Daily Archives: July 3, 2009

Sarah resigns: what next?

So, Sarah Palin has resigned.

Why? Predictably, liberals are thinking the worst possible things.

“Another scandal.”  What scandals?  Most of the “scandals” have been manufactured by her enemies and proven groundless.  Trig?  Yep, disability is horribly scandalous to Democrats.  The fact that Bristol did not have an abortion?

Are we to believe that every politician’s teenaged daughter, particularly every liberal policitian, is a virgin??  Barack Obama says he expects his daughters will fornicate, and he doesn’t want them “punished for their mistakes”. 

More lkely, she’s sick of the relentless and heartless attacks on her family from the Democrats and the Mainstream Media. 

I’m hoping that she sees the historical writing on the wall, and understands that the Grand Old Party needs to be euthanized.  After suffering attacks even from party leadership, I’m hoping she’s getting ready to organize her own third party movemeent.

In any case, what would you do if you had David Letterman joking about your children being molested, the Alaskan Democratic Party insulting your disabled son, unnamed Republican leadership calling you all sorts of names and making false accusations against you?  And that’s the stuff we know about.ve legal debts

While the above article from _The Atlantic_ suggests she’s just greedy, someone at American Catholic points out that Alaska law does not allow its governors to collect outside money, and she now has extensive legal debts thanks to the  frivolous lawsuits and ethicalmplaints raised against her.

Sarah specifically cited the attacks on her family in the resignation speech, saying, “only a dead fish goes with the flow.” 

Pundits are saying her political career is over.  It may be.  She may just be sick of it.  If so, good for her.  If she wants to start an alternate party, great.

But this is definitely the death knell of the GOP.  There’s no way the GOP can mount a successful candidate for 2012 now.  And, again, we need to be focusing on 2010, not 2012, and who is in the position to lead *that*?

OK, so that’s the official story from the talking classes.

They’re saying they don’t understand, that she didn’t explain herself, etc.

Not true at all.  SarahPAC has the full text.

Contrary to MSM reports, she *does* give her reasons:

1.  The aforementioned legal debts, and the fact that the  frivolous ethics complaints are impeding her from serving as governor, costing her and the taxpayers millions of dollars.

2.  The assaults on her children, particularly the hateful assaults on Trig. 

In fact, this decision comes after much consideration, and finally polling the most important people in my life – my children (where the count was unanimous… well, in response to asking: “Want me to make a positive difference and fight for ALL our children’s future from OUTSIDE the Governor’s office?” It was four “yes’s” and one “hell yeah!” The “hell yeah” sealed it – and someday I’ll talk about the details of that… I think much of it had to do with the kids seeing their baby brother Trig mocked by some pretty mean-spirited adults recently.) Um, by the way, sure wish folks could ever, ever understand that we ALL could learn so much from someone like Trig – I know he needs me, but I need him even more… what a child can offer to set priorities RIGHT – that time is precious… the world needs more “Trigs”, not fewer.

How many politicians would consult their kids on their careers?

The MSM are baffled.  They say her speech is “rambling”–it isn’t.  In fact, it’s very rhetorically artful and well thought-out.

They say she didn’t explain herself.  She did.

Some are even criticizing her for “comparing herself to our troops in Kosovo” (actually, she cited them as inspiration).

She may very well be telling the truth that she wants out of politics completely, that she wants to work from behind the scenes .

But Palin is a lot smarter than her enemies think she is. She’s very intelligent, and she understands conservatives, and she understands conservative philosophy.

What is the ideal candidate for a conservative?  The candidate who is elected by conscription, as Socrates says.  The story of that Greek guy who was a farmer and would put down his plow to lead the Athenian armies to victory but wouldn’t allow them to crown him king.  George Washington.

Palin may be playing the most artful card she can as a conservative: stepping out of politics so her supporters will demand her.

In any case, this basically proves what I’ve said: it’s the Freemasons.

Sanford and Palin were among the top names to be the resurgence of conservatism.  Both opposed the “Stimulus money”–and the stimulus money is the very thing the conspiracy theorists have been predicting for years.

I mean, come on.  was Sanford’s “disappearance” really that much of a mystery ? Do you know where your governor is?  Or did they know about his adultery, or learn about it in advance, and create the whole firestorm to expose him and destroy him?
They’ve tried everything else on Sarah Palin, but since she *is* ethical, they can’t make anything stick, but they’ve driven her into near bankruptcy in the process.  So insead, they threaten her children–if what David Letterman said is what we know, if what “Celtic Diva” posted on the Intenret is what we know, what threats have the Palins been receiving in private?

Alas, poor Malta!

Saruman, I mean Doug Kmiec, has been rewarded by Sauron, I mean Barack Obama, with an ambassadorship to Malta, which is the most authentically Catholic country in the world after the Vatican (but not much bigger). Of late, my fantasies of ex-patriotism (variously targeted at Ireland or Slovakia) have turned to Malta. Given the size of the country, though, there would probably high odds of running into him in the streets.

I wonder how hard it is to learn Tagalog. . . .

Why they hate Sarah Palin

A blog called Why Mommy is a Republican has series of posts about the hatred for Sarah Palin among the GOP leadership and her support among the base.  Not to beat a dead horse, but the Whig Party died in the 1850s because the Christian base dumped the Northern Capitalist leadership.

