Was Obama molested as a boy?

I honestly wonder if Barack Obama was molested as a little boy.  If he was, it would explain a lot about his character and his behavior.  

I was just reading an article in the American Thinker by Jack Cashill titled Another Look at Obama’s Origins.  The article goes into some of the incongruencies in the story of Barack Obama’s birth.  The story is a good read.  It points out problems with the timeline of the story of Obama’s birth.  

Some interesting information came out of the story that stood out to me, because I have had a hunch about Obama for quite a while, and now I have some confirmation.  Some pundits have been saying that Obama has a psychological problem; that he has a fixation on destroying certain people and groups; that it isn’t just ideological, but neurotic.  He is beyond rationality.

Then I read in this article that he wrote a poem when he was 19, called “Pop.”

Pop

Sitting in his seat, a seat broad and broken
In, sprinkled with ashes,
Pop switches channels, takes another
Shot of Seagrams, neat, and asks
What to do with me, a green young man
Who fails to consider the
Flim and flam of the world, since
Things have been easy for me;
I stare hard at his face, a stare
That deflects off his brow;
I’m sure he’s unaware of his
Dark, watery eyes, that
Glance in different directions,
And his slow, unwelcome twitches,
Fail to pass.
I listen, nod,
Listen, open, till I cling to his pale,
Beige T-shirt, yelling,
Yelling in his ears, that hang
With heavy lobes, but he’s still telling
His joke, so I ask why
He’s so unhappy, to which he replies . . .
But I don’t care anymore, cause
He took too damn long, and from
Under my seat, I pull out the
Mirror I’ve been saving; I’m laughing,
Laughing loud, the blood rushing from his face
To mine, as he grows small,
A spot in my brain, something
That may be squeezed out, like a
Watermelon seed between
Two fingers.
Pop takes another shot, neat,
Points out the same amber
Stain on his shorts that I’ve got on mine and
Makes me smell his smell, coming
From me; he switches channels, recites an old poem
He wrote before his mother died,
Stands, shouts, and asks
For a hug, as I shink*, my
Arms barely reaching around
His thick, oily neck, and his broad back; ’cause
I see my face, framed within
Pop’s black-framed glasses
And know he’s laughing too.

– Barack Obama

(* “Shink” may be a typo.  However, “shink” is slang for getting dick slapped in the face, or  an evasive shrinking maneuver.  ”Shink” is not usually a dictionary word.)

This reads like a molestation poem.  It appears that the character in the poem was molested by an older man.  He was anally penetrated.  

The author, Barack Obama, fills the poems with imagery of the molest.  

And with images of the possible molester: “his Dark, watery eyes,” “his ears, that hang With heavy lobes, ” Pop’s black-framed glasses.”  I looked at the images of the dominant men in his life; the one’s who could be called “pop;”  Barack Obama, Sr., Lolo Soetoro, Stanley Dunham, and Frank Davis.  The one with the characteristics of the possible molester in the poem is his grandfather, Stanley Dunham.

Now, I don’t have proof, so we can’t say for sure that Stanley Dunham molested the young Barack Obama, but the poem, Barack’s background, and his character all make this theory probable.  Let’s look a little closer at Barack Obama. 

Barack threw off his family name and embraced the name of his birth father who he didn’t really know.  There was something about his mother and his grandparents that he did not love enough to keep their name.  He chose to reject the name of his mother and grandparents, and embrace the name of a father he barely knew.  His mother rejected him of course, leaving young Obama with his grandparents.  In rejecting his name, he also rejected them also.  There is nothing conclusive that can be said of his name change, but it is a little suggestive that he rejected the heritage of his mother and grandparents.  People who were abused as children by their parents sometimes take on new identities, adopting new names and lifestyles.

Next, we can look at his general demeanor.  Does he present himself the way someone molested as a child would?  Yes.  Some people say that he has an emotional vulcan-like coldness.  This is a classic characteristic of child abuse.  Abused children separate their intellect from their emotions.  That is called dissociation.  Dissociation is part of what we call post traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD.  So there could be something there.

When people are abused as children and have PTSD, they can become neurotic, which means they develop fixations on certain things that do not reflect the reality around them.  Does Barack Obama have those kinds of fixations?  Definitely. 

