Sarah Palin Asks (About The "Fiscal Cliff")"Politicians.Were they lying then or are they lying now?"

From Adrienne Ross at Conservatives4Palin: 

With the risk of going over this “fiscal cliff” we’ve been hearing so much about, Governor Palin has brought attention to a letter written by Brent Bozell, Chairman of ForAmerica, addressed to Speaker John Boehner, Leader Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Minority Whip John Cornyn. She asks the following question: 

Sarah Palin · 3,485,444 like this

2 hours ago · 

• "Politicians. Were they lying then or are they lying now?"

******************************************************************************

From:For America (extract-read the entire post at the link in green)

ForAmerica’s Bozell calls out GOP leadership on Fiscal Cliff

November 27, 2012

Speaker John Boehner, Leader Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Minority Whip John Cornyn
United States Capitol
Washington, DC 20215

November 27, 2012

Speaker Boehner, Leader McConnell, Majority Leader Cantor, and Minority Whip Cornyn,

The 2012 election is over and now is the time to focus on delivering on the promises you made to the country during the campaign.

With the so-called “fiscal cliff” rapidly approaching, both sides are making opening gambits and the talk so far is alarming. You led the Republican Party for two years claiming emphatically that the tax increase on “the wealthy” that Barack Obama is determined to enact is really a devastating tax hike on small business owners that would kill jobs and decimate any kind of economic recovery. Now conservatives see daily stories asserting that the GOP agrees with the President that “revenues are on the table” and GOP elite are all over the airwaves asking if the Tea Party will care if “a few multi-millionaires pay more in taxes.” That talk is only embolding liberals to demand even higher taxes. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and others are openly calling for a return to taxing Americans in the top rate at 91 percent. Yes that’s ludicrous, but liberals feel comfortable making such outlandish proposals because they feel you are weak enough that you will continue to surrender to evermore higher taxes having capitulated once already. They will never be satisfied. You know that.

Conservatives have one question to ask: If you now claim a tax increase on small business is the correct course of action, were you lying all along when you claimed this tax increase would decimate the economy? Because if you were not lying, you will now be willing participants in the destruction of American jobs in a time of economic crisis. This is the question you must answer, given the posturing of many Republicans in the immediate aftermath of the election.

However, if the GOP wakes up and decides that the principles they fought for during the campaign were more than empty political posturing, there is another option. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently released a report which makes clear that if the fiscal cliff is ignored, once again punting the ball away, federal public debt as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – currently at a 60-year high of 70 percent – would skyrocket to a catastrophic 90 percent. The CBO report provides options for reforming the biggest drivers of our long term debt – entitlements – and to no one’s surprise two of the biggest steps that Congress can take toward getting our fiscal house in order are: repealing ObamaCare’s gigantic insurance subsidies and repealing the individual mandate. According to the CBO, repealing ObamaCare’s insurance subsidies would save $150 billion in 2020

Fair use notice: This website contains copyrighted material, the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Excerpts of such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this website is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Original material published on this website may be excerpted and the excerpt reproduced for the purpose of critical reviews. However, such original material may not be reproduced in full on another website or in any manner without prior approval from this website’s owner. In all cases when material from this website is reproduced in full or in part, the author and website must be credited by name and a hyperlink provided to this website.

Read More

Post Election Redux;Limbaugh"Obama Wins There's Going To Be 3rd Party";Palin "It Is A Possibility"

With the usual suspects promoting Jeb Bush as the next 'electable" centrist Republican presidential candidate and Bush not denying the possibility, the third party question arises. It comes into question very seriously too. After the establishment had their man, Romney, run as Mr. Electable, and conservatives were told they had to vote for him, which anecdotal evidence says happened, (with much nose holding)  voices are heard loud and clear "never again".

"Never again" can take two forms. It can mean that only a true conservative like Palin must be the candidate in 2016 to get conservatives to the polls, or it can mean if Palin is not nominated, and the Establishment forces another "moderate" on the party, then conservatives would look to the creation of a new, genuinely conservative, party. 

I firmly believe we have reached the point of no return-it is genuinely 'either-or" for 2016. 

