Sarah Palin CPAC 2015 Full Speech. Palin Talks PTSD and Veterans

Rudy is Right

February 23, 2015
By Ed Lasky

 
“America’s Mayor” Rudy Giuliani was right about Obama not loving America. Who supports his view? Barack Obama himself.  

Last week at a small private dinner, Rudy Giuliani openly questioned whether Barack Obama “loves America” while discussing Obama’s foreign policy and remarks about Islamic terrorists :

“I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America,” Giuliani said during the dinner at the 21 Club, a former Prohibition-era speakeasy in midtown Manhattan. “He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.”

Barack Obama has clearly been, at best, an apologist for Islamic terrorism, if not empowering Muslim terrorists (such as the mullahs of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood). Of course, now the question of Obama’s patriotism has become this week’s Gotcha question. Scott Walker was ambushed by the same question and answered “I don’t know” if Obama loves America. Well, Obama knows the answer. Reporters don’t even need to ask Obama since he would answer with some political pabulum scripted by his spinners. Reporters just need to do a few minutes of research -- or, I offer my own research free of charge.

Because Obama has answered that question and has done so numerous times over the past 7 years. He not only does not love America, he doesn’t even like it much -- and certainly has no interest in defending America or Americans for that matter.

For years, I have been collecting examples of Obama’s insults toward broad swaths of Americans. While his “gaffe” (when politicians accidentally are honest about their opinions) about small-town Americans…

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them[.]
So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

…flared as a campaign problem in 2008, there has been a steady stream of anti-American invective since then (and lest we forget, Michelle Obama had never been proud of her country until Barack Obama achieved some early campaign success ; she also thinks  we are a “downright mean country”).

In What Obama Thinks of Americans, I collected on the many ways Obama has insulted and demeaned Americans. They include the views that Americans have gotten “soft” and “lazy”; are abusers of the planet; have “lost our ambition”; are “whiners” who do not appreciate him enough and should say “thank you” to him; doctors are “greedy” people who enrich themselves by lopping off limbs and tonsils for money. More slurs against Americans can be found in that column. “Suburbs bore him” (so when you consider his views of people who live in small towns -- noted above -- he basically has said the only people he deigns to respect are city-dwellers). He thinks Americans have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, as if Americans cannot open their eyes and see the damage he has inflicted upon us-and the world. Instead he blames the media for inaccurate reporting on how wonderful his presidency has been.

How does Obama get away with being “The Insulter-in-Chief”?  Certainly the liberal media have been accomplices -- even Saturday Night Live mocked the media for their fawning approach towards Obama. But primarily, Obama and his Democratic allies consider most Americans to be stupid (see many examples here) and could not resist calling their own supporters “knuckleheads.”

The Republicans blew opportunities in 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014 to tell Americans the truth about Barack Obama and his views towards them. The media abetted them and Obama. But now that Giuliani has raised the issue the media and Democratic flaks (but I repeat myself) have retaliated.

Obama has also grown even more condescending (if that is possible) since he won reelection, because he feels unleashed and can express his contempt for America. We are a nation where “racism is deeply rooted.” Americans, at least “typical white” persons are racists. Are we to be surprised that he found the anti-white, anti-American Jeremiah Wright, Junior, his “moral compass” and mentor?  

And he did hear those vicious anti-American screeds that all but celebrated the 9/11 attacks on America as “chickens coming home to roost.”  Nor should we be surprised that Obama has appointed the anti-white racist, tax-cheat, anti-Semitic hustler Al Sharpton to be his point man on race. He welcomes Sharpton to the White House while ignoring Republicans (whom he calls “bomb-throwers” and “hostage-takers”) and most other Democrats, for that matter.

His “apology tour” overseas once he won election was an insult to America and an assault on truth. 

When a slew of foreign leaders of South and Central America unleashed torrents of abuse and insults towards Americans in 2009, Barack Obama was mute and did not try to defend America. Indeed, when Daniel Ortega, the Marxist dictator of Nicaragua, excoriated America for decades of abuse, all Barack Obama was able to say in defense was that he was “thankful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three years old,” Did Barack Obama agree with Ortega that America had sinned against the world, that America was a colonial, imperialistic and racist oppressor of other nations?