The Anchoress, quoting some passages from other blogs and columns considering the same question, asks, “Why do they hate Sarah Palin?”
Her answer is that, like Bush, they’d love her if she were a Democrat (except the abortion thing).

But I’d suggest something completely different . The hatred of Palin is different than the hatred for Bush, precisely because she *lost*. It would be one thing if McCain won and they constantly picked on Palin as VP.

But they hate Palin for the same reason that they’ve put Obama on a pedestal since 2004: they know she’s to Republicans today what Obama was to liberals 4 years ago: the pre-anointed front runner of 2012 who embodies everything the Base stands for.

Plus, Palin really is what she claims to be, what Newt Gingrich was in 1994, what Rush Limbaugh was when he first hit national celebrity in the early 1990s: an outsider.

They call her “inexperienced,” but she’s a poliical outsider who managed to get elected governor, even bucking her own party in a war against corruption.

You want to know the absolute, “you betcha” reason they hate Sarah?

She’s not a Freemason.

Anyone who thinks our government is *not* run by secret societies (and we should really use the term collectively; it’s not really one vast conspiracy) should only look as far as “Skull and Bones.” A disproportionate number of Supreme Court Justices and Presidents, as well as other major political figures and business leaders, including “Catholic” pundit William F. Buckley, have been members of the same fraternity at Yale. Both candidates in 2004 had been members of “Skull and Bones” during their times at Yale.

Or just the common use of the term “Old Boys’ Club” by liberals and/or grass roots activists of either side.

She’s truly an outsider, not a member of a secret society, not a wealthy heiress, not someone they can control with their handlers and blackmail.

Sarah Palin is not someone you’ll see backing away from principles for power the way people like Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum have done. One may not agree with all her beliefs or principles, but one knows she’s going to abide by them.

She’s also a confident, capable politician who will not be “handled,” which is why the anonymous “Republican insiders” who keep getting quoted in the media hate her, as well. It’s why the McCain Campaign internally turned against her.

She may be “inexperienced,” but “you betcha” she wouldn’t be asking a lawyer, while signing an executive order, “Now, what does this one do?” in front of the media the way Obama was doing during his first days in office.

That’s why they hate her.

Another reason I’m a conservative: liberals despise disabled people

Case in point is this ad by the Alaska Democrats which mocks Trig Palin.

The ad was made by a blogger who goes by “Celtic Diva” and is apparently an official blogger for the Alaska Democratic Party.

(The link above will take you to a blog post which shows the ad and offers advice for how to take action)


One of the things that annoys me about Democrats is taht they persist in the myth that their “base” is blue collar workers and minorities, even though, for 40 years, their real base has been rich young whites.  They go to college and get brainwashed by the liberal universities.  They feel guilty about being raised in privilege, but rather than adopting a traditional Christian response to such guilt and giving away everything to join the monastery or convent, they try to assuage their guilt by joining the Democratic Party and, as Evita puts it in the eponymous musical, “giving donations –just large enough–to the  correct charities.”

They’re really a bunch of valley girls who look at all the suffering that goes on in the world and say, “Eww! Gross! How could anyone live like that?”

As they drink their Starbucks coffees and wear their designer clothes and eat expensive organic food, all of which they obtained by driving around in their expensive Hondas, before they go off to pay $9 a person to watch the latest politically correct film by Steven Spielberg or Ron Howard, liberals bemoan the sufferings of starving or disabled children.

But their solution is not to deprive themselves of privilege so as to share with the poor. Their solution is to say, “It’s better that they should have never existed at all.”

And it’s nothing new. Flannery O’Connor writes about it in “Memoir to Mary Anne.”

Why should Registered Democrats Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and Ted Turner (each of whom I admired in my teen years because I bought the lie that all rich people were Republicans, so I presumed that a) they were Republicans and therefore, b) they were pro-life)–why should they give up their ski resorts and country clubs and jet setting to actually share with the poor when they can just use a fraction of their enormous wealth to exterminate the poor and disabled?

The Valley Girl Party wants to think the world is–or should be–a pleasant place to live. They like their worldly lifestyles. They can’t imagine any different. Remember: the Woodstock Hippies of 1968 and campus rioters of the 1970s were the Yuppies of 1985.

They don’t want to see anything unpleasant. If a marriage is difficult, that’s unpleasant. Get a quickie divorce and trade a spouse in for a new model. If raising kids is difficult, unpleasant, ship them off to 20 after school activities a week and daycare when school’s out.

Having kids deprive you of all the luxuries you think you’re entitled to? Take a pill.

Discover that your gay friends are dying of a gruesome disease like AIDS? Demand an instant cure.

Conceive a child with a genetic disorder? Have an abortion.

It’s the easy way out. It’s the more superficially pleasant way ot handle it.

Down’s syndrome is unpleasant. Marfan syndrome is unpleasant. Cystic Fibrosis is unpleasant. AIDs is unpleasant. Poverty is unpleasant.

What’s downright repulsive though is the narcissism of the American Left.

My sentiments exactly!

“DarwinCatholic” at The American Catholic has written a very good post about how we should not allow intellectualism to be come the center of our Catholicism:
“I, at least, often find myself in need of a reminder that knowledge is not all there is. At the deepest level, Catholicism is something we believe and live, not just something we read about.”