Last night Sarah Palin once again appeared on her old pal Greta Van Susteren’s show on Fox News. She was asked to comment on Time Magazine’s selection of President Obama as “Person of the Year.” And, what a surprise, the ego-driven Queen of the North could only find nasty things to say about Obama, who was chosen, not as an endorsement of his agenda, but as recognition of the reelection victory that illustrated the changes in America’s identity. Time wrote…
“We are in the midst of historic cultural and demographic changes, and Barack Obama is both the symbol and in some ways the architect of this new America. In 2012, he found and forged a new majority, turned weakness into opportunity and sought, amid great adversity, to create a more perfect union.”
Perhaps Palin was upset that the article accompanying the choice never mentioned her by name, but did note that her characterization of Obama’s tenure as “hopey/changey” was passe. Her sour grapes session criticized Time Magazine’s choice due to some vague, unspecified allegation that Obama doesn’t support the Constitution. She complained that he wants to change the Constitution, which is, of course, constitutional and is provided for in the document. It has been done twenty-seven times already. But she concluded with a statement I agree with wholeheartedly:
“Time Magazine, you know, I think there’s some irrelevancy there to tell you the truth. I mean consider their list of the most influential people in the country and in the world, some who have made that list – yours truly – that ought to tell you something right there regarding the credence that we should give Time Magazine and their list of people.”
She is referring to her place on the Time 100 back in 2010. The tribute to her was composed by washed-up schlock-rocker Ted Nugent, who continues to embarrass himself in public with demented, anti-American rants. And not to be outdone, Palin also embarrassed herself with Van Susteren in a discussion about the newly released report on the State Department’s handling of security in Benghazi, Libya.
Van Susteren and Palin both complained that there was no accountability for security failings, despite the fact that three State Department officials resigned shortly after the report’s release. And they both knew of the resignations because they mentioned them in the segment. Palin also asserted without support that “Americans were lied to.” She went on to whine…
“For the President even to get out there on a national stage and tell Americans untruths about this situation in Benghazi really begs you to ask the question, what else does he say and do that would be deceptive. I believe that it’s many, many things that he would say and do being deceptive.”
Neither Palin nor Van Susteren gave a single example of anyone being less than truthful. And neither did the report, which addressed the security situation in Benghazi, not the subsequent media frenzy Fox tried to incite.
It’s a little sad to see the pathetic scratching on the screen door by Palin who has all but vanished from public view. She is probably milking these appearances with Van Susteren because there is a high probability that her contract with Fox will not be renewed when it expires next year. And who else would have her? Her books don’t sell, her reality TV shows fail, and her own party is so ashamed to be associated with her that she wasn’t even invited to the Republican convention this year.
It may be fair (and balanced) to say that Palin is over – you betcha!
“We are in the midst of historic cultural and demographic changes, and Barack Obama is both the symbol and in some ways the architect of this new America.” – If the goal is subjugation of the population – then they got the right guy. You should be, and obviously are happy Mark. I think Time got it right.
Would it kill you to be specific?
The entire progressive agenda leads to this in my opinion – so his position as president is a threat, in my view, to all our freedom, which will bear out in this upcoming gun control debate – I guarantee it – guns, video games, movies, everything.
I will take you on those bets, $1000 US Dollars for every single thing on that list, guns, video games, movies and last but not least, everything. We will see if the “progressive agenda” (btw there are a number of people on the left complaining that Obama DOESN’T follow a “progressive agenda”) by Obama will lead to more loss of freedoms.
Do you actually listen to the debates in congress on guns??? How exactly do you define freedom? Is restricting a LAW ABIDING
Do you actually listen to the debates in congress on guns??? How exactly do you define freedom – maybe we are talking about different things. Is restricting a LAW ABIDING citizen from getting something like – for example – a semi-automatic rifle – maintaining freedom or reducing it? Please, enlighten me. This is just an example I using because it’s exactly the debate happening now – I’m not looking to argue over guns again, but since you seem to believe the president’s agenda will lead to MORE rights, I would love to hear your opinion.
Banning high capacity magazines and assault weapons is not a threat to your freedom, but it is a threat to the freedom of children to not live in fear of another mass shooting.
And please, lay out this entire “progressive agenda” that you think is a threat to anyone’s freedom.
You generalize, and can never provide any concrete facts to back up your “opinions”, just crazy, Faux News conspiracy theories.
Banning high capacity magazines IS a threat to our freedom – specifically to a law abiding citizen who doesn’t break the law. It’s also NOT a threat to the freedom of children as the magazine doesn’t hurt anyone – the crazy killer does that. So why don’t you address the reasons for the atrocity instead of the chosen tool? No gun kills anyone – only people kill people. If you want to discuss keeping the tools out of the hands of the mentally insane or convicted criminals, most people, including me, would be happy to work on that.
“Subjugation”? You’re even more daft than I realized.
Is it my characterization of what I believe is the result of progressivism run amok and the fact that we have the most left wing president ever or did I not spell it correctly?
Please tell us, Steve, using links and supporting data, how you, or anyone in our country, has been, or will be, “subjugated”?
What, specifically, in the “progressive agenda” leads you to believe that subjugation of the population is the plan?
And please, no links to conspiracy theories from WND, NR, Alex Jones or TP Nation.
Name ONE thing that the RW/R/TPers predicated after Obama’s election in 2008 that has come true. Name ONE instance where Obama has begun the process to destroy the Constition and/or replace our democracy with socialism/marxism/communism/whateverism.
Here’s one – raising taxes specifically on the “rich” to pay for the bloated government – which was not created by Obama (the bloated government that is), he’s just trying to preserve it. From his own lips in a speech I heard on the radio sometime in the past month – I believe here in Pennsylvania – “they don’t need that money” (he was talking about high income earners) – it’s not for him to decide what we the people want or need – marxist – it’s our money first, not his or the governments. He did not create the progressive income tax, but he is trying to use it to take as much from the “rich” to pay for the wasteful government programs. If he wanted everyone to pay for these programs, then he would be treating everyone the same, which is the fair thing to do, but his focus on the “rich” is the clincher.
What is WND, NR or TP Nation?
This isn’t a defense of the rich, but of equal treatment. All the people of this country re-elected him, so all should pay for the decision to keep the government he loves so much.
So why don’t you answer – what does it mean when a president states some group of people in this country doesn’t need their money???? Is that appropriate for any politician to question?
We can only hope but I suspect you are right. Roger Ailes is cleaning house, as we know and as previously reported on in this blog, so we can expect to see less and less of the ding bat of the north in the coming year. HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
That facial expression says it all. What a bitter shrew she is, as if we didn’t already know that.
Sometimes I think she does her thing just to irritate libs – no one cares about her except you people.
It makes her look like a pouting, sniveling little thing, but I guess that doesn’t worry her if she’s “irritating the libs” that laugh at specifically those expressions hey?
The only time i ever feel subjugated is at work, and the only loss of freedom i feel is when i look at my paycheck. As for Sarah Palin, 14:47 14:48….