Not only was Mayor Giuliani right regarding Obama’s view of Americans, but so was Dinesh D’Souza when he wrote that Obama saw the world in a Manichean way: the nations that colonized and oppressed (that would be America, Europe and Israel) and the victim nations and people who were colonized and oppressed (the rest of the world). As I had written in “Dinesh D’Souza was right about America”):

Barack Obama certainly does not care for Winston Churchill who did inherit imperialistic dreams from his ancestors as D'Souza speculated Obama inherited the anti-imperialistic dreams of his father. Churchill's bust was soon thrown out of the White House when Obama assumed office.
And he did engage in an apology tour for America's actions overseas over the years ; was the first American President to say that America was responsible for the 1953 coup in Iran and suggested some of that nation's ire towards America was rooted in that history.

He has frequently snubbed our allies overseas while empowering our adversaries. His outreach towards the mullahs of Iran has been a constant feature of his presidency (see the excellent Obama’s Secret Iran Strategy by Michael Doran) despite the fact that thousands of Americans have lost their lives at the behest of this number one state sponsor of terror in the world. He dismisses Islamic terrorism and engages in rhetorical spin to absolve Muslims of responsibility for violence.

As is well-known the only “I” word he likes is the one that refers to himself. He helped the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt overthrow Hosni Mubarak, an ally of America, and has snubbed the current leader of Egypt Abdel el-Sisi (who delivered a very courageous speech against Islamic terrorism when the words “Islamic terror” cannot even cross Obama’s lips) while again rolling out the red carpet for Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members who hoped to regain power in Egypt.  He welcomes them to the White House whilel refusing to deign to extend the same invitation and welcome mat to Republicans. Those are the people he depicts as “bomb-throwers” and “hostage takers”; while Islamic terrorists and sympathizers are the ones he feels have “legitimate grievances.” 

 Don’t Republicans, elected in a magisterial red sweep in 2014, also have legitimate grievances regarding Obama’s flouting of the laws?  These Americans -- including the ones who voted for Republicans -- do not seem to have legitimate grievances in Obama’s view. They don’t matter to him at all except as foils to insult and generate rage against.

Since Obama sees America as a force of evil in the world that has caused much pain to the oppressed, he has steadily done his best to weaken America and our capacity to defend ourselves in the future and seriously damaged. He has plans to control America and further his agenda to “fundamentally transform America” long after he has left the Oval Office.  Didn’t he all but declare his dislike of America when he boasted he was going to “fundamentally transform America”? What was so bad about Americans before the ascension of Barack Obama? In Obama’s view: quite a lot.

So Rudy and Dinesh were right and if the besotted media had been fulfilling their responsibilities over the years America would not be saddled with a president who has contempt for millions and millions of Americans. Barack Obama agrees with Rudy Giuliani: he doesn’t love America.

So reporters should stop asking other politicians their opinions about Barack Obama’s love for America. The answer is obvious and has been for years.

American Thinker

WATCH: Black middle schooler slams Barack Obama in epic YouTube speech

Crusades Were All About Fighting the Islamic State

The Islamic State / ISIS / ISIL / Da’ish is not a new idea. It’s been around for centuries. Islam’s goal since its founding has been to conquer the world and create… an Islamic State.

When Barack Obama equated Christian Crusaders to ISIS at the National Prayer Breakfast this week, he actually did Christians a favor because it has caused a whole bunch of people to do their own research. What they’re finding is that instead of the Crusades being on par with ISIS, the exact opposite is true.

 The Crusades were about FIGHTING the Islamic State / ISIS / ISIL / Da’ish.

In this highly informative video, Dr. Bill Warner illustrates perfectly, using a map of Europe, Africa and the Middle East exactly what happened that prompted the Crusades. The next time you hear someone equate ISIS to the Crusades, SHOVE THIS in their face.

Thank you, Mr. Obama:

The Hollywood Jihad Against American Sniper

By Daniel Greenfield
1/25/2015

American Sniper is the movie that should not have existed. Even though the book was a bestseller, nobody in Hollywood wanted the rights.

 And why would they?

 The Iraq War already had an official narrative in Hollywood. It was bad and wrong. Its veterans were crippled, dysfunctional and dangerous. Before American Sniper, Warner Brothers had gone with anti-war flicks like Body of Lies and In the Valley of Elah. It had lost a fortune on Body of Lies; but losing money had never stopped Hollywood from making anti-war movies that no one wanted to watch.

Even the Hurt Locker had opened with a quote from leftist terrorist supporter Chris Hedges.