Better voices than I made this point during the recent primary season, and it is instructive to have another look at what was said as, in the light of the defeat of the Establishment's "electable" choice, the third party question has achieved full and vital significance. Below is my original post which I have not amended as the points are valid and pertinent still-in fact even more so. This issue needs to be considered and addressed well in advance of the 2016 election to allow for third party consideration and, if need be, implementation.

Here's Doug Brady at Conservatives4Palin with his analysis of Rush Limbaugh's comments regarding the coming third party should Romney lose. It may be that the converse is equally correct-if Romney wins, and doesn't deliver i.e. flip- flops, then that would probably ensure the emergence of a genuine third party even more quickly than an Obama victory would.

Is a third party option viable? After Brady's post I show that in my opinion, based on historical data analysis, it most certainly is.

Categorized | Opinion

Rush Limbaugh: “If Obama wins, it’s the end of the Republican Party”

Posted on September 11 2012 - 5:17 PM - Posted by:Doug Brady | Follow Doug on Twitter!

Via Mediaite:

He went on to refer to MSNBC host Chris Matthews saying last week that an Obama re-election would mean the end of conservatism. “Nope,” Limbaugh disagreed, “if Obama wins, it’s the end of the Republican Party.”
“There’s going to be a third party that’s going to be orientated towards conservatism — or Rand Paul thinks libertarianism,” he continued. “If Obama wins, the Republican Party will try to maneuver things so conservatives get blamed. The only problem is right now, Romney is not running a conservative campaign.”
“But they’re going to set it up, ‘Well, the right sat home, the right made Romney be other than he is.’ They’ll try to deflect the blame, but they got who they want,” he said of the Republican Party’s selection of Mitt Romney for president.

Rush is right on a number of levels. If the Mittster loses, the Republican Establishment will indeed blame conservatives. In 2016 they’ll be pushing their next “Mitt Romney”. Jon Huntsman, anyone? But, as Rush notes, the Republican Establishment got their guy, and if he loses, it sure as hell won’t be the fault of conservatives. It’ll be the logical end result of a party whose powers-that-be are embarrassed by conservatism, and are doing everything they can to purge conservatives from their ranks. Go figure that conservatives are less than enthused about supporting their anointed one. And whenever conservatives feel inclined to cut the Mittster some “ABO” slack, his penchant for saying stupid things like this is a stark reminder of why they didn’t trust him in the first place.

Whether or not an Obama victory sends the Republicans the way of the Whigs is anyone’s guess, but it certainly should. I for one won’t shed any tears, and will actively support a third party oriented toward constitutional, limited government conservatism. Conservatism triumphs every time it’s tried, but unfortunately those running the show in the party that purports to be the home of conservatism have made it crystal clear that conservatives are no longer welcome.

(h/t Steve)

***********************************************************

Sarah Palin said a third party option is not beyond the realm of possibility.

When asked if she would consider creating a third party if neither Gov. Romney nor President Obama would budge from their current positions on a variety of issues, Palin left open the door. "Look what happened in the mid 1800's. The Whig party went away and the Republican Party surfaced. Because the electorate got sick and tired of the party fighting for power and not doing the will of the people." Palin went on to say history could repeat itself. " If history is an indication it is a possibility," she said. "If the Republicans don't remember what the planks in the platform represent ... that is opportunity to prosper and thrive in the most exceptional nation in the world. We do that through a free market.

If the Republicans become like the liberal left and democrats, I wouldn't be surprised if history didn't repeat itself."

If Mitt Romney wins and institutes policies which are no different from the Obama administrations, and the 2014 mid-terms are a similar expression of Tea Party disgust as was the 2012 landslide, then a conservative third party for 2016 is highly probable. Given the near impossible odds against unseating a sitting president at a convention, as the example of Taft and Carter, who were highly unpopular proved as they both withstood challenges from hugely high profile opposition (Roosevelt and Kennedy) it would be foolish for the Tea Party to take that route.

On the other hand, if Romney loses this November (and the "progressive" left is unhappy with Obama's second term) and the establishment tries to foist another similar candidate (or heaven forbid, Romney once again) on the rank and file in 2016, then yes, by all means, let the Beltway have their way. Then the Tea Party, in coalition with perhaps the Paulite's could well start a third party.

