Is Palin Running For President?

The Obama campaign  must think that Sarah Palin is their best weapon against the Republican Party even though she is not running for President.  That must mean she is scary to them or they want to use her as a used up punching bag.  It may mean their polling shows that their supporters believe she is the best spokesman (or should we say spokeswoman) for the party and if they are able to marginalize her or paint her as a racist, it will wash over the balance of the Republican party. Sort of a guilt by association.

Or it could mean they think that she is damaged goods that most Americans think of as a "dumb bimbo from Alaska", so by marginalizing her, they minimize the eventual Republican Candidate, whoever that might be.  Our guess is that the latter is their opinion.

We say that because we think the Obama campaign believes that Americans are so stupid that they will believe the propaganda they produce as factual and will not dig into the actual statements that Ms. Palin has made. Are they right? Hopefully, not. However, the news media and most Americans did such a poor job vetting the President in 2008,  that one might assume they will do the same sub par job this time.  Maybe Americans are really dumb!

What follows is a Breitbart analysis of the ad (it also includes the ad itself), to give you more information. We do not want to be part of the dumb American crowd. Do you?

Conservative Tom

The Obama re-election campaign has released an internet ad targeting Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, and Breitbart.com. Coming up short in the fundraising department and under fire for President Obama’s longtime association with the radical ideas of Professor Derrick Bell, the Obama campaign video features the McCain/Palin logo, and claims that right-wingers are dog-whistling racism.

The video opens with words flying in, white on blue, with the trademark McCain/Palin yellow stripe. “MORE THAN FOUR YEARS LATER,” the ad proclaims, “SARAH PALIN AND THE FAR RIGHT SAY PRESIDENT OBAMA WILL BRING BACK RACIAL DISCRIMINATION … AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE.”

The video then cuts to Palin on Hannity stating, “Barack Obama has never been seen in the conventional, traditional way of we who would describe a man of valor … And his profession as a community organizer, what went into his thinking was this philosophy of radicalism … He is bringing us back, Sean, you can hearken back to days before the Civil War ... What Barack Obama seems to want to do is to go back to those days when we were in different classes based on income, based on color of skin, why are we allowing our country to move backwards?”

“THESE ATTACKS ARE WRONG AND DANGEROUS,” the ad shouts. “IF YOU’RE TIRED OF IT, DO SOMETHING. DONATE TO THE TWO TERM FUND.”

Let’s parse this for a second. Palin was talking about the Derrick Bell story when she said all of this. Here’s the actual transcript, unspliced together by the Obama campaign. Here’s the “man of valor” clip – she was clearly talking about how Obama was accepting campaign cash from Bill Maher, a man who had called Palin a “c---“:

I don't know how anyone can sit in the audience of a commentator like Bill Maher and chuckle and laugh and think that that's entertaining. I think it's disgusting and it's dirty money that he has now provided Barack Obama's campaign, and I don't know how Barack Obama can sleep at night if he really thinks about Sasha and Malia and the treatment of some women today, how he can accept that dirty money. And granted Barack Obama has never been, I think, seen in the conventional, traditional way of we who would describe a man of valor, so it shouldn't surprise us that Barack Obama would accept that dirty money and try to get re-elected with it. But I think it does not bode well for our president's character to not speak out against that dirty money.

So she wasn’t saying anything at all about race.

As for the rest of this, she’s talking about Professor Derrick Bell. But the Obama campaign splices the footage so you have no idea what she’s talking about. The purpose is to avoid any association between Obama and Bell, of course. Here’s the full context of what Palin said:

It is a tragedy that the media did not do its job in vetting Barack Obama in 2008. Here, this is belated vetting of Barack Obama, but it must be done. People must be aware of his radical past, his radical associations … He has chosen these people because what went into his thinking through those college years, through years probably before his college years and his profession as a community organizer, what went into his thinking was this philosophy of radicalism, based on the people whom he chose to be around. He has chosen now to help lead this country more of these radicals.

So far, uncontroversial stuff. Obama’s past matters, and his philosophy matters.

But what about those Civil War comments? Again, roll tape:

He is bringing us back to days, you can hearken back to days before the Civil War, when unfortunately too many Americans mistakenly believed that not all men were created equal. And it was the Civil War that began the codification of the truth that here in America, yes we are equal, and we all have equal opportunities, not based on the color of your skin, you have equal opportunity to work hard and to succeed and to embrace God-given opportunities to develop resources and work extremely hard and as I say, to succeed. Now, it has taken all these years for many Americans to understand the gravity of that mistake that took place before the Civil War and why the Civil War had to really start changing America. What Barack Obama seems to want to do is go back to before those days when we were in different classes based on income, based on color of skin. Why are we allowing our country to move backwards instead of moving forward with that understanding that as our charters of liberty spell out for us, we are all created equally?