An Iraq War movie was supposed to be an anti-war movie. There was no other way to tell the story. Spielberg’s own interest in American Sniper was focused on “humanizing” the other side. When he left and Clint Eastwood, coming off a series of failed films, took the helm, it was assumed that American Sniper would briefly show up in theaters and then go off to die quietly in what was left of the DVD aisle.

And then American Sniper broke box office records that had been set by blockbusters like Avatar, Passion and Hangover Part II by refusing to demonize American soldiers or to spin conspiracy tales about the war. Instead of pandering to coastal progressives, it aimed at the patriotic heartland.

In a sentence you no longer expected to hear from a Hollywood exec, the Warner Brothers distribution chief said, “This is about patriotism and all the things people say the country is lacking these days.”

The backlash to that patriotism and the things the country is lacking these days didn’t take very long to form and it goes a lot deeper than snide tweets from Michael Moore and Seth Rogen. Academy members were reportedly passing around an article from the New Republic, whose author had not actually seen the movie, but still denounced it for not showing Chris Kyle as a bigoted murderer.

Hollywood progressives are both threatened and angered by American Sniper. And with good reason.

The most basic reason is the bottom line. Between Lone Survivor, Unbroken and American Sniper, the patriotic war movie is back. Hollywood could only keep making anti-war movies no one would watch as long as that seemed to be the only way to tackle the subject. Now there’s a clear model for making successful and respectful war movies based around the biographies and accounts of actual veterans.

Hollywood studios had been pressured by left-wing stars into wasting fortunes on failed anti-war conspiracy movies. Matt Damon had managed to get $150 million sunk into his Green Zone failed anti-war movie before stomping away from Universal in a huff. Body of Lies with Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe had a real budget estimated at around $120 million, but had opened third after Beverly Hills Chihuahua whose titular tiny dog audiences preferred to either star and their political critiques.

But why spend over a hundred million on anti-war movies no one wants when American Sniper has already made over $120 million on a budget only half that much?

Hollywood progressives don’t look forward to having to write, direct and star in patriotic pictures and if they can’t destroy American Sniper at the box office, they can taint it enough that no major star or director will want to be associated with anything like it.

Adding to their undercurrent of anger is the way that American Sniper upstaged Selma at the box office and at the Academy Award nominations. Selma is a mediocre movie, but it was meant to be a platform for the usual conversation that progressives want to have about how terrible Americans are. Instead audiences chose to see a movie about how great Americans can be even in difficult times.

There’s nothing that threatens the left as much as that.

In a Best Picture lineup that includes the obligatory paeans to gay rights and the evils of racism, American Sniper distinctly stands out as something different. It displaces Richard Linklater’s Boyhood, the previous sure winner which had its obligatory drunken Iraq War veteran claiming that the war was fought for oil, with an authentic veteran instead of Hollywood’s twisted caricature of one.

American Sniper and Lone Survivor signal a shifting wind in which the focus of movies about the War on Terror moves from the organizational conspiracy theories that Hollywood liked to make to the personal narratives of the men who fought in them. Many of the smarter progressive reviews of American Sniper grapple with the fact that the time when they could even have their favorite argument is going away.

Progressives would like Dick Cheney to be the face of the war, but are forced to deal with a world in which Chris Kyle and Marcus Luttrell will be how America sees the conflict. The lens through which the left liked to view the war, its obsessions with WMD, Bush and the path to war, have been eclipsed by the rise of ISIS and the return of American veterans. Their worldview has become outdated and irrelevant.

It’s easier for the left to vent its anger on American Sniper than to deal with its own irrelevance. The most shocking thing about the movie is not any political statement, but its presumption in dealing with the Iraq War and the men in it as if it were WW2. It doesn’t confront the left; instead it acts as if the left isn’t there. It fails to acknowledge the entire worldview through which Hollywood dealt with the war.

The left spends most of its time living in its own bubble and is shocked when events remind it that the rest of the country does not really share its opinions and tastes. American Sniper’s success is one of those explosive wake-up calls and the left has responded to it with all the expected vicious pettiness.

A billboard for the movie was vandalized and attacks from lefty outlets like New Republic and Vox not only target the movie, but the dead man at the center of it. The smear campaign against Kyle has reached new lows, because in death he has become an even more powerful symbol of everything that the left hates.

Hollywood tried to “Vietnamize” Iraq in the popular imagination. American Sniper shows they failed.

Whether or not American Sniper wins the requisite number of Oscars, its impact on Hollywood and on ordinary Americans will not go away. The anti-war movie is in eclipse. The movies that tell the stories of the sacrifices that American veterans have made in the war against Islamic terrorists are rising.