Even with massive enthusiasm behind such a movement, history shows that victory first time up would be unlikely (although a massive economic dislocation would prove an exceptional catalyst). Teddy Roosevelt crushed the Republican establishment in 1912 but lost heavily to the Dem's, La Follete had substantial enthusiasm but did poorly in the Electoral College, as did Perot and George Wallace.

The new Republican Party lost in their first outing, whilst performing credibly, and after the next election became the major force in presidential politics for the next 50 years. Thus the Whigs,who displaced the Federalists, and the Republicans prove that a new party can, if there is a major social shift, not only do well but can become a dominant force.

Below are illustrations of how a new party could eclipse the GOP as it now stands and win in 2016, although 2020 in a straight two party race would seem more likely. The major question would be whether, if the new party did well but did not win, it could stay around for another run unlike Roosevelt's Progressive Party.Thus those who might consider a new party would have to also consider the massive commitment it would require.

The question arises, would a third party run give it a realistic chance of winning the presidency in 2016?

The answer is, yes if the environment if right. If by November 2014 the economy is not better than now, or has turned down further, and if Romney were president, then a three way vote split is quite possible.

This approximates the three party (Dem/Bull Moose/GOP) 1912 election. That election was prevented being thrown in the House because sitting President Taft only carried two states, but split the vote with Roosevelt 23% to 27% denying Roosevelt enough electoral votes to deny Wilson an outright win.

Whereas the scenario below, realistically for the scene over 100 years later, shows the GOP candidate winning enough electoral votes to ensure no candidate had a majority.

Given a genuine conservative, like Palin, headed a mass movement third party run, and a split in the left was exacerbated to the point that the "Progressives" stayed home on election day, and the Tea Party turned out en-mass, then the map below (with the prospective third party states in beige) is a very plausible result.

In this scenario the Dem candidate would not have the 270 electoral college votes needed for outright victory. Under the constitution, the GOP standard bearer,the Dem, and the third party candidate would, presuming no other candidate had any electoral college votes, (they would be eliminated from the balloting as only the top three go through for consideration) be the candidates the House would decide from.

Every state would have one vote based on the result of each states party representation. Thus, for example New York's one vote would go to Obama and Wyoming's one vote would go to e.g. Palin or whomever the conservative was. It would be presumed that the votes of the states that Republican had won would go to the conservative, if after the first ballot no candidate had a majority of states votes, and if the conservative was the second choice of voters as per the map below.

Given it would be unlikely that the GOP would lose control of the House in the 2012/14 elections thus, on the most recent analysis, the GOP would have a majority of the 50 states votes based on caucus outcomes when balloting. If Romney were president and the Dem's controlled the majority of state delegations then 2020 would be the year of transition

This scenario played out before. In the election of 1824 Andrew Jackson finished first with more electoral votes than John Quincy Adams, William Crawford came third and Henry Clay fourth. With Clay eliminated he threw the support of his states to Adams, who was duly elected, based on the fact of his having the majority of states.

Interestingly the combined Adams/Clay popular vote was 43.9% to Jackson's 41.3% so in effect electoral justice was done. Similarly in the map below the combined non-Dem electoral vote is 278-eight above the minimum of 270, and thus electoral justice would also have been done 187 years later

The full constitutional scenario is set out below the map."Undecided" means third party and the map represents a 2016 scenario disregarding Obama as the Democratic candidate. In the ensuing map from 1912 it clearly shows how a sitting president can only carry two states as did Taft so the scenario is entirely plausible.

Wilson received 41.7% of the vote and 435 Electoral College votes/Roosevelt 27.4 and 88/Taft 23.2% and 8. Thus Roosevelt/Taft had a popular vote majority (The Socialist Debs received 6%)

The constitution is very clear on the matter. Article 12 states, inter- alia:

"The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice."

Thus, if the no candidate with an electoral college majority scenario plays out, and presuming there are no other candidates who have won electoral votes, the House would meet to choose the next president by January 20th 2017, with the states having one vote each, whilst the Senate would meet to choose the Vice-President.

Based on the current composition of the House, and if voting went strictly on party lines, with no vote switching or abstentions in states with a close proportion of Republicans and Democrats, the Independent (or third party) candidate would be chosen on the first or second ballot.

Read More

Political Scientists At UC Denver See Palin 2016 Front Runner

My prediction is that these political science students will go far in their chosen profession as the clearly are posses with insight and political smarts.

