Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Sarah Palin: A Classy Woman

My plan is to buy and begin reading Sarah Palin's new book tomorrow. Over the course of the day, I have read several blog posts, heard different media pundits opinions, and have seen the rag T.V. show commercial (e.g. "Extra") intent on bashing Sarah Palin for things out of her control (like the new porn star - Levi Johnston). Thank God her daughter didn't marry that bum!

I haven't watched Oprah's show in years. HillBuzz has a transcript of Oprah's interview with Palin. They were not very complimentary of Oprah!

I know what the liberal readers are now thinking...not only are they gay over there but they are also RAAACISSST!!! /sarcasm off.

One of the best articles comes from good ole' Fox News. Fox News: AP Turns Heads for Devoting 11 Reporters to Palin Book 'Fact Check'

Earlier, I heard on Hannity that there were 37 negative reviews of Palin's book and only 2 positive reviews. No surprise there! The liberals absolutely HATE her! The question is...why?

I'll tell you why. She has the potential to re-define TRUE feminism - not the faux kind that liberal women often portray.

The Fox article conclusion tells us exactly why she is scorned by the Lamestream media and far-left liberals:

Palin supporters believe 11 reporters poring over every word of her book is excessive- and further proof of the media's obsession and maltreatment of the hockey mom from Wasilla.

"They're obsessed with trying to discredit her," said Adrienne Ross, New York state organizer for the 2012 Draft Sarah Committee. "Because she's a conservative woman, they make fun of her accent, comment about her looks. She doesn't come in the package they want her to come in."

Her poise in the midst of those who wish to destroy her (or, simply discredit her) is so evident that it must enrage those who dislike her without a real reason to do so.

GO SARAH! WE ARE SO PROUD OF YOU AND ARE WITH YOU ALL THE WAY! Whatever this wonderful woman decides to do with her life is fine with me. She will be a HUGE influence in both the 2010 and 2012 elections - and that fact must drive the libs up the wall!!!


Ha! You must see the re-do of the Newsweek cover at HillBuzz


How do you like Sarah? Embrace a Conservative Asset! She's great for the GOP and she's freaking out the Democrats and fringe media, too!

HillBuzz concludes:

They don’t want Sarah.

Because Sarah would win.

So they have to do everything possible to destroy her every day so they can beat her into submission and convince her not even to run.

Sarah, if you’re listening, RUN, GOVERNOR, RUN!

Hat Tips:

HillBuzz: Sarah Palin on Oprah Live blog

GateWay Pundit

Fox News


P.S. The following comment over at Gateway Pundit wins first prize for accuracy and truth in reporting:

harry flashman
November 17th, 2009 9:14 pm #9
Mrs. Palin’s positives, popularity and favorablity increases in inverse proportion to the avalanche of negative, libelous, fictionalized and outright lies of the mainstream liberal elite media.

She couldn’t raise enough money in 100 lifetimes to purchase the publicity she’s getting from the chump Left’s trained media hacks.

No matter what her political plans are the (as Rush call them) “State run” media are ensuring the Sarah will be listened to.

I just hope the media doesn’t run out of feet to keep shooting themselves in.


Update: Citizen Wells: Videos of Rush Limbaugh interviewing Sarah Palin on his radio show.


spud tooley said...

i came here because i knew you'd have a positive spin ... er, uh - review ... of the palin book.

one question: if all we've got now between these two 'rogues' - palin and mccain - is a bunch of he said, she said, are you willing to say 'my opinions of them that i expressed long(-windedly) and endlessly last year are moot. palin and mccain are no different than anyone else. they are self-serving politicians. how was i so deluded?'

answer: of course not.

as for what i'm reading in reviews about the second half of the book, ANYONE can say 'we need to do this, we need to do that' - but until she, like everyone else at EITHER end of the left-right spectrum realizes that steps HAVE to be made in the direction of the opposite end, we will have business as usual in America. sad.

and, until someone steps forward to deal with the bank cartel and the fed - i'm hearing michelle bachman (sp?) rail about 'cartels' without having a clue about the real cartel controlling things - it will most definitely be business as usual.

a story in today's ajc indicates the heavyweights in banking and finance are raking in money hand over fist and 'recovering' much faster than everyone else. imagine that. every penny of that should go back to the taxpayers.

at least me, anyway. after all, self comes first.

wait, sorry - for a moment there i thought i was a republican...


(have a happy thanksgiving, christine, and be grateful all year long ...)

mike rucker
fairburn, ga

Christinewjc said...

spuds wrote:

"...palin and mccain are no different than anyone else. they are self-serving politicians. how was i so deluded?"

