Thread: Sarah Palin's Relevance to our Future as a Country

Originally Posted by zeezil

Great post and wonderful words, ThaHound. I can see Gov. Palin is far removed from just your average politician. She's a diamond in the rough.

Your perception is right on target, Zee! She has much ground to cover, and time will prove her and improve her but for right now, it looks very promising. I just wish that somehow she and Chuch Baldwin were running mates and not with McCain...just my personal preference...

But to get Palin as president, you know what has to be done in Nov. If she goes back to Alaska, we won't see her again.

Originally Posted by Dixie

From what I understand about Alaska, it's a very difficult place to live. It's still a frontier and it needs a lot of infastructure just to catch up to the rest of the US. Alaska probably needs more earmarks than most states.

Maybe what was done should be evaluated, over how much was spent.

Dixie

Yes and true to both. Excellent perception, Dixie. Few people outside Alaska are aware of that. We are worse off actually than the 13 colonies because thousands of acres of remote lands do not even have trails let alone roughed in roads. The cold weather takes its toll even on the roads currently in place. They constantly need repairing due to the frost heaving from frozen ground and foundations sink, crack, and permafrost regions are hit the hardest. Bridges and buildings are in need of constant repair. The cost to do business here is very high and goods cost more due to the fact they must be shipped in either over 1,500 miles from US/Canada border or via ocean from Seattle. The geographical distance, extreme cold climate and isolation from the mainland make for some unique differences. Generally people spend more time in survival mode esp in the villages but also in the larger cities, so perhaps this could contribute to the pioneer like spirit. I have heard that AK today is like America was in the beginning. Neighbors are civil and help each other, there is less crime, values and morals are more reflective of early history. The State and Chamber of Commerce have great websites for more information about AK.

Originally Posted by Paige

Thank you for that post ThaHound. I was disapointed that it was not Romney but I could tell in listening to her she was someone who was not corupt. Now if McCain listens to her we have it made. I think she will leave McCain in her dust.

My pleasure. I am not thrilled with her alignment with McCain either but this has the potential to play out in some unexpected ways. And I hope the journey won't ruin her.

Originally Posted by ThaHound

I do not recall that I have ever known her to express that view publicly. She could have but I would have to research it to say for sure. First of all, illegal immigration is not so much of an Alaskan issue (it is here to be sure but not to the extent as the rest of the country) but yet many of us are very involved in helping to fight it for the other states. AK has had some extremely urgent issues to be dealt with such as the gas pipeline and issues unique to AK that had to be dealt with so I imagine these things took first priority). As a conservative Christian like myself, she should be adamantly opposed to it. I would find it out of character for her to not be opposed to it. I hope that someone will pose the question to her.

What concerns me is that people will fall in love with her other views on social issues so much that immigration will not even be brought up. Or, that they will assume that she must be good on immigration, because she is an honest, regular, person with values. This has been a tactic used by politicians to garner votes from people who should actually be opposing them. The mystery of her position concerns me. I think that McCain is banking on winning over people from our movement using the strategies above. That she can tow his line, while looking like one of us, all without being dishonest. Such is Washington politics. Its already working, even though no one has the slightest clue about what her position is about the issue that this entire site represents.

As for the second question, record has it that she backed Steve Forbe's Pres Campaign in 200 and NOT Buchanan's.

Thank you. I had heard this too. That settles it: NOT A BUCHANANITE!!!!

Steve Forbes was for open borders. He is a country club Republican who opposed proposition 187, which would have dealt with the problem here in California.

All things considered, I can not vote for this ticket.

Here is more. The story seems to be developing over the past few days:

http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/2008090 ... n_politics

Obama advisers and surrogates have linked Palin to conservative former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. An Associated Press story from Alaska, dated July 17, 1999, stated that Palin, then the mayor of the small town of Wasilla, was wearing a Buchanan button during a Buchanan visit to Alaska.

But in a letter to the Anchorage Daily News a week later, Palin wrote: "When presidential candidates visit our community, I am always happy to meet them. I'll even put on their button when handed one as a polite gesture of respect. ... The article may have left your readers with the perception that I am endorsing this candidate, as opposed to welcoming his visit to Wasilla."

Voter registration records and past news reports, however, show Palin never registered as a member of the Independence Party, and backed Steve Forbes' presidential campaign in 2000, not Buchanan.

McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb disputed Buchanan's claim, saying Palin supported Forbes in 1996 as well.

My intention here is not to simply throw her out squarely based on her non-support of Pat. Its just that this has been blogged about a lot on the net, including here at ALIPAC. Her support for Pat would be a strong argument in favor of us supporting her. Since this is not the case, it can not be used. I understand that immigration was/is not really a priority for Alaska, but the fact is that Steve Forbes was an open borders advocate. Buchanan was popular in Alaska, winning their primary in 1996. She certainly knew who he was, and did not support him....unless the McCain camp is lying. In either case, it shows no current association with Buchanan.

The Buchanan thing can be thrown out.

We still need to know what her position is.

I spoke with NumbersUSA today and was told she is a mystery on the issue even to activists from Alaska who are her friends. She did make a donation to Buchanan 2000 and has been endorsed by Bay Buchanan.

Originally Posted by ThaHound

Originally Posted by zeezil

Great post and wonderful words, ThaHound. I can see Gov. Palin is far removed from just your average politician. She's a diamond in the rough.

Your perception is right on target, Zee! She has much ground to cover, and time will prove her and improve her but for right now, it looks very promising. I just wish that somehow she and Chuch Baldwin were running mates and not with McCain...just my personal preference...