In a publication entitled "And the front runners for 2016 are..." in their UCD political commentary 2102 review Sarah Palin features amongst the noted front runners for the presidency in 2016;

Their observations include:



"Nonetheless, it is extremely possible, at some point in the next year or two, Hilary Clinton may change her mind and if she were to run, the Republicans, while initially hesitant, might do well to have Sarah Palin run.

After all, even if the Democrats did not have a female front runner, and Palin ran for the presidential nomination, Democrats would have a difficult time saying she disliked women. Charlotte Allen writes,

A Palin “war against women”? Hah! Not only is she a woman, she’s got a single-mom daughter, Bristol, to help with the swelling single-mom demographic. On social issues, Ms. Palin, unlike Mr. Romney, has been absolutely consistent.

Palin, could swing back a large part of the female vote to the Republican party in 2016 regardless of her Tea Party antics, simply because of her political accomplishments and position in government."

And further:

"If things stay close (after the 2014 midterms), an enamoring Sarah Palin could reinvigorate Republicans for the 2016 presidential election."

The whole article is   AT THIS LINK

Read More

Sarah Palin's Stated Positions On Abortion/Right To Life;Destroying Leftists Myths

This is the third in a series outlining the reported social positions of Sarah Palin-the first being on drugs/marijuana/enforcement/liberalization with the second being on same-sex marriage

With the Republican nomination for the presidency in 2016 an open field at this stage and with the possibility that Sarah Palin may choose to run it is important to remove the leftist myths and legends, distortions and calumnies and consider her approach to social/moral issues.

It is those issues which have been the subject of perhaps the most gross media/leftist distortion which Palin being categorized as a far right ultra-conservative.

 Palin is clealry differentiated from the likes of E.G. Todd Akin whose views on rape she repudaited by calling for him to step down from his candidacy for senator from Missouri.

The truth is that Palin holds personal religious/ethical views which she is careful to separate, as famously did John F. Kennedy, from political top down enforcement. She clearly stated this as per the article below

 In some areas her political/social views are libertarian but one of the strongest aspects of her activism is her Jeffersonian/Jacksonian dedication to states rights.

This is very clearly highlighted in Palin's attitude to abortion/right to life. Clearly she opposes abortion on a personal level, but not to totality. Just as clearly she sees the matter addressed firstly on a states right level and secondly as part of a national dialogue-the latter lead to where it may.

Any leftist who opposes states rights on this issue is a hypocrite if, at the same time, they hold to participatory democracy as being the American way.


Wikipedia

"Abortion

Palin is opposed to abortion in almost all cases, including rape and incest, but not if the life of the mother is endangered.^[24][25][26] In 2006, while running for governor, Palin was asked what she would do if her own daughter were raped and became pregnant; she responded that she would "choose life."^[25] She and her husband have stated that they have "faith that every baby is created for a good purpose."^[27] When asked what she would do as governor if Roe v. Wade were overturned, she responded "it would not be up [to me] to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values."^[28] Palin personally supported bills to outlaw late-term abortions and to require parental consent for underage abortions in Alaska,^[29] but rebuffed religious conservatives who wanted to legislate restrictions on abortion even though she agreed with the bills.^[30]
In her televised interview with ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson on September 12, 2008, Sarah Palin made the statement that as a politician she felt that her opinions were to be made openly to the public, but that sometimes it may differ with political legislation. When Gibson asked if she thought Roe v. Wade should be overturned, she replied, "I think it should and I think that states should be able to decide that issue."^[31] Palin also said that she hoped "to reach out and work with those who are on the other side of this issue, because I know that we can all agree on the need for and the desire for fewer abortions in America and greater support for adoption, for other alternatives that women can and should be empowered to embrace, to allow that culture of life."^[31] Gibson noted that Republican presidential nominee John McCain allows exceptions for rape or incest, and asked, "Do you believe in it only in the case where the life of the mother is in danger?" Palin answered, "That is my personal opinion."^[31] When pressed on the matter, she said, "My personal opinion is that abortion allowed if the life of the mother is endangered. Please understand me on this. I do understand McCain's position on this. I do understand others who are very passionate about this issue who have a differing [opinion]."^[31]"

Read More

69% Winning Ratio Over Past 100 Years When GOP Ran A Presidential Candidate From The Middle Class (Like Palin)

If the Republican establishment won't listen to the rank and file as regards the choice of candidate to run for the presidency perhaps they will listen to the voice of history. 