Do you include Obama on that list now too?

spud tooley said...

Do you include Obama on that list now too?

judge(to defendant): sir, the charge is 1st degree murder. how do you plead?

defendant: guilty.

judge: very well. i sentence you to ...

defendant: but you should let me go, your honor.

judge (aghast): what? are you serious? why should i let you go free?

defendant: because the guy in the courtroom next door committed rape.

judge: ...and somehow, because he did something worse than you, that makes you innocent?

defendant: why, of course. how could i possibly be told i did something wrong when i can point at somebody who did the same thing, or worse?

judge: hmmmm. makes sense.

defendant (similarly aghast): it...does??

judge: of course it does. perfect sense. you're free. now, let me get outta here - i've got a talk radio show to do...


Gary Baker said...

Yeah, I figured Mike was confusing himself with some kind of conservative when he equated himself with a "taxpayer." Or maybe the libs changed the definition of that word, too. I hear their new definition of "freeloader" is someone who actually either pays the cost of their own health care or decides to not buy insurance. For some reason, it doesn't apply to people who demand that other people pay for them.

Gary Baker said...

The really horrible thing about the judge example that Mike relayed is that so many liberals feel exactly that way, that if they can accuse someone else of something terrible then it absolves them of all guilt. It's little wonder why so many of them are mad at banks for lending them money they couldn't afford (when others have to pay it off for them), demanding food they don't pay for, housing, health care, etc.

Of course there is the other side of liberalism. That's the side that whines about how much everything costs, while all the while making it impossible to do anything to reduce it. A beautiful example is in the news today: Unions are attacking a scout who cleaned up up a walking trail for "taking union jobs." The union boss may be big about it and "let this one pass."

spud tooley said...


how ya' been, man? it's so good to hear your voice ... uh, read your typin'.

not sure how your comment fits - can't quite connect it to the rest of the thread. but, hey - i've known you long enough - i should be used to that by now, eh?

i pay a hell of a lot of taxes, thank you. even more this year, since circumstances forced me to hit my ira this summer. what i haven't lost in being someone who can survive paycheck to paycheck - well, paycheck to the NEXT paycheck, thanks to w and his reign of incompetence for the majority of this decade - is my compassion for those less fortunate. more importantly, my ability to see that, while everyone in america has a chance to make it to the far end of the field and score a TD, a lot of people have to start running at the goal line at THIS end of the field, while others start at the 40, or midfield, or even the 40 in upper-class territory.

i've been wrestling with where to find the balance. i've lost a lot of empathy after this summer - i would have thought it would have deepened, but i now have a big streak of, 'help is out there - it's up to YOU to take it.' people can wallow in their own misery a long time. sometimes that misery is not of their own making, but a 'gift' from God which they had no part in. it's a paradox that pain ultimately brings the most joy, just like those who give the most receive the most.

regardless of the avenue used to help the money change hands.

and, as the widening wage gap shows, tax cuts only serve to make the money change hands from those who have not to those who have. hmmmmmmmmm... almost sounds like socialism, doesn't it - just in a different direction. you never hear that talked about by beck, or rush, or sean, or mark, or neal, or a host of other four-letter words. unless it's to spin it into mistruth and deception.

but having listeners who buy mistruths and deceptions says less about the hosts than it does about the ...

... oh well, guess you can fill that in.

lemme run ... got some work to do tonight. pay my taxes with even more after hours replaying what i did all day. i'm a loyal serf of the banking elite.


spud tooley said...

while most of your comment, gary, doesn't deserve the back-and-forth we enjoyed since we were kids, i will comment about the union thing.

truth be told, i hate unions.

BUT, they are responsible for a lot of the working conditions we work under AND benefits we enjoy.

BUT - and this will probably get my hand slapped, my mailbox bashed, and my @$$ kicked - not on this blog, of course... - i always deeply resented the fact that someone who turned a wrench on an assembly line 8.0000 hours (and, yes, they time it that way...) per day - with dedicated breaks and set-in-stone lunch hours - made as much money as i did, and didn't have to think about work 24 hours a day like i did/do, stressing over deadlines and wrestling with problems i cannot resolve.

BUT, that said, two points should be raised:

(a) i was born smarter than the average bear, and could pursue a white collar career because of God's grace, in which i had no input;

(b) i'm probably just being petty.

a leg up is a leg up, no matter how you look at it. so if people are a step down on the gifts-from-God list, i guess i really shouldn't complain too much if they have to band as brothers to make sure the fat cats smoking in their window offices don't use them like serfs.