People suffering from PTSD are usually a little detached from reality.  Does that sound like Barack Obama?   Oh, yeah.

So what we have so far is one poem and some suggestive evidence.  The only person who really knows the whole story is Barack Obama, and honestly, the guy lies so much and so casually we can’t believe anything he would say about the matter.  

There are some implications if this theory is true.  Molesters tend to have more than one victim.  If  people turn up admitting they were molested by Stanley Dunham, that would totally nail the question down.  

Another implication is the fact that people who were molested as children tend to grow up and become molesters themselves.  Not all do of course, but it is a common happening.  If young men turned up who claimed to have been molested by Barack Obama, that would be highly suggestive that this theory is true.  

If Stanley Dunham was not a molestor, perhaps Frank Davis was.  Davis is known for his stories of molesting children and for having bisexual encounters.  Young Barack spent a lot of time with Davis.  Perhaps Davis did something like this.  Perhaps Davis and Dunham both did.

Or perhaps Davis didn’t and young Barack went to him for comfort after being abused by his grandfather.  In the process, Barack rejected the white authoritarian figure and embraced the black radical.  That would fit his character profile.

So far, all we have is one poem, and some anecdotal evidence.  And a strong hunch on my part, and on the part of others.  

I think that Barack Obama is mentally ill; that he suffers from PTSD as a result of childhood sexual abuse; and that a lot of his strange behaviors as President are a result of the abuse.

Just a couple of examples, I think that Obama’s unwillingness to recognize the wrongness of his perverse Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings.  And I think such a case of PTSD would explain why he is apparently willing to protect one of his supporters, Kevin Johnson, from being investigated for allegedly using government funds to pay hush money for child sexual abuse. 

I think he is still that fake personality laughing on the outside, closed off from his human sense of suffering on the inside. 

Whatever their cause and character, I think the guy just plain ol’ has issues.  He is committed to destroying America, and capitalism in general.  He rejects the reality of the public’s rejection of his agenda, and I’m getting damn fed up dealing with the fallout.  I don’t believe he is mentally right enough in the head to do the job of President.  I think I know what caused his problems, so I think I know what the nature of his problems are: PTSD caused by childhood sexual abuse.  I think he turned off some of his capacity to relate to a lot of human suffering.  I think he lives in a perpetual state of response to unseen stimuli.  I think he considers it a good thing for him to force himself on us against our will and our finer sensitivities, like a molester forcing himself onto a child.

Chris Dudley for Oregon Governor in 2010

Former Portland Trailblazer center Chris Dudley is running for Governor of Oregon.  I wish him well and support him fully.

From a recent editorial titled DUDLEY WILL OFFER IDEOLOGICAL OPTIONS AS GOP CANDIDATE in the more conservative East Oregonian: 

In addition to a successful career on the court, Dudley more recently has been involved as a leader in the financial industry. He was named the best citizen in the National Basketball Association in 1996. The 44-year candidate is a graduate of Yale University with degrees in economics and political science. His grandfather, Guilford Dudley, was U.S. ambassador to Denmark for Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. The younger Dudley is one of only six Yale grads to move on to the NBA.

Chris Dudley is not a run-of-the-political-mill insider.  He is well educated, well known, and respected in Oregon.  He comes from a family of politicians.  This may be his year, and Oregon’s too for that matter, as Oregonians increasingly get fed up with the leftists in Salem destroying Oregon’s economy and killing Oregon’s jobs.

Sarah Palin and the 5th American Revolution

Of the four past and the one current American Revolutions, the first and third are the most well know.  The first of course was the war for independence from Great Britain.  

The second American Revolution ended in 1800 with the election of Thomas Jefferson as President.  Some American leaders were trying to push statism onto the US.  Among the statists were John Adams and Alexander Hamilton.  Other American leaders were pushing for limited government.  Among that group was Thomas Jefferson.  The election of Thomas Jefferson to the presidency was a mandate from the American people for limited government. 