As can be readily seen, where the Republican candidate was identified as having roots in the middle class, in a broad measure someone who could be identified as being able to identify with the great mass of Americans that candidate won significantly more times than a candidate identified as having an elite, wealthy background.

As the party turns its attention to 2016, and the obvious need to be seen by the emerging Hispanic community as being able to identify with their needs then a potential candidate like Sarah Palin, an example of middle class emergence par exellence, should be given every consideration  If the Establishment wants to trot out e.g. a Bush,or retread Romney, then history is likely to judge them harshly.

When an Establishment/Next in line/multi-millionaire/scion of an elite multi-millionaire family runs on the GOP ticket these have been the results over the last century. Each one of the following candidates fits amongst the above categories.

2012 Romney-lost
2008 McCain-lost
2004 G.W.Bush-won
2000 G.W. Bush-won
1996 Dole-lost
1992 G.W.H. Bush-lost
1988 G.W.H. Bush-won
1916 Hughes (Supreme Court Justice)-lost
1912-Taft (Yale Skull & Bones Club founded by his father)-lost

That's six losses and three wins-a 33% winning average.

When the GOP ran candidates who were from middle class backgrounds, from farm and country, who had worked their way up in the world to hold positions of authority this was the result: (I have not included the four Roosevelt campaigns as they were outside the norm being the result of a massive depression and a war. No candidate, no matter what their background, could have defeated Roosevelt under those circumstances)

1984 Reagan-won
1980 Reagan-won
1976 Ford-lost
1972 Nixon-won
1968 Nixon-won
1964 Goldwater-lost
1960 Nixon-lost
1956 Eisenhower-won
1952 Eisenhower-won
1948 Dewey-lost
1928 Hoover-won
1924 Coolidge-won
1920 Harding-won

That's nine winning campaigns and four lost campaigns-a 69% winning ratio 

Read More

The Intellectual Elite And Palin-A Comparison With Andrew Jackson: Redux

A study of the attitude of historians*, especially of the patrician sort, to the "crass democracy' which had produced, in combination with the new Jacksonian style politics, the Presidency of Andrew Jackson (and had ousted their upper middle class strata from that leadership role in society) has a firm resonance with the attitude to Sarah Palin by the historians and pundits from the right and left who inhabit that same strata today.

Those from this class on the right express the same ambivalence to popular democracy as exemplified by James Parton the Jacksonian historian whose 1860 "The Life of Andrew Jackson" is considered one of the finest biographies of our 7th President.

If we take the overview of Parton's work included in Charles G. Seller's Jr. ("Andrew Jackson versus the Historians" Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLIV (March 1958), and where we have "Parton" substitute "David Brooks" and for Jackson substitute "Palin" we can see there is nothing new under the sun.

The elite will always show their true colors. With their nose in the air in the case of the liberal left-and with utter confusion in the case of the right-in fact the more conservative the pundit the more this confusion is expressed, as it is a battle against their inner nature, whereas with the liberals it is an excuse to vent their inner anger.

Or as Sellers stated it: " For Parton's view of democracy is essentially ambivalent. Like many intellectuals, Parton will, at one moment, excoriate the masses for their ignorance and for vulgarizing American life; but at the next moment he will turn around and extol democracy as the mark of an enlightened society."

Periodically in the Jackson (biography), Parton will rail against the vicious mob who could; "feel, but not think; listen to stump orations but not read...who could be wheedled, and flattered, and drilled by any man who was quite devoid of public spirit, principle and shame, but could be influenced by no man of honor unless he were a man of genius."

Then, a little while later he will announce that the "instinctive preferences of the people must be right" and that the "truly helpful men and women of this Republic have oftenest sprung from the cabin.... and worked their way up to their rightful places as leaders of the people, by the strength of their own arm, brain, and resolution".

That Jackson overcame this instinctive class based hatred and ridicule, to become recognized as one of the greatest of presidents, should be succour to the Palin supporters who, from time to time, wilt under the ongoing onslaught-especially when it comes from the right.