Gary Baker said...

Hey Mike,

I've re-read your original comment, and the only part that I can even partly relate to being a Republican is where you mention actually returning taxes to the taxpayers. At least, that's they way that Repub's felt when it was a conservative party. Not sure what it is anymore.

You mentioned "compassion" in your reply. That's one I forgot to mention in my "New Liberal Definition" comment. To wit:

Compassion - The desire to force others to give the fruits of their labor to others unwilling or unable to earn it themselves.

It's very odd, when I was growing up, compassion was pretty much voluntary. Not much mentioned about wanting to send people to jail for not buying government approved insurance.

Yeah, I know that libs think a lot about others. In fact, they barely stand not knowing what other people are making, doing, etc. And as soon as they know, they want to take charge, whether regulating how much people can make or what kind of foods they eat or what kind of comments they can make. The only thing missing from the equation is liberty. I think the Obama/Pelosi plan is very fine for sheep and other mammals incapable of taking care of themselves, but it doesn't offer a lot to people except dependence at the expense of others.

I don't know where they get the idea that a large gap in wages is a bad thing. I think it's a great thing! There should be a reminder that all of those days you should have studied but didn't, all those days you cut class, and all the days that your lib teachers told you that Modern Studies was a really great major should have consequences. I really don't see a problem with people getting paid for doing things people really want or need. That very principle is why the poor in the US have color TV's and more square footage in their homes and apartments than the well off in Tokyo and Cuba.

Gary Baker said...

There are plenty of mistruths and deceptions out there, Mike. There really is no problem with listening to them. Some liars are very entertaining. The problem is when you buy what they are saying without analyzing it for truth. That happens, and yeah, you end up bitter and petty because you keep thinking the work would be so much better if you elect someone claiming hope and change, and you don't even realize they are peddling the same garbage that came around in the 30's, 50's, etc., and never did anything except spread general misery to Russia, Cuba, Southeast Asia, etc. You used the term "serfs." That's pretty much what the people you voted for consider everyone, isn't it? Simple, ignorant folk who can't take care of themselves and will only be safe if they take charge of our resources and use them "for our good"?

Gary Baker said...

You know, once upon a time, I truly believe that unions did some worthwhile things. Darned if I see much good coming out of them in the last forty years. Another of Christine's readers, Kevin, told me once to see life without unions, just look at Britain during the industrial revolution, and I won't deny that things had to change. But they've gone long past being part of the solution. If you want to see the modern face of unions, take a look at Detroit, at the failing schools, slowly bankrupting cities. A leg up is not always a leg up. If you don't have the strength to hold yourself up, eventually the whole thing comes crashing down. Unions sold the idea that labor can get more and more return with either no increase or a downright decrease in labor or quality, which takes us right back to socialism - Doesn't work.

Anyway, I hope you get over your bitterness. I mean, you got exactly what you voted for - An egotist posing as an intellectual, selling indecision and pretending that it's consideration, someone who has openly showed how he feels about prosperity and is doing just about everything possible to put an end to it. On the brighter side, every day he's creating more poor people for you to have compassion on...

Christinewjc said...

Speaking of unions, go to Big Government and view the whistleblower video that reveals SEIU ballot fraud!!

The other shoe is about to drop on SEIU - the sister thug criminal organization to ACORN!

IMO - It can't happen soon enough!!

spud tooley said...

about the wage gap being a good thing: as usual, a half-truth. i said nothing about a 'wide wage gap'. your ocd makes you 're-read' my comments, but you're completely missing what i'm writing. i, too, have no problem with a wide wag gap. what i continue to harp about, gary, is a WIDENING wage gap. the claim is that tax cuts help lift all boats. the widening wage gap reveals the fallacy of that claim.

about unions: agree. good initially, became self-serving.

about my education: i doubt mine or yours was 'liberal' or 'conservative'. again you raise a half-truth based on a purely eisegetical reading of reality. further, i will put my education and intelligence up against anyone's. period.

about 'buy[ing] what they are saying without analyzing it for truth': i bought beck's 'arguing with idiots' book (i'll resist the obvious cheap shot...). i wrote a post on it. head over to my blog and read it. the bottom line is that every point - EVERY POINT - made is a spin, a lie, a half-truth, a mistruth, or an inappropriate conclusion of the data. except about congress needing to be kicked out. with that i agree. but like the man than Jesus cast the demon out of, the equivalent of seven more demons would probably re-inhabit it...

about the poor: short memory, gary. the poor got poorer due to a republican administration working with a republican congress. the widening wage gap - due to 'trickle-UP' economics - created it and guaranteed it. for some reason, taking from the poor and giving to the rich is never called 'socialism' ... as usual, a selective view of the data at hand.