In other words, she’s opposing Obama’s attempt to divide us along racial and class lines. Which is what Critical Race Theory is all about – it suggests that our charters of liberty are fundamentally corrupted and there is no possibility of true change so long as they hold sway.

Notice what Obama’s team left on the cutting room floor: the vast bulk of the interview about Bell and Maher. This is a selective editing hit-job designed to make Palin look like a racist. That’s how Obama’s team is fighting back. And that’s why we must not be afraid to vet this president. The dangerous rhetoric here isn’t Palin’s – it’s the rhetoric and philosophy that infused this president with his views on race relations. That must be exposed, despite all the bully tactics of the Obama left.

Obama Files Suit Against Texas Voter ID Law

For followers of this blog, you know that we are four-square in favor of the requirement that a voter present an ID prior to voting. It is only common sense that anyone who wants to vote should prove who they are and that they are eligible to vote in the precinct. We do it here in Michigan and there have not been any concerns that someone who was not who they said they were.


Texas is being fought by the Obama Administration (another attack on the 10th amendment) to invalidate their law which requires an ID before voting.  In the following article Bobby Eberle clearly explains how common sense is not used when it comes to this subject.  We especially like the double negatives the Administration is using to fight the law. Ya gotta be a Philadelphia lawyer to understand what they are trying to do which means they are being slick!


Conservative Tom

Voter ID Law: Obama Throws Common Sense out the Window

By Bobby Eberle March 12, 2012 12:57 pm

          

Text Size: A A A

Barack Obama and his team have done it again. Whenever faced with choosing common sense, they decide they would rather go left-wing radical on the American people. In this case, Obama's Justice Department has attacked Texas' voter identification law, saying that Texas has not proven that the law is not discriminatory. Give me a break! Is it too much to ask that someone be able to prove his or her identity before voting?

This kind of nonsense just drives me crazy. In America, the vote is sacred. It's how our entire system of government runs. Americans vote for the direction they want the country to go, whether through elections of officials, ballot initiatives, or other propositions. In order for the country to run properly, the vote must be respected and must be a pure process.

We read all the time about voter fraud. ACORN, Obama's puppet agency, registered thousands of bogus people, and the list goes on and on. It makes perfect sense that if the vote is such an important part of American society, that being able to vote should and being able to prove you are who you say your are go hand in hand. Apparently, that's not what Obama believes.

According to a report by Fox News, the "Justice Department is objecting to a new photo ID law in Texas for voters, saying the state has failed to demonstrate that the the law is not discriminatory by design against Hispanic voters."

The department's head of the civil rights division, Tom Perez, wrote a a six-page letter to Texas' director of elections saying that Texas has not "sustained its burden" under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to show that the new law will not have a discriminatory effect on minority voters. About 11 percent of Hispanic voters reportedly lack state-issued identification.

Perez wrote that while the state says the new photo ID requirement is to "ensure electoral integrity and deter ineligible voters from voting" the state "did not include evidence of significant in-person voter impersonation not already addressed by the state's existing laws."

Perez added that the number of people lacking any personal ID or driver's license issued by the state ranges from from 603,892 to 795,955, but of that span, 29-38 percent of them are Hispanic.

In the Associated Press story on GOPUSA, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said "the Obama administration is hostile to laws like the one passed last year in Texas."

Hostile? I'd say that's an understatement. This is a common sense law designed to protect the integrity of the ballot box. Is that so hard to understand? Can someone please beat this guy in November while we still have the right to vote? Who knows what will happen if he gets reelected.

Britain: No Crosses Allowed

All we have to say is, here it comes! Regardless of your religion, once you start stomping on one, it will not be long until all faiths see their rights trampled.  In Britain, the current government is going to the European Court of Human Rights and saying that crosses are not allowed to be worn visibly. Hajibs and turbans are OK, but not crosses.  

We have not seen this yet in the US, however, we predict it will not be long before it makes the jump across the pond. What will you do then? Will you cave in and say "hey, it's not a big deal."  Or will you have the guts to speak up and say NO! Unfortunately, most will not.

Our larger question is, why are Arab and Sikh wear alright but not Christian? Would Jewish Stars of David also be verboten? This whole argument seems a bit outrageous and very one sided. The argument by the British government makes no sense to us. A cross might not be a requirement of the faith but does that make it wrong to wear?, Maybe our readers can help us out.  Why, in your opinion, are they taking this stand.

Help us out. Thanks.