Sultan Knish

The Left's Base Motive: Vengeance

January 2, 2015
By J.R. Dunn 

 
American leftism has gotten an awful lot of mileage by monopolizing the moral high ground. It is the sole force in American that favors the poor. The sole enemy of racism. The sole comforter of rape victims.  The sole protector of defenseless Muslims. The sole guardian of the environment, and so on ad nauseum.

It all falls apart eventually -- with friends like the left, nobody needs enemies. But often overlooked is that fact that it’s bogus from the start. Any prolonged glance at the left reveals it to be an ideology of power, its major tool violence, its goal revenge.   

Leftism has always been about revenge. The works of Marx are filled with fantasies of retribution and judgment. Their tone reeks of resentment and paranoia, with blame cast for even the most trivial. "The bourgeoisie,” Marx once declared in a letter to Engels, “will remember my carbuncles until their dying day.” That’s leftism in a nutshell.

The Paris communards of 1870, the first instance of an actual leftist government-in-being, immediately began shooting bourgeois on taking power, giving full rein to the European hatred for the middle class that is all but incomprehensible to Americans. That practice has been repeated by every hard left government that has ever taken power -- the USSR, communist China, Castroite Cuba, Pol Pot’s Kampuchea, down to minor examples such as Bela Kun’s Hungarian “Regime of Light” (1919), which reintroduced the Roman practice of decimation.

This unvarying tendency toward atrocity suggests that all these regimes had something in common, and it’s not that they all suffered from boils. It’s the lust for vengeance -- revenge for slights and crimes either real or imaginary,  that can be found in every leftist from Nechaev to Bill Ayers. No less than Barack Obama spilled that when, his back apparently against the wall in 2012, he began ranting about “voting for revenge”.

This was displayed clearly enough this past holiday season.
First in the wave of bogus rape stories, brought up not to assure prosecution or to curtail such crimes, but solely as ideological weapons for use by feminists.

American leftism has always been about magnifying trivial complaints to serve as excuses for revolutionary action. The U.S. has never had a feudal system, nor a proletariat, nor any other conceivable reason for revolution. (German Marxist Werner Sombart pointed out in 1903 that the American masses already possessed what the left was promising them. His comrades badgered him mercilessly for this insight.) Instead we see trivia blown up to apocalyptic proportions -- and nowhere less than in feminism. Betty Friedan hated the suburbs. Gloria Steinem served as a Playboy bunny and never got over the humiliation. They therefore set out to upend Western civilization by inflating these slights while millions of other women fastened on atrocities such as “the male gaze,” having doors opened for them, “manspreading,” and attempted pickups -- or lack of the same.

The one actual atrocity available was rape, which feminists have utilized as heavy artillery -- “all men are rapists”, “all sex is rape”, and the like. The latest barrage came from Tawana Dunham and Rolling Stone’s “Jackie.”  

Dunham, the East Coast sophisticate’s 300-lb. “It” girl, claimed in a memoir that she had been raped by an infamous Republican while at college,  while “Jackie” regaled Rolling Stone with a tale of gang rape at the hands of the always-reliable frat house.

Suffice to say not a single detail of either story help up. A “Barry” did attend Oberlin, and he was a power in local campus conservative politics, but he lacked a handlebar mustache and he’d never met Dunham. The fraternity in “Jackie’s” yarn threw no party the night in question, nor did she show any signs of suffering such an ordeal. One of the grotesque aspects of this scandal is that nobody in the legacy media so much as alluded to the Brawley and Duke hoaxes, which in many ways were identical to these accounts. In the Brawley case a black teenage girl, afraid to return home after a late night out, claimed to have been raped by a gang of whites under degrading circumstances. A gullible media hooted the story to the skies, egged on by the “Rev.” Al Sharpton. In the Duke case, the entire lacrosse team was publicly indicted for the mass rape of a stripper brought in to entertain a stag party.

Both these stories began to collapse almost immediately, but proponents insisted it didn’t matter -- white men had raped black women innumerable times before, so collective guilt demanded that someone be persecuted. As for Duke, lacrosse was an upper-class WASP sport, and the team deserved to be punished for that alone.

Dunham and “Jackie” would do well to contemplate the fates of the accusers in these hoaxes. 

Although Brawley’s champion Al Sharpton used the incident as his next step in clawing his way to the heights (if that’s the word) of MSNBC, Brawley herself today lives pseudonymously in Northern Virginia owing millions in legal fines. The Duke athlete’s accuser, Crystal Mangum, is serving hard time for the murder of a paramour.