It is my "instinctive preference" to consider that in due course Palin will prove to these "lettered betters" that she can claim the mantle of Jackson. In doing so, there is no doubt that some future historian of our present period will make the same comparison to the commentators of our day, as set out here, regarding the, mistaken then as ours are now, historians of 150 years ago.

*James Parton "The Presidency of Andrew Jackson" from Volume 111 of the "Life of Andrew Jackson" Edited by Robert V. Remini. Harper 1965

Read More

Sarah Palin's Stated Opinions On Same-Sex Marriage

This is the second in a series outlining the reported social positions of Sarah Palin-the first being on drugs/marijuana/enforcement/liberalization

With the Republican nomination for the presidency in 2016 an open field at this stage and with the possibility that Sarah Palin may choose to run it is important to remove the leftist myths and legends, distortions and calumnies and consider her approach to social/moral issues. It is those issues which have been the subject of perhaps the most gross media/leftist distortion which Palin being categorized as a far right ultra-conservative.

The truth is that Palin holds personal religious views which she is careful to separate, as famously did John F. Kennedy, from political top down enforcement. In some areas her political/social views are libertarian but one of the strongest aspects of her activism is her Jeffersonian/Jacksonian dedication to states rights.

This is very clearly highlighted in Palin's attitude to same-sex marriage. Clearly she opposes it on a personal level and just as clearly she sees the matter addressed firstly on a states right level and secondly as part of a national dialogue-the latter lead to where it may.

Any leftist who opposes states rights on this issue is a hypocrite if, at the same time, they hold to participatory democracy as being the American way.

It is of note to see a number of openly gay and well know political activists firmly in the Palin camp, which belies in itself the leftist propaganda.

From;The Los Angeles Times:

Gay marriage? Palin opposes it. But she is also a strong advocate of states' rights, and I'm betting she'd be fine with letting states and their voters grapple with the issue on their own. Remember that all of America didn't swing toward approval of gay marriage on Nov. 6. Three reliably blue states and their voters did. If she were smart, Palin would recruit a member of her impressive gay fanboy base — yes, she has one — to help run her campaign. I nominate Kevin DuJan of the widely read gay conservative blog HillBuzz, a Palin stalwart since 2008.


From;Wikipedia

"Palin has stated that she supports a Federal Constitutional Amendment to ban same-sex marriage.^[58] This position differed with that of her running mate, John McCain.^[59][60] In a July 31, 2012 interview with Greta Van Susteren, Palin was asked about states' rights as they pertained to same-sex marriage, to which Palin responded, "I believe that states have that constitutional right to make decisions about a variety of issues, but when it comes to some very fundamental, very cornerstone aspects of our society, of our culture, I personally would love to see a national dialogue about what will America continue to define as marriage. As a former Governor, I say let the states decide that, and that's where I would be, if I were in national office. I'd be saying let the states decide. And if you see, Greta, and pay attention to where the states have gone with this particular issue and the votes of the people, overwhelmingly the people within the states have said they want to continue to define marriage as one man and one woman, as the Muslims do, Orthodox Jews do,nondenominational Christians do, faith-practising Catholics do. It truly is a cornerstone of religion and civilisation."<sup>[61]"

From ABC
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.  Bruce had been commenting on the controversy surrounding a U.S. Navy commander and a raunchy video when she turned to the issue of gays in the military.  “But this hypocrisy is just truly too much. Enuf already–the more someone complains about the homos the more we should look under their bed,” Bruce tweeted, suggesting that virulent opposition to gays may reflect the individual has something to hide. Soon after, Palin re-tweeted the message to her following of more than 350,000 followers. “I think @SarahPalinUSA RT my tweet is her first comment on DADT, treatment of gays & attempts to marginalize us–thank you Governor,” Bruce responded on Twitter. “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.</sup> 

Fair use notice: This website contains copyrighted material, the use of which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Excerpts of such material is made available for educational purposes, and as such this constitutes ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Act. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this website is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Original material published on this website may be excerpted and the excerpt reproduced for the purpose of critical reviews. However, such original material may not be reproduced in full on another website or in any manner without prior approval from this website’s owner. In all cases when material from this website is reproduced in full or in part, the author and website must be credited by name and a hyperlink provided to this website.

Read More