CAN TWO WALK TOGETHER WITHOUT AGREEMENT?

By Chuck Baldwin
September 3, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

John McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate was exactly what he needed to do to make himself competitive against Barack Obama in the November elections. (For the record, I predicted three weeks ago that Palin would be his choice.) As a result (and right on cue), conservatives throughout the country--especially Christian conservatives--are now fully supporting McCain's candidacy for President. Even James "I-will-never-vote-for-John-McCain" Dobson has endorsed McCain.

By all appearances, Governor Palin is a true conservative. She is pro-life. She is pro-Second Amendment. Alaska is one of only two states (Vermont is the other) that recognize the right of their citizens to carry handguns without a Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) permit. She was rightly critical of the invasion of Iraq, once calling it a "war for oil." Speaking of oil, she believes we should drill for oil in Alaska and throughout the U.S., and is critical of the federal government for allowing America to become dependent upon foreign oil for our energy needs. She even heaped praises upon the Republican that Republicans love to hate: Ron Paul. Beyond that, Lynette Clark, the chairman of the Alaskan Independence Party (the party under which yours truly is on the Presidential ballot this year) reports that Sarah Palin was a member of the party back in the early 90s. This is very encouraging in that the AIP is a patriotic, states' rights party that holds strong sentiments opposing the New World Order propensities of the two major parties. In essence, Sarah Palin is everything that John McCain isn't. Which leads to the question that was asked long ago by the Hebrew prophet: "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?"

When the no-compromise constitutionalist, Ron Paul, was asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer if he would consider being John McCain's running mate, he said no. His reason for that was that should McCain do something fundamentally counter to his constitutional convictions--such as bombing Iran without a Declaration of War (or other possible unconstitutional actions that Paul knows McCain is predisposed to)--he would have to resign. Knowing this, he (Paul) could not in good conscience accept a McCain invitation to join his ticket (not that McCain would ever ask him to be his running mate; Ron was not even invited to participate in the Republican convention, for Pete's sake).

Herein lies the problem for Sarah Palin. How can a principled conservative support the policies and actions of an unprincipled globalist such as John McCain? As Vice President, Palin will be required to promote and defend McCain's big-government, liberal, and globalist plans. For example, what will she do when John McCain proposes amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, which he is certain to do? What will she do when McCain proposes to close gun shows, or at least the private sale of firearms at gun shows? What will she do when he proposes to increase federal spending for abortion providers (which he has done numerous times as senator)? What will she do when he promotes federal spending for embryonic stem cell research? What will she do when John McCain proliferates Bush's police state machinations by expanding the Patriot Act and similar legislation? What will Palin do when McCain decides to nuke Iran (and who knows what else), not only without a Declaration of War by Congress, but also without provocation or justification? What will she do as John McCain expands the Security and Prosperity Partnership with Canada and Mexico? What will she do as McCain opens the door of the NAFTA superhighway and the North American Union? What will she do as John McCain allows the United Nations to dictate and manipulate America's foreign policy? Again, can two walk together except they be agreed?

Let's face it: John McCain is using Sarah Palin as inducement to trick conservatives into accepting his liberal, big-government, globalist candidacy. And, sadly, it is working.

As I have said before, today's national Christian leaders are among the most gullible people on the planet. They are so desperate to be invited to sit at the king's table that they will compromise practically any principle. But accepting John McCain was a not only a bitter pill, it was a BIG pill, one they could not get down without a major dose of syrup. And that is exactly what Governor Palin brings to the table: sweet syrup to help conservatives swallow John McCain.

Unfortunately, the things that make Palin so attractive (her conservative principles) are the things that she will be forced to surrender in order to be John McCain's running mate. The best thing that can happen to Sarah Palin is for John McCain to lose the November election. This would allow her to go into the 2012 elections as perhaps the Republican Presidential frontrunner. If McCain wins in November, and Palin is forced to serve at the pleasure of this globalist insider for four years, she will be forever ruined as a genuine constitutional conservative. Remember, "No man can serve two masters." One cannot be faithful to the Constitution and a constitutional apostate such as John McCain at the same time. That is an absolute impossibility.

What our conservative friends need to wake up to is the depth of duplicity and wickedness that permeates Washington politics (in both major parties) today. There is nothing that these globalist insiders at the Council on Foreign Relations (of which John McCain is a longtime member) will not do to fulfill their power-mad plans. There is nothing too evil, too sinister, or too iniquitous, including using, abusing, chewing up and then spitting out good people such as Sarah Palin. Even more unfortunate and sad is the fact that the James Dobsons of this world are too blind to see it.

Thahound,

First, thank you for this post. Second, as to where she stands on illegal immigration, I have a unique idea. You are a citizen of Alaska. Why don't we try something simple, would you be willing to either send a letter or email and simply ask her?

Originally Posted by cayla99

Thahound,

First, thank you for this post. Second, as to where she stands on illegal immigration, I have a unique idea. You are a citizen of Alaska. Why don't we try something simple, would you be willing to either send a letter or email and simply ask her?

I caught the "unique" idea play...Problem is, I am in the middle of packing for a big move right now and have too many irons in the fire. I shouldnt even be on here right honestly but I was just taking a quick break. I have no inside quicker means than any of you for contacting her. I believe all her contact info is posted on the net so it is public information. (I did just try to call the capital and got a voice mail so I left the question with a message to return my call.) Returning an in-state call might be more likely. I too, am gravely concerned about her stand on illegal immigration but I think there is still time to get our answers.