Both Dunham and “Jackie” were looking for revenge for something -- all that we know is that it wasn’t rape.

Even more serious -- for the nation as a whole as well as those directly involved -- is current racial unrest triggered by blatant attempts to manipulate racial tensions through the actions and rhetoric of Barack Obama and Eric Holder et al. Long-term efforts to decriminalize the actions of black lawbreakers, beginning with the Trayvon Martin incident and progressing to the Ferguson shooting, have dovetailed with several standard episodes of police incompetence in Cleveland and Staten Island to create as fraught a racial atmosphere as at any time since the late 60s. (So much for the “post-racial” president.) This culminated in the assassination of two police officers in Brooklyn by an unstable career criminal, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, who had boasted on his Facebook page that he was out to avenge the Brown shooting by “giving wings to pigs.” (With the customary competence of the urban gangster, Brinsley shot not white officers but Wenjian Liu, an Asian, and Rafeal Ramos, a Hispanic.)

Here is a case where the leftist yearning for vengeance was reified by a maniac -- a not at all uncommon occurrence. Their rhetoric and posturing brought their fantasies and desires for vengeance to life before their eyes -- though certainly not in a way that they would have approved of, seeing as there can be little opportunity to exploit it. Whatever else he was, Brinsley is in no way a revolutionary hero.

The left’s entanglement with vengeance is easily understood -- it has nothing else. Their messiah has failed to lead them into Eden -- his policies, both domestic and foreign, have failed catastrophically one after another, leaving him nothing to show for six years as president and a nightmare gauntlet for the remainder of his term. His response -- and the response of the left as a whole -- amounts to little more than disjointed and incoherent actions. In the past six years, every last hope and dream of the left has been exposed -- there is nothing left.

So what does the left have but vengeance? It got them this far -- it will have to maintain them through the rest of Obama’s tenure, and beyond. 

So it follows that we will see more of it over the coming two years.  It could be argued, in fact, that a number of Obama’s recent actions amount to revenge. His immigration “reform” was punishment for a nation not worthy of him. His “opening” to Cuba acts as a punishment of Hispanics for letting him down in the midterms.

“Revenge is a dish best eaten cold”; “When seeking vengeance, be sure to dig two graves”. All the adages concerning revenge are cautionary. It’s something to be avoided, to be left to fate or karma or the hands of the Almighty. This is not something to be overlooked, if the condition of Tawana Brawley and Crystal Mangum are any indication.

But the left will overlook it. They despise ancient wisdom and they don’t have an Almighty. That being the case, we should prepare for a parade of Trayvons and “Jackies”, Lenas, and Ismaaiyls.

American Thinker

Newsmax Highlights Five ‘Hurdles’ to a Palin Presidential Run

December 29 2014 
By: Steve Flesher

 
As you know, Newsmax is currently profiling many individuals who are recognized as potential presidential candidates for 2016.  iizthatiiz reported on their showcasing of Governor Palin’s positions on many issues. As such, Newsmax has followed up their original article with a presentation of what is perceived as being Governor Palin’s strongest hurdles that she’d likely face if she chooses to announce a run for president. They are listed as follows with my responses:

1.) The mainstream media.  "The mainstream liberal media has Sarah Palin in their sights and are eager to shoot her down at the slightest opportunity. There appears to be no line the media and entertainment liberals will not cross."

The mainstream media is a problem for any presidential candidate who runs on the GOP ticket.  Do "binders full of women" or "war on women" ring any bells?  It’s true, there is "no line the media and entertainment liberals will not cross" when it comes to Governor Palin which has always said more about them and their obvious perception of her as a political threat to their peaceful world of good old boys than it says about her.  I guess one can call this a "hurdle" but one could also call it an asset for two reasons.  First, Governor Palin is more vetted than any candidate ever, her skin is thicker than any potential GOP candidate one can name, and she continues to make great achievements despite the media’s attempt to assassinate her strong record of reform and accomplishment.  Second, it might not be a bad idea to have a stark contrast for the American people to see during a national election when they compare how the media will treat a liberal woman like Elizabeth Warren versus what we know to expect from them where a conservative woman is concerned. Additionally the media’s attempt to slander Governor Palin during a presidential run would ultimately have to boil down to a regurgitation of old talking points which have become pretty weak sauce at this point.  The real story here is how attacks fire her up and strenghten her as opposed to discouraging her.

