Tuesday, January 18, 2011

What The Rabid Left Can't Take Away From Sarah

Did readers here see Sean Hannity's exclusive interview with Sarah Palin last night? You certainly need to see it yourself in order to understand that the leftist vitriole against her is unfounded, yet will continue to be spewed by the hateful far left crazies and the Media of Mass Deception for the simple reason that they fear her. The left fears her wonderful connection with, and influence of the American people who agree with her ideology, policies, political views, staunch support for our military, and love for our country.

Glenn Beck's January 17th T.V. show reveals tha "Reality Doesn't Match the Script." Glenn demonstrates, and with video proof of Frances Fox Piven, shows just how far the left will lie and utilize the awful Cloward and Piven strategy - which will continue to be used in order to cause chaos and negative change in America. If you happen to be unfamiliar with Cloward and Piven and how this administration is using such evil strategy, please see my previous posts on the subject:

1. Obama Matrix: Cloward Piven & Alinsky Rules for Radicals.

2. Cloward Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis.

3. Make A Choice Before It's Too Late.

Through rabid vitrole and death threats against Sarah and her family, the left hopes to silence her. Well guess what? She WILL NOT BE SILENCED! Good for her! The woman has an iron constitution and nerves of steel to go with it! More likely, she is well connected through prayer to her Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. She even said so during her interview with Sean Hannity.

Palin to Democrat-Media Complex: “I Am Not Going to Shut Up” (Video)
posted by Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit - 10 hours ago
Sarah Palin told Sean Hannity tonight that despite the constant attacks by the democratic-media complex, “I am not going to shut up.” Palin defended herself on Hannity tonight from the awful attacks and sm...

Sarah Palin is a believer who obviously takes Romans 8 seriously:


Rom 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?


Rom 8:32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?


Rom 8:33 Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.


Rom 8:34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.


Rom 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?


Rom 8:36 As it is written: "For Your sake we are killed all day long; We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter."


Rom 8:37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.


Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come,


Rom 8:39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Why do they fear Sarah so greatly and continue to bombard her and her family with angry rants and death threats? Because they know that she represent those who cling to the Lord Jesus Christ and they hate all that she represents for the American people! Sarah isn't using God - He is using her, instead.

That is truly what the rabid leftist thugs and venom-spewing commentators can NEVER TAKE AWAY FROM SARAH AND HER FAMILY!

God bless you Sarah! You stand up against the powers of darkness because the Rock of Ages indwells your heart and soul. You are the Esther of our age! Praise God that you are here for us fellow Americans for such a time as this!

Hat Tips to all links

10 comments:

Matt W. said...

Sad how much they HATE her isn't it? Yes they do fear her, but I think they also get angry because they can't get to her! They want to beat her into submission and make her shut up and she just won't do it, and I don't think they can comprehend her strength in the face of their attacks.

It's also quite sick, they want to blame her for the shooting in Arizona, which is ridiculous to say the least, then they actually call for her to killed, which they falsely accused her of doing with Representative Giffords. It's totally sick!

I hope she does run for President, and I hope she wins, she'd have my vote, and say what they will about her, she wouldn't bow to the King of Saudi Arabia, or anyone else for that matter... but they would probably hate her for that too.

Christinewjc said...

Well said Matt! I agree with everything you wrote.

When you put it this way:

"I don't think they can comprehend her strength in the face of their attacks"

we see exactly why their rabid hatred seethes in such a sick and evil manner! Her strength emanates from the Lord! It is so obvious that they hate Christ and His positive influence in her life.

What a sad existence these people must live in! To hate one conservative Christian woman so much with their foaming-at-the-mouth rabid vitriole being aimed at her and her family in such vicious ways is evidence of their evil hearts, reprobate minds, and dark souls.

Anonymous said...

I think the Republicans will elect someone the Democrats can vote for which leaves out a few people.

Sosthenes

GMpilot said...

It was a case of responding to the response to her response to responses to the tragic shootings in Tucson.
Appearing on talk television, Sarah Palin's "Two-F" media strategy – Facebook and Fox News – was on display, combining an echo chamber with a hall of mirrors that equally delights supporters and dismays political opponents, while placing her out of reach of anything approaching critical or mainstream media outlets.


When on her own, she either says nothing in ten sentences (just like any other politician), or lapses into gibberish. This whole “blood libel” business she's been taking flak for wouldn't have happened if she'd chosen another phrase. She could've written a better one on her palm. If it was a good choice of words, she wouldn't have needed to go on to Fox News to defend it.

Ross Douthat, a conservative columnist for the New York Times, vented his frustration at the war between Palinoiacs and Palinistas, comparing the tussle between Palin and the US media over the Tucson shootings to an unhappy marriage.

"The whole business felt less like an episode in American political history than a scene from a particularly toxic marriage," Douthat wrote. "The press and Palin have been at war with each other almost from the first, but their mutual antipathy looks increasingly like co-dependency: They can't get along, but they can't live without each other either."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/18/sarah-palin-facebook-fox-strategy

Gary Baker said...

"If it was a good choice of words, she wouldn't have needed to go on to Fox News to defend it."

Almost correct. If liberal journalists did not arbitrarily define almost everything associated with her as "bad", she would not have had to defend it. For that matter, if liberals had not tried to associate her with a crime that she had nothing to do with, she would not have had to defend it.

Anonymous said...

The problem is Democrats are losing so they need to blame someone and the media is going along with it.

Sosthenes

GMpilot said...

What “arbitrarily”, Mr. Baker?
She says arbitrarily stupid things. Less often than she did in '08, but she still says them. She knows the mainstream media (not just the 'liberal journalists') will repeat her words (or allow her to repeat them, via tape), so she tightly controls access to her words. What she needs to control is access to her thoughts.

If the 'blood libel' phrasing was meant to make her look like a victim, it didn't work. All she had to do was remind everyone that the real victim was lying in a hospital with an extra hole in her head—the others were being buried even as she spoke.
I stand by my statement.

Gary Baker said...

GM,

" She knows the mainstream media (not just the 'liberal journalists') will repeat her words"

You just proved my point, didn't you? They give much more attention to the response (which at least can reasonably be compared to libel) instead of emphasizing the stupidity of the initial allegation.

I don't think the "blood libel" term was meant to make her look like a victim. It was meant to point out that she is a target. Based on your comment as noted, you seem to agree. And while you, and the liberal media, harp on your favorite targets, you ignore or excuse the greater stupidity and incivility of those you either agree with or don't care about.

Sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

Anonymous said...

Gary,

She has to watch what she says because anyone can take her words out of context at any time. If she can't defend herself then she will end up like Sen. Larry Craig who said he never did anything "inappropriate" but couldn't defend himself.

Titus 2:4 Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be *self‑controlled* and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

Sosthenes

Gary Baker said...

Sosthenes,

Perhaps she will. The press certainly did a number on Dan Quail. I don't think it likely, however. Over the past decade, many people have discovered just how little regard the old media has for ethics. That's one of the reasons that newpapers are dying. Another reason is that liberals have played the name-calling game so long and so often that many people are finally getting sick of trying to watch what they say. When we get back to a "names can never hurt me" mentality, then maybe we really can have some honest debates on racism, sexism, and a lot of other issues. I don't know that it would neccessarily solve anything, but at least we could start moving beyond our differences.