(as an aside: this is quite similar to a lot of Christian's biblical interpretation...)

about obama posing as intelligent: the sign of an intelligent president is that he gets a range of input from a number of people. the previous administration seldom, if ever, did anything but make decisions based on its own opinions and in spite of all other input. the previous administration consisted of idiots posing as, well, idiots...

and, lest we forget, this post was originally about ms. palin. we really know nothing yet of ms. palin's intellectual capacity, but we've seen her posing of late as a catty, finger-pointing, opportunistic, couldn't-stand-the-heat-and-got-out-of-the-kitchen ex-governor.

and, in spite of all this, posing ironically as a 'Christian'...

about your three comments in rapid response to mine: you need to take your ocd medicine...

and, christine, about acorn: i'm willing to let you count up all the acorn-influenced votes, subtract it from obama's total, add it to bush's column, and see what you get - if at least that will remove the big burr in the butt you have around it. btw - you might want to check if we have acorn's birth certificate while you're at it...

and about all the endless harping about the stimulus package: you know, my concern from the start was that large-ticket items like this can never be accounted for. but you, and gary, and every way-to-go-christine reader of this blog want to ignore history - even history less than a year old - and see where this graft began: under bush. under hank paulson. as i mentioned elsewhere, the single group that will benefit most from a big dump of money is the banks. they get money to lend. they get deposits. they get it coming and going. they are the only ones who have a get-out-of-jail-free card (literally, it seems...) when it comes to the inflationary impact that a transfusion of just-printed money brings with it. you have a nice, well-linked blog, christine, but you continue to deal with piddly crap instead of issues of real import.

hope everyone has a good weekend. and a good holiday. as much as you want to deride it, our country should be at the top of your give-thanks-for list...

btw, about healthcare: it's about as constitutional as you can get, since 'promote the general welfare' is in the first paragraph.

spare me the standard party line on that one...


Christinewjc said...


Since the bulk of your comment is addressed to Gary, I will just respond to your comment that what is being discussed here is "piddly crap."

In the context of regarding what is happening on earth vs. eternity - I would agree with you.

In the context of the here and now - I would strongly disagree with you. Changing America into a Marxist regime is not a small or ignorable (is that a word?) event. That most certainly is an "issue of real importance."

What's more, you are misusing the words of the Constitution ("promote the general welfare") in your health care comment.

For example. Which definition of the noun do you think that the Framers of the Constitution meant?

wel⋅fare  /ˈwɛlˌfɛər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [wel-fair] Show IPA
Use welfare in a Sentence
See web results for welfare
See images of welfare
–noun 1. the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society.
2. welfare work.
3. financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government: Thousands of jobless people in this city would starve if it weren't for welfare.
4. (initial capital letter) Informal. a governmental agency that provides funds and aid to people in need, esp. those unable to work.

—Idiom5. on welfare, receiving financial aid from the government or from a private organization because of hardship and need.

1275–1325; ME, from phrase wel fare. See well 1 , fare
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
Cite This Source

If we go further down on the page - you will get a hint:

Word Origin & History


O.E. wel faran "condition of being or doing well," from wel (see well (adv.)) + faran "get along" (see fare (v.)). Cf. O.N. velferð.

This is what was added to the initial definition of the word in 1904:

Meaning "social concern for the well-being of children, the unemployed, etc." is first attested 1904.

Then, in 1941 - we got the "welfare state."

Welfare state is recorded from 1941.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
Cite This Source


There are not only more poor people today after Obama and cohorts wrecked the economy even further than when the crisis occurred in Sept. 2008 (I STILL believe that it was a manufactured crisis to get Obama in office - Read my Cloward-Piven & Alinsky Rules for Radicals post); the truth is that millions more people are out of work because of Obama's terrible economic decisions that made a bad situation much worse!! The Stimulus DIDN'T WORK - ISN'T GOING TO WORK - AND WAS JUST FILLED with earmarks and paybacks to Obama's supporters and cronies during the election.

Mike - what is it going to take for you to finally face the truth about Obama? He is BAD for our nation and economy. He has surrounded himself with radicals who are pushing a certain agenda that is designed to bankrupt our country and get more and more people dependent on big government! Can't you see what is happening right before your very own eyes?