Conservative Tom 

British Government: Christians Have No Right to Wear Visible Cross or Crucifix

By Patrick Goodenough

March 12, 2012

Subscribe to Patrick Goodenough's posts

    

The British government plans to argue in the European Court of Human Rights that since displaying a cross is not a requirement of Christianity, employers may ban them. (AP Photo)

(CNSNews.com) – Britain’s Conservative-led government plans to argue in a European Court of Human Rights case that employers are entitled to ban the visible wearing of crosses at work because displaying the symbol is not a recognized “requirement” of the Christian faith.

A document leaked to Britain’sSunday Telegraph outlines the argument the government plans to present at the tribunal in Strasbourg, France, where two Christian women will claim that their rights were violated when employers barred them from wearing crosses at work.

At the center of the applicants’ case is Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”

But the government will argue that “the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not a manifestation of their religion or belief within the meaning of Article 9.”

Furthermore, it will say that “the restriction on the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not an ‘interference’ with their rights protected by Article 9.”

“In neither case is there any suggestion that the wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was a generally recognized form of practicing the Christian faith, still less one that is regarded (including by the applicants themselves) as a requirement of the faith,” says the document, which the Telegraph says was prepared by the Foreign Office.

The second most-senior figure in the Anglican Church, Archbishop of York John Sentamu, told the BBC Sunday that the government was “beginning to meddle in areas that they ought not to. I think they should leave that to the courts to make a judgment.”

Earlier another Anglican bishop challenged the argument about displaying a cross not being a requirement of Christianity.

“OK, if you say wearing a cross isn’t a compulsory part of Christianity, we agree,” Bishop of Peterborough Donald Allister told the Telegraph last month. “But it is a duty of a Christian to be public about their faith as well as private, and that is clear New Testament teaching.”

News of the government’s intervention in the case comes amid a raging dispute between the government and church leaders over Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron’s plans to legalize same-sex marriage by 2015.

Hijabs, turbans allowed

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is the final destination of two drawn-out legal battles, brought by Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, two women who fell foul of their employers for wearing crosses at work.

Eweida, a Coptic Christian and British Airways staffer at Heathrow Airport, was told in 2006 to remove or cover up a small cross she wears around her neck. She refused and was sent home on unpaid leave. Eweida noted that colleagues of other religions, including Muslims and Sikhs, were allowed to wear religious items such as hijabs, turbans and religious bracelets.

The airline policy won the backing of the National Secular Society, which complained that activists were “determined to push religion to the front line of British life” and accused Eweida of clearly being “motivated by a wish to evangelize at work.”

The following year British Airways changed its uniform policy and allowed Eweida to return to work, but refused to pay her for the period she was suspended. Claiming religious discrimination, she took the case to an employment tribunal, but lost.

After the Supreme Court declined to consider her case, she decided to take the matter to the ECHR.

Chaplin, a nurse in her 50s, was prohibited from working at a hospital after refusing to cover up a cross she said she had worn at work throughout a 30-year nursing career. An employment tribunal in 2010 ruled in favor of the employer, a government National Health Service (NHS) trust, saying its policy was based on health and safety grounds, not religion, and adding that wearing a cross was not a requirement for Christians.

“The uniform policy of the NHS trust permits exemptions for religious clothing,” they wrote. “This has been exercised with regard to other faiths, but not with regard to the wearing of a cross around the neck.”

The ECHR has also been asked to consider two other cases brought by British Christians claiming religious discrimination – a woman who lost her job with a London council in 2007 after she refused to conduct civil partnership ceremonies for same-sex couples; and a relationship counselor who was fired by a large national charity after refusing to provide sex therapy to same-sex couples.

Britain has given same-sex couples similar legal rights to married couples under civil partnership provisions introduced in 2005.

Now Cameron’s government is proposing to legalize marriage for same-sex couples in England and Wales, launching a public consultation exercise on the matter.

Although churches will not be forced to perform “weddings” for homosexual and lesbian couples, the proposals have ignited a storm of protest.

A letter by senior Roman Catholic archbishops, read at thousands of churches across England and Wales on Sunday, warned that that changing the legal definition of marriage would be a “profoundly radical step” that would “gradually and inevitably transform society’s understanding of the purpose of marriage.”

    

Father Has Son Wear Sign After Failing Three Classes

Congratulations to the Florida father who had his son wear a sign on a busy intersection when the young man failed three classes.  Bravo to Dad!  We are sure there are going to be those weak spined liberals who will complain  that it "will hurt his self esteem."  Too bad, this is what parents sometimes have to do--get attention of their misbehaving children.  My question to those who would complain is -- would you rather have the son fail out of school or get a bit of embarrassment?  Most good parents would vote for the latter.


Conservative Tom 

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/failing-student-wears-sign-as-punishment-28585171.html