The Outlaw Sarah Palin

Hell is coming to breakfast.

Hound her, senator? A woman like Palin lives by the feud. Because of what you and your lackies in the media have said about her children over the last year, I’ve got to destroy that woman.

Well, she’ll have to run for it now … and hell is where she’s headed.

She’ll be waiting there for us, senator…

 

If this dialog sounds unfamilar to you, you are not part of my intended target audience for this post.

Where’s she going?

She knows she can do the best for us on the back of a horse.

She’s a guerrilla fighter.
She figures she can carry the fight to the enemy.

She’s going down into the Lower 48
to kill Obama

…and as many of the Marxists as she can.

How will she do that and come back here?

She won’t come back.

But she might.

You’re all alone now, Palin.

Not quite alone.

Advertisements

7 Comments

Filed under Heroes, Idea War, Resisters

7 responses to “The Outlaw Sarah Palin

  1. John Singleton (Josie Wales)

    Beautiful; love it

  2. Nice. Sarah Palin reminds most Americans of a frontier woman. The kind of woman who can ride, shoot, raise a passel of kids, be a good wife, and still have time to deal with troublemakers. It’s the kind of woman who made it possible for western civilisation to tame the wilds of North America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia, and countless outposts across Asia and Africa.

    The effete, post-modern irrational left has the power in the US. Academia, media, union, attorney, judicial, bureaucratic, legislative, and government executive power. But they are afraid of a little woman from Alaska — whether she is governor or not. They are afraid of that little lady because she has fire inside her, and they can’t deal with real fire. They’ve forgotten how, since they thought they’d bred it out of homo americanus.

    Hell’s coming for breakfast.

  3. Perceptive of you to mention Rhodesia, Alice.

  4. Salt Lick

    I love the comparison, Cannoneer. But the movie isn’t Josie Wales, it’s “Terminator.” Sarah will be challenging a global enemy willing to use the most advanced technology in existence to destroy her.

    “Sarah,” as in “Sarah Connor.”

    Against the “Obamanation.”

    Tell me again God doesn’t have a sense of humor.

  5. For you it’s Terminator. I was young, dumb, full of cum and highly impressionable in 1976 when The Outlaw Josey Wales came out. I suspect you’re a decade younger.

    Terminator was science fiction set in the future.

    The Outlaw Josey Wales was historical fiction set in the War Between The States and Reconstruction. There really were Bushwhackers and Red Legs. Bloody Bill Anderson, Senator Jim Lane and Ten Bears lived.

    Some of us knew our great-grandmothers, who told us what their grandfathers had told them of that time.

  6. Salt Lick

    Oh Hell, Cannoneer, I’m 56. I can actually play “Rose of Alabamy” on the fiddle, and my granny schooled me on when my great-great grandparents refugeed from the burning of Atlanta in 1864.

    I just meant Sarah Palin has a much harder road ahead than Josie if she goes for the presidency.

  7. Found a comment over at DocZero by z9z99 that I’m stashing here for future reference:

    A great deal of political discussion is based on a fallacy, and that is that the American people are a lost flock of sheep in need of a leader to guide them out of cultural and political backwaters. Our constitutional republic is presented as chaotic, lacking confidence, and impaired by lingering influence of undesirable prejudices. There is now an popular presumption that a president does not perform executive functions of state and government, but rather rules in loco parentis. This fallacy has become so ingrained and so prevalent that the attribute most desirable among political candidates is “vision,” the unspoken presumption being that the United States is seriously flawed and failing and in need of reform by an enlightened philosopher-king.

    The underlying, and false, premise that sustains this fallacy is that we Americans need to have our values prioritized for us by a self-selected elite who mistake ambition for enlightenment and ideology for wisdom. They tell us that we should not, …what’s the word?…cling! to values like individual liberty, love of country, and personal responsibility, nor support institutions that are unashamed of their moral principles. We are badgered by a sycophantic media to believe that all of these values and principles must be balanced against an amorphous and gaseous roster of preferred values like diversity, personal feelings, risk avoidance, changing the meaning of “fairness” to include indulging envy, preemptive abasement before our adversaries, and suicidal senstivity. Our political discourse seeks to persuade us that we need leaders who will tell us for our own good what our needs are and that we would be better off as subjects of a benevolent, if pandering, political class rather than citizens of a free society.

    The fashion among political insiders is that candidates are selected as personifications of pleasant-sounding abstractions. We don’t have to go along with this. We should choose candidates not for what they represent, but for what they will do. We do not need a class of rulers, we need someone humble enough to realize that free people with integrity and judgment do much more good of their own initiative than any enlightened government possibly could. We need someone not so taken with themselves that they think humanity could be perfected if only everyone believed as they do. We need someone whose executive experience and sense of obligation outweighs the utopian ideals that feed their own sense of wonderfulness. We need a manager who will be faithful to the oath of office and whose priority is keeping the barbarians from the gates, the lights on, and let individual initiative keep food on the table. We need someone whose policies reflect that the United States functions best as a collaborative society that thrives because of the decency and virtue of its people rather than the policies of its government.

    Obviously there is a practical aspect to selecting a nominee that engenders handicapping among various candidates. “Electability” is obviously a prime consideration, but I would suspect that two and a half years out from an election is too distant to predict such trait with any accuracy. If the American people are explicit enough as to their priorities, the handwringing over appeals to this bloc or that will fade away. For this reason, I think a key variable will be how Christie performs in New Jersey and McDonnel performs in VIrginia. If they are successful primarily as managers, of making non-political decisions that make their states run better, and keep their noses out of social engineering, Americans will look for the same in presidential candidates. By that time the radical-chic, pseudo-social justice, We-Are-The-World, self-indulgent claptrap of Obama and company will be passe and more than just a little irritating.

    Which brings me to Sarah Palin. I don’t think she will run in 2012, and not because she would not be a viable candidate or a good president. As I have mentioned previously, there is a difference between power and influence, and of the two, influence is more characteristic of greatness. I believe Ms. Palin resigned the governorship of Alaska because she realized, correctly, that she would have much greater influence without the confining duties of governor. She can speak out on topics that she chooses, and avoid those that she thinks distractions. She could not do that as governor. She can pick her battles and engage opponents on grounds of her choosing. I think she knows that she would have to trade some influence for electability. Her present situation allows her to advance a compelling and important agenda on its merits without having to trim and shape it as part of a game of political give and take. She does this very well and very successfully, and this, probably more than any other reason, is why the media are so obsessed with an ex-governor.