Wake up!!!

P.S. When I was one of those in a "wage gap" I worked three jobs! I was an elementary school P.E. teacher, a direct sales person, and a field hockey official to make ends meet! I didn't look for a hand-out from the government.

spud tooley said...

i dunno... which definition do you like?

personally, i like number one:

wel⋅fare  /ˈwɛlˌfɛər/
–noun 1. the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society.

thanks for posting that. but, as i've had to say many times here, i can argue my own side, thanks...

i think it's excellent that you've started defining terms. watch out, though, you might have to start dealing with facts and data and, well, reality. in fact (pun intended), why don't you start by putting up for us a definition of 'marxist regime' ... maybe that'll shed some much needed light on your hyperbole...

I STILL believe that it was a manufactured crisis to get Obama in office...

christine, if any of your readers STILL manage to take you seriously after that one, God help us all...

and, finally, to this: In the context of regarding what is happening on earth vs. eternity - I would agree with you. i think if you count the number of times the word 'obama' appeared in this blog the last two years, and compare it to the number of times the word 'Jesus' appeared - in an eternal context - i think your true colors would be shown...


Christinewjc said...

But Mikey....

First, I am not the only person who has figured out the manufactured crisis ploy that was done in Sept. 2008. Are all those other people not to be taken seriously either? I recall that Rahm Emanuel stated something about 'not letting a crisis go to waste.' How can anyone have any respect for that man is beyond me.

You missed the point of my sharing the current dictionary description of "welfare" vs. what the FRAMER OF THE CONSTITUTION MEANT when the United States Constitution was written and ratified.

Do I need to spoon-feed it to you again?

In case I do need to explain it to you again, here it is:

Word Origin & History


O.E. wel faran "condition of being or doing well," from wel (see well (adv.)) + faran "get along" (see fare (v.)). Cf. O.N. velferð.

The addition of children and the unemployed was added in 1904. I am not saying that is a bad thing - but taking it too far can be disasterous. The proof was when the term "welfare" became government handouts through the "welfare state." Do you argue that it was not out of control and wrought with huge amounts of fraud that it needed to be changed?

The Republican majority in Congress (via Gingrich) and former President Clinton ended welfare "as we know it" in the late 90's. It was a way to help people stop depending on government and having babies in order to get more welfare checks. The problems about welfare are mainly because of the destruction of the traditional family. But that's an entirely different topic.

Mike wrote:

and, finally, to this: In the context of regarding what is happening on earth vs. eternity - I would agree with you. i think if you count the number of times the word 'obama' appeared in this blog the last two years, and compare it to the number of times the word 'Jesus' appeared - in an eternal context - i think your true colors would be shown...

Note the description of my blog:

Talk Wisdom's goal is to defend the tenets and values of Biblical Christian faith. We defend our Constitutional Republic and Charters of Freedom, especially when speaking out against destructive social and political issues. As followers of our Savior and Lord, we should boldly stand up for Jesus Christ in our present circumstances. He is our Savior, Lord, and King, and His love needs to be shed abroad in our hearts and in our world - now.

Here's how many times posts here have mentioned Obama:

Obama (53)
Obama Bullies (12)
Obama citizenship questioned (70)
Obama cult video (2)
Obama thuggery (12)
ObamaBorg Bots (5)
ObamaBorg zappers (4)
ObamaFRAUD (34)
ObamaScare Hellcare plan (10)
Obamination (4)

Here is the total for Jesus Christ:

Jesus (8)
Jesus Christ (149)

Another thing to consider, Mike, is that the writings I have done over the past five years about Jesus Christ, God, the Bible, and Christian faith are still being read by people searching today via search engines.

The reach of Jesus is far greater than anyone's human efforts. I give all the glory, honor and praise to JESUS. It is HE who does the outreach and saving. He is the Vine, I am just a branch. I am told by Jesus via John 15:5 the following truth:

"I am the vine, and you are the branches. If you abide in me and I in you, the same bringeth forth much fruit."

Gary Baker said...

"short memory, gary. the poor got poorer due to a republican administration working with a republican congress."

I would ask you to show some facts supporting that, but since it is in error, I know that is impossible.

"the widening wage gap - due to 'trickle-UP' economics - created it and guaranteed it. for some reason, taking from the poor and giving to the rich is never called 'socialism' ... as usual, a selective view of the data at hand."

