. And we'd still be spying on Americans.

buckeye  posted on  2008-09-06   11:55:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: buckeye (#85)

. If Kerry had won in 2004, I'd bet that we'd still be in Iraq, Afghanistan, and we'd still be shaking the saber at Russia over South Ossetia. We'd still be tasing protesters at national conventions. And we'd still be spying on Americans

Amen brother and amen.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-09-06   11:57:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: Cynicom (#87)

If Kerry had won in 2004, I'd bet that we'd still be in Iraq, Afghanistan, and we'd still be shaking the saber at Russia over South Ossetia. We'd still be tasing protesters at national conventions. And we'd still be spying on Americans

Amen brother and amen.

Would we still have firearms?

Rotara  posted on  2008-09-06   12:02:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: Rotara (#89)

Would we still have firearms?

Yes...

The "government" has not configured a fail safe method of requiring all firearms to be confiscated.

Myself, I suspect they would need some national emergency, who knows what that might be, to convince most law abiding citizens turn in their weapons, and then use fear and force on the rest of us.

It will be interesting to see which comes first, a draft, weapons seizure, or gold confiscation. My odds are on a draft.

Partisan voters will be unhappy.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-09-06   12:08:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: Cynicom (#90)

I think this obsession you have with a draft is wishful thinking on your part.

House.gov doesn't want it. Senate.gov doesn't want it. WhiteHouse.gov doesn't want it. "All branches of the armed services".mil do not want it.

Morever, the "defense" contractors, the .com part of the equation (Blackwater, Halliburton, etc.), would not profit from a return to conscription.

Sam Houston  posted on  2008-09-06   12:52:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#105. To: Sam Houston, peppa, lodwick, christine, jethro tull, ALL (#96)

I think this obsession you have with a draft is wishful thinking on your part.

In the late 1930s...

Roosevelt guaranteed he would never send American boys to fight foreign wars. ( I remember his assurances only too well)

The House did not want a draft.

The Senate did not want a draft.

The people did not want a draft.

The military DID want a draft. (Because they knew what was coming)

First peacetime draft in American history Sam. No war, but a draft, we found that odd.

The bill passed by one vote, FDR signed two days later, turns out Sam, they were all lying except the military.

We were assured it was for American homeland defense, does that sound familiar? Off went the cannon fodder Sam, by the hundreds of thousands. Then by golly, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, invaded American territory and our government invaded North Africa...Does that ring a bell Sam. Do you think just maybe all those good folks at the top were lying????

Then the boys went by the millions Sam, 16 million to be exact. All men to age 65 were forced under law to register, my Grandfather born in 1878 was one. My brother was conscripted early and never came back. My other brother was hauled in as a draft dodger, their mistake, he was only 17.

Then in 1948, once again everyone was against a draft, BUT IT WAS BROUGHT OUT ONCE AGAIN AND IT GOT ME. There was NO war, but they were getting prepared for one and we invaded Korea. I didnt even know where it was.

Sam, history is a harsh teacher, people lie and if you disregard history, you do so at your own peril.

Obsession Sam???? Been there did that twice, lost both times. Trust the government if you like however I hope you are over 65. If not be careful of what you deny.

Cynicom  posted on  2008-09-06   13:17:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#126. To: Cynicom (#105)

I'm old enough not to worry about this, but you are ignoring what I am saying.

It does not PAY to bring back the draft. Our legislators are owned by the contractors. Follow the money.

Sam Houston  posted on  2008-09-06   14:50:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#127. To: Sam Houston (#126)

I'm old enough not to worry about this, but you are ignoring what I am saying.

It does not PAY to bring back the draft. Our legislators are owned by the contractors. Follow the money.

Sam...

Ignore???? correct me if I am wrong, you said something about an obsession????

Cynicom  posted on  2008-09-06   14:58:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 127.

#131. To: Cynicom (#127)

I understand our history and that drafts used to be the way America went to war. I am saying that was "pre-fascist" America.

We are now a fascist state, but it is fascism with a twist.

In classical fascism, the state directs the corporations. In American fascism, the corporations direct the state. The corporations cannot make money off a draft; therefore, there won't be one.

Not even Obama, were he to somehow be (s)elected, can get this through if the corporations don't want it. Obama will be serving at their pleasure. They raised hundreds of millions of dollars for him and even more for McThuselah.

Sam Houston  posted on  2008-09-06 15:17:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 127.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]