The third revolution was the Civil War.  Lincoln changed our form of government.  He returned to the principles in the Declaration of Independence, namely Natural Law, to hold the Union together.  Lincoln made Natural Law, not the Constitution, the highest law of the land.  Natural Law is essentially natural truths and some important principles.  Among those principles is the necessity for nations to prevent their own demise by forbidding states to separate from the Union at will. 

The fourth revolution was a negative one.  This would be the Roosevelt socialist revolution.  Franklin Roosevelt and his supporters introduced large amounts of socialism into American government. 

The Reagan revolution was a minor revolution, but I won’t count it because even though it fixed some contemporary problems and laid a groundwork of principles for today’s revolution, Reagan did not introduce deep and longstanding changes to American government, so I won’t count the Reagan revolution as a major revolution.  The Reagan revolution was more of a cultural revolution than a major change in government.

The fifth revolution is the one we are going through today.  Another group of leftists, led by President Barack Obama and leftists in government, is trying to transform America into another failed leftist state.  They are trying to change the character of American government completely against the will of the American people.  The American people are rejecting the attempts at usurpation and sedition. 

The next two federal elections, the one in 2010 and the one in 2012, are the medium for the revolution.  The Tea Party movement is a major part of the revolution.  The political fight to prevent the leftist wannabe leaders from putting into place a leftist government is also a part of the revolution. 

Today we are faced with a repeat of the choice we faced at the end of the Second revolution in the 1700’s.  Today’s revolution is our fight between push for a statist transformation which will reduce the freedoms found in America and replace our freedom with powerful state control, or a conservative transformation which will limit the power of government by putting in place measures to minimize the kinds of statism that are being forced upon us .

The medium for the revolution is education.  The American leftists have gotten away with a lot of legal and moral crimes.  They have been able to do that because the American people are not fully knowledgeable about principles of American government.  As time passes and people are brought to suffering by a leftist government, the people are beginning to remember and care again.  Again, as we are coming face-to-face with the horrors of a statist government, we are being reminded of the meaning of liberty and happiness and the associated values of limited government.

Sarah Palin is fast becoming a leader in the Fifth Revolution.  She is not a political genius along the lines of Jefferson or Lincoln.  She is not a dominant political figure, coming from what, by political standards, are humble origins.  Rather, she represents something more important; Sarah is simply a common sense American and she represents the common sense of the American people.  There is nothing special about her.  Sarah’s genius is not a personal greatness.  To the contrary, her genius is simply the genius of everyday common sense.  Which is something the politicians in Washington DC seem to have lost.  

The Fifth American Revolution is the revolution of common sense in government.  Sarah Palin is the leading voice of the revolution.  

Vive la Révolution!

Palin rescues the GOP by speaking for Tea Party

Sarah Palin will be the keynote speaker for the Tea Party convention this weekend.  I finally fully realized what she is doing, whether intentionally or guided by another hand.  She is rescuing the Republican party from splitting and losing its political power. 

There has been a lot of Internet chatter about forming a new party with the Tea Party movement as its base.  That would be a disaster for conservatism.  The conservative vote would be split between two parties, the “Tea Party” or whatever it would be called, and the Republican party.  This would guarantee power for America’s leftists. 

By taking the lead in the Tea Party movement, Sarah is directing it towards constructive ends, which will, for the most part, mean supporting the GOP.  

At the same time she is leading the Tea Partiers, she is tapping into the Tea Party for political support.  This will pay off grandly when she runs for President in 2012.  

I believe that the American citizens are so angry at the current US federal government that Sara’s presence isn’t necessary for a Republican takeover of the House and Senate in 2010.  A lot of what she is doing now is building her base for 2012.  She doesn’t need a majority to win in 2012, she needs an overwhelming majority so she and a conservative congress can get a lot done to clean up the mess made by the current bunch of Marxist thugs.

Rahm Emanuel it toast

As Sarah Palin quoted him in her recent Facebook post, Rahm Emanuel called the Republicans at the recent GOP retreat “f–king retards.”  Rahm Emanuel said something incredibly irresponsible and indecent.  He represents today’s political liberalism.  

It isn’t enough that liberals make absurd and irresponsible statements about race.  Now they are going after disabled children.  Isn’t it enough to turn your stomach? 