2.) Communication style.  "Sarah Palin’s unique vocalisms are often the target of detractors who cannot get past her folksy manner of speech."

Well perhaps her "detractors" are elitists who run candidates like Mitt Romney or hope for candidates like Jeb Bush.  Her "folksy manner of speech" combined with her undeniable record of accomplishments speaks volumes and connects to millions of ordinary hardworking Americans who love this country and want to see Obama’s fundamental transformation of the country they love stopped in its tracks.  It’s who she is — a straight-shooting reformer who calls it like she sees it.  Again, this is an asset, not a "hurdle."

3.) Divided conservatives.  "Sarah Palin is a polarizing figure in that people seem to either love her or hate her. While she has a very large and devoted conservative base, which includes the Tea Party, conservatives are divided on what role Sarah Palin should play."

They then go on to quote a piece from an article written over at The Week (who should probably consider changing their name to The Weak).  Just yesterday I posted a new poll from CNN/ORC reflecting Jeb Bush as the new frontrunner for the GOP yet highlighted how the same respondents don’t seem to agree with him on any issues.  I think it’s probably safe to assume that some of these "conservative" writers at The Week are probably among the few that do agree with him on those. They go on to quote a Red State article that says:

"Sarah Palin like Ronald Reagan understands that presidential elections are won in the grassroots campaign trenches found in Ohio counties and Pennsylvania coal fields … America’s conservatives know full well that Sarah Palin also knows how to use a microphone. Much like, Reagan, Palin is committed to let millions across the nation speak through it in 2016!"

One gets the impression that The Week would have had very little good to say about Ronald Reagan who faced the establishment favorites in his own primaries. To say Governor Palin faces a hurdle because of this also acknowledges that the same would occur in the case of Senator Cruz or Joni Ernst who’ve both been endorsed by Governor Palin and have overcome them.  Her unwillingness to go along to get along with the GOP’s establishment is an asset to the majority of grassroots voters.

4.) 2008 election: "Some conservatives say John McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin as his running mate cost him the election and gave America Barack Obama. Former McCain advisor Nicolle Wallace has repeatedly trashed Palin. However, Breitbart reports this as an attempt to cover up Wallace’s inept campaign advice that contributed to the election loss."

The only time McCain’s numbers went above Obama’s in the general election of 2008 was right after the convention and the introduction of Governor Palin as his running mate who ultimately carried the weight of that ticket’s momentum on her shoulders.  Ultimately her star was used inappropriately as many staffers clutched onto its coattails and went on to sell her out for their own gain.  For example, Nicolle Wallace’s continued bashing of Palin has reaped rewards for the failed staffer with attention at MSNBC and a spot on ABC’s The View.  That’s the same media described above who view Governor Palin as a political threat. Incidentally after Wallace was brought on to The View, ratings took a "drastic plunge."

5.) Overexposure: "Sarah Palin was the governor of Alaska and the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee. She has been a Fox News contributor, has written three New York Times best-selling books, is the executive editor of the Sarah Palin Channel, the host of "Amazing America" on the Sportsman Channel, and Time Magazine listed her as one of the 100 most influential people in the world. While these are all impressive accomplishments, the media has continuously targeted Sarah Palin and her family, and her detractors have an arsenal of vitriol to use against her in a political campaign."

One thing they failed to mention is her political action committee and her continued activism which has taken up as much (if not more) of her time as her other projects have.  Accordingly, Governor Palin has spent more time on the ground talking with Americans in flyover country than most D.C. politicians.  She does this while she honors vets, speaks at various conservative events, and campaigns for candidates that she endorses.  In 2008, the narrative on Governor Palin suggested that she didn’t know enough about the lower 48 or international affairs to be VP.  Now that she has given speeches in Hong Kong, met with Netanyahu in Israel, and has probably been in every state across this nation multiple times since then, it looks like the critics who viewed her as an unknown in 2008 are prepared to punish her unique talent for tapping into pop culture as a famous conservative by claiming she’s been overexposed. The bottom line is no conservative has defied the intentional attacks of the mainstream media, fully represented the grassroots on issues, desires to reform the corruption in DC from top to bottom, connects to average hard working Americans, can get so many good conservatives elected to office, and successfully utilize pop culture to their advantage like Governor Palin has done.

If these are her hurdles, she’s in pretty good shape to run if and when she chooses.

Conservatives 4 Palin.