Again: Any data to back up the hyperbole? It's very easy to wag a finger and blame (liberals make a career of it), but they never can seem to actually make the dots connect. For example, if a rising tide (tax cuts) didn't lift all boats, then tax collections would have gone down during the Regan years, but they didn't. They went up. That's because people were making more income. Contrary to liberal relief, that was across the board, even though the highest percentage of taxes is by far paid by the wealthy. Compare that with another very traceable example: When capital gains taxes were cut, collections of capital gains taxes went up because more were investing (which also spurred job creation). Win/Win. Compare that with PrezBo who said during the campaign that he would raise capital gains taxes for "fairness" even though that lowered the amount collected. You keep making claims about the rich taking from the poor, and there was a lot of that to be sure, but it wasn't due to too low taxes or too few regulations. It was due to the fact that the regulations which were on the books were ignored. Lots of that on both sides, but Barney Frank gets the big award for ignoring the warning about Fannie and Freddie two years before it happened.

Gary Baker said...

"taking from the poor and giving to the rich is never called 'socialism'"

Certainly not under color of law because, let's face it, the poor have very little. They can't even take of themselves, though in most cases it really is "won't take care of themselves." How about a few traceable examples of how Bush or the Republicans took from the poor to help the rich? Something that can be verified? I mean, it's easy to show all of the places where the libs are working to take from people to earn it. You should at least be able to back up that opinion you hold so strongly with a few verifiable examples. "Should" being the operative word.

"i will put my education and intelligence up against anyone's."

I know you will, Mike. Some things are just sad...

Your comments about Beck's book are typical liberal: Insulting with generalizations. No real examples. No tangible examples of anything wrong that could be evaluated. Don't you get tired of going through life constantly avoiding analysis?

"the sign of an intelligent president is that he gets a range of input from a number of people."

Yes, the President's council on the Bay of Pigs invasion comes to mind...

Assuming that your statement is true, it still leaves the current president out since he generally surrounds himself with the same kind of people: America hating race mongering leftists. Meanwhile, as he considers, whatever chances we had in Afghanistan fade. And as he fiddles with healthcare, we face double digit unemployment. Bush faced a lot of crap for telling people to be unafraid and go shopping, but less than a year after he did, the economy had recovered from both the recession that was beginning at the end of the Clinton presidency and a huge shock to commerce caused by 9/11. Revenues were up beyond pre-9/11 values. Obama passed a bill that was supposed to "stimulate" the economy about ten months ago. Unemployment increasing, revenues way down, and despite the claims of the administration, nearly all of the permanent growth has been government, which is a net negative for the economy. Sounds like a case of "stupid is as stupid does" to me.

Gary Baker said...

"and, lest we forget, this post was originally about ms. palin. we really know nothing yet of ms. palin's intellectual capacity, but we've seen her posing of late as a catty, finger-pointing, opportunistic, couldn't-stand-the-heat-and-got-out-of-the-kitchen ex-governor."

And yet in the pictures and interviews I see her smiling. The people who support her are smiling. She's upbeat, and the people trying to discredit her are going crazy. The AP hired a group to fact check her book. Not much reported. Not much going on. She took on a corrupt Republican machine in Alaska and won. Obama went to politics in Chicago, and got a great deal on a mortgage. I guess you get what you go after.

"and, in spite of all this, posing ironically as a 'Christian'..."

If that's the case, she does a much better job than you, Mike. As I said, upbeat, has her family, doesn't spend all of her time trying to figure out who is making more than she is and assuming they did it by crooked means. I've said it before, you really need to let go of your bitterness. Add coveting to that. There's a good reason for that commandment. A pity that it's the only thing that keeps the Democrat party going - yelling about how much others have. Most people who stick with it and work and do the right things in life do escape poverty, about 70% I think. If people would look more to their own lives and prospects, even more would.

Oh, and I'm sure that you realize that the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution applies only to the enumerated powers. Forget about legal intent and precedent already established (as liberals generally do anyway). Consider common sense: The Constitution was written by men who were just coming out of a monarchy, a government where the central authority essentially had unlimited power. They were determined to prevent that from happening again, though they were also counting on the country to remain Christian as well, but that's another story...

Anyway, if the "general welfare" clause was to be interpreted as broadly as you and your ilk seem to want to, then virtually anything that would be deemed to have a positive affect on the overall welfare of the people as a whole would be fair game. They could legislate everything we ate, everything we did. Virtually nothing would be "unconstitutional" on that clause alone. A person with a quarter of the intelligence of what you seem to think you have would realize that could hardly have been the intent.