There is a house in my neighborhood that takes care of people with Down’s Syndrome.  It’s kind of  a daycare place.  I see the residents every once in a while.  They come out for some exercise.  Or some sun.  They are the sweetest folks you could ever hope to meet.  No scheming.  No bad intentions.  No desire to hurt or demean anyone. 

And then there is Rahm Emanuel, the f–king Marxist thug.  

Rahm is in trouble politically.  Before Sarah called him on his immoral and outrageous comment, he was on the ropes.  There have been rumors coming from Washington DC that Rahm Emanuel may be on the outs.  Then he goes and shoots his mouth off and just out-and-out offends a bunch of the most innocent people on the planet.  Sarah Palin called him on it and gave him the equivalent to a hard right across the jaw.   And just recently she took off her kid gloves.

Rahm Emanuel is down.  The count is going.  Even if he manages to get to his feet one more time, the smart thing for the f–king Marxist thugs in his corner to do would be to throw in the towel before he gets pummeled more.  If they don’t, they’ll be joining their guy in the ring. They really don’t want to be that guy.

The federal government’s upcoming assault on education

Most the regular reader of this blog already know what I know.  Barack Obama is a Marxist who is dead set on destroying America so he can rebuild it as a Marxist state.  

I came across this article by Mark Silva in Swamp Politics about the Obama adminstrations plans for eductaion reform.  At the surface level, there is nothing to interesting about the story.  The old administration goes out.  The new administration comes in.  The old administrations plans are declared a failure. The new administration offers a new hope.  Some old story.  We’ve heard theme and variation on it a thousand times. 

Now, the rest of the story.

I did a little digging into the education department, because I know that our Marxist President is going to go after the schools.  That is what Marxists do.  I found this release from last September from the Education Secretary Arne Duncan.   It sounds like more of the same political clap-trap.  But wait, what’s this:

“Today, I am calling on all of you to join with us to build a transformative education law that guarantees every child the education they want and need—a law that recognizes and reinforces the proper role of the federal government to support and drive reform at the state and local level,” Duncan told more than 200 leaders of major education groups in his first major speech about the future of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

Since when is it “the proper role of the federal government to support and drive reform at the state and local level?”  And where does the Constitution even empower the federal government to drive the “reform”of Elementary schools?  What is Duncan talking about? 

As a rule, everything that comes from the O-Men is bullshit, pure and simple.  The only thing that matters to them is converting America to a Marxist state.  So with that in mind, can you see what is happening here? 

The federal government is setting the stage for federal control of the schools.  They are trying to build on earlier efforts, many of which were supported by Republican administrations.  The federal government has no place “reforming” schools.  When the federal government is given too much authority and ability to influence schools, the doors open for things like Marxist influences.   When the Founders created limited government, they were trying to prevent this kind of nonsense.  

The O-Men, such as Arne Duncan, will claim that they are one thing, while at the same time they are doing something else.  They lie.  They have no conscience.  They only have an insane fixation on the Marxist agenda.

The influence of the federal government doesn’t really help the schools anyway.  The different administrations will always claim that their program’s are working, but really, the same general problems exist.  Some schools do poorly.  Dropout rates in some schools are too high.  Some inept teachers are kept on the payrolls.  

Those are local issues, not federal issues.

And throwing more money at the schools does not help, which is what the federal government does.  It throws money at schools that implement certain programs and that meet certain criteria, and then twist the whatever numbers and put whatever anecdotal evidence on display so they can claim victory.  It is all political nonsense.

Whenever the government acts as an agent of spending, massive corruption and incompetence is always the result.  The best thing the federal government can do is get out of education business.  Let the individual states address education in their own way so the approach to education can evolve and become more efficient and effective.  Federal intervention in state and local affairs is always about political payola and power.  It is never about accomplishing useful things.

Whatever comes from the O-Men with respect to education will be done with the intent of creating federal control of the classrooms.  After they get control, they will begin indoctrinating kids, making them future subjects of Marxism.

I’m sending my kid to private school.  It costs a bit, but the difference in education quality can’t be matched by the public schools.  I won’t have a bunch of freaking Marxists trying to brainwash my kid.

Sarah Palin, the redistribution of oil wealth in Alaska, and the prevention of corruption

The Devil’s Excrement has an article that reminded me of something Sarah Palin did as Governor of Alaska.

The Devil’s Excrement has an interesting post that analyzes a summary article, “ Oil windfalls and living standards: New evidence from Brazil” that summarizes a study that looked at social results of publicly owned oil.  The study looks at how municipalities in Brazil that get varying amounts of income from land-based oil revenues.  The study concluded that “it may be somewhat unwise to channel revenues from oil operations directly to local governments, at least if the officials are not properly monitored and accountable.” It also suggested “Reporting schemes should document the actual effective disbursement of sums, and not merely their recording on balance sheets.” In other words, socialism doesn’t work.

The name “The Devil’s Excrement” doesn’t just refer to oil, but it also refers to the corrupting influence of abundant resources.   The DE analysis reviews the oil study and adds “The only thing I was not clear about is how municipalities with more infrastructure thanks to oil don’t have a higher standard of living…”  

Basically, when oil revenues are channeled into government, and accounting isn’t appropriate, the revenues tend to be stolen by the government and directed to channels other than social betterment.  Better accounting could keep the revenues from being stolen, but I would guess that the same people responsible for stealing the oil tend to the same one that control the accounting practices. 

I would expect that the infrastructure built using government controlled oil revenues may be a major medium for the theft of oil revenue.  The use of infrastructure to take oil revenues would be a great source of moral corruption.  Recall that Osama bin Laden’s father made his fortune building oil infrastructure. Perhaps Osama is on the outside what his father was on the inside. 

Sarah Palin directed revenues from Alaska’s oil money directly to the hands of the citizens of Alaska.  What she did, in essence, was minimize the theft of oil revenues by politicians and their associates.  I’m curious now, how well Alaska’s oil revenues are tracked with respect to “the actual effective disbursement of sums.”  How much of those revenues are absorbed by corruption and bureaucracy, and how much really ends up in the hands of the public?  I would expect that a relatively small amount gets absorbed by government, and little social corruption results.  

The availability of natural resources don’t seem to be a strong influence on the well being of the citizens of a society.  The morality of the society as seen on its insistence on effective checks and balances, especially with respect to natural resources, appear to have more influence on the well being of the citizens.  The study suggests that values have more to do with happiness than the abundance of resources.  I had always believed that our abundance of natural resources was one of the things that made America great.  Perhaps our resources contributed.  But now I am more of the mind that our greatest natural resource is our values.  The people trying to usurp our values are taking more from us than any person trying to steal our physical resources. 

You can’t have happiness without virtue, or as Sarah said recently in her discussion with Glenn Beck, “In politics you are either eating well or sleeping well.”  Politicians in socialist states don’t sleep well.

Anti-fur protestor Daniel Shaull sets himself on fire in front of Portland furrier: Other

Victory Taft writes about the anti-fur protestor Daniel Shaull, the guy who set himself on fire outside a Portland, Oregon furrier.

Let me tell you something Matt Rossell and your cast of profanity screaming, threatening terrorists: You are responsible for this man’s death. You egged on your buddy who had been hanging around with you “protesting” the legal business at 12th and Yamhill. This burning of a tortured soul is on your conscience.

You will not lose one night of sleep over this human’s  tortured life. You care only for furry minks.

The animal “rights” kooks claim not to know him, however a local businessman told me he recognized him as a regular protester in front of Ungar Furs.

That’s right.  This guy recognized by locals as a regular protestor at Nicholas Ungar Furs lit himself on fire outside their store.  He was a regular protestor, but the local animal rights protestors claim to not know him.   Of course, they supported their denial by sending an email to Portland TV station KATU before the story came out.  

The Portland Anti Fur Campaign  was just alerted to the action outside Nicholas Ungar Furs earlier today [Wednesday].

We do not know who this person was nor do we know what his intentions were. If his intentions were to raise awareness of unnecessary animal suffering and killing done in the fur industry, and by businesses like Ungar Furs, then we wish him well.

We are not saying that we want people to light themselves on fire and run into fur shops, but we do understand that sometimes you have to make noise and make a scene to stand up for the animals. It is really unfortunate that one would feel as if they must take such drastic measures, yet, this Fur Store has continued their bloody business despite protests outside for 3 years now.

If the person’s motivation was to bring media attention to the issue, they obviously achieved their goal.

Raise your fist, and your voice, Fox and Mink have no Choice!

These nuts “wish him well.”  

The guy died, morons.  In your stomach-turning letter to KATU you encourage this kind of thing.  Do you realize how sick you are?

Oregon’s Measure 66 & 67 passed, now the State Employee Union can have their pension increases

Oregon’s disastrous measures 66 and 67 were passed this week, thanks to the social engineering by the unions.  Now we are faced with part two of the union agenda, doubling the contributions to the Oregon state employee pensions. 

The stock market drops in the last year or so caused a $17,000,000,000 loss to the Oregon’s Public Employee Retirement Fund.  $51,000,000,000 remains in the fund.  It currently owes $1.00 for every $0.75 in funds.  

State employees get a guaranteed pension.  To cover that guarantee the state increases payment amounts into the pension accounts if the pension accounts lose money when the economy turns sour.  

The unions are demanding the people of Oregon pony up the difference on their loss of their investments.

Measures 66 and 67 help fulfill just such a purpose; bring more money into government, so funds can be moved around, and the loss on the union retirement fund investments made up. 

Unlike non-public employees, the rest of us suffer when the economy suffers.  We invest, and if the economy turns sour, we lose money.  Private employees work at keeping the economy from turning sour.

This system is absurd and unreasonable.  The state employee union doesn’t care if the economy goes bad.  They get guaranteed retirement savings no matter what.  

When the economy goes sour, there is less money in the economy to pay for government.  At the same time the state government demands more money from the public to make up losses in the public employee pension fund.  When the government takes more money from the economy, it weakens the economic recovery.  The public pays twice: Once to cover the pension losses.  Once because the economy is slow to improve.

The unions give tons of money to politicians to support the unions.  The politicians make laws supporting the unions.  The relationship is incestuous, and that is the problem.  In business there is a conflict between the business and union.  They have different goals and they struggle against each other to try to achieve those goals.  There is no such struggle in the relationship between the union and the politician.  

The union takeover of any state is insidious.  

One way to minimize the impact of future bad economies is to remove unions from the state.  Just as there is a separation between church and state, there also needs to be a separation between union and state.

The separation between church and state is necessary because churches tend to become instruments for statists.  And when the church is too involved in matters of state, the religion suffers.  The church is misdirected from its goal of serving the religion.  Its best for the church and the state for a wall to exist between the two. 

A separation between union and state is also necessary.  When no separation exists, the unions tend to become instruments of the power-hungry.   The union becomes misdirected from its goal of serving the desires of the employees. 

If we don’t fix this problem of union and state, some future historian will look back at the falling of America.  They will point out that the downfall of all great nations is caused by the rise of power-hungry politicians to positions of authority.  And they will point out that its downfall was caused, in large part, by the mixing of public employee unions and the affairs of state.  The union was in bed with the politician and they acted together to destroy an otherwise great nation. 

More details on the union pension story can be found here.  Meanwhile, Oregon is struggling to keep goods producers like Phil Knight as citizens, because, thanks to measures 66 and 67 Oregon now has the highest income tax rate in the nation.

Cues from Palin’s interview with Glenn Beck, January 21, 2010

In this interview with Glenn Beck on January 21, 2010, Sarah Palin brings out some of her values and gives us more of her general political views.  Here are excerpts with comments:

SARAH PALIN: I think Michelle Malkin hit the nail on the head, though, in writing recently that nobody better become complacent and cocky about this victory of Brown’s because Obama I think is going to be more geared up than ever to ram some things down our throat because I believe that the left now understands that they could have some limited time to usher in their agenda. So we need to be very wary, very aware of the lip service that we’re going to receive from the White House and be ever vigilant in keeping track of what they’re doing and holding them accountable.

GLENN: Yesterday the opening 20 minutes, I mean, I think I make a pretty good compelling case but I’m getting all kinds of heat for it that I think the president is in danger from the left because the left is the only one with the real history of violence. And I think this guy, I think he’s trapped. I don’t think he can go moderate because he has surrounded himself with extraordinarily dangerous people that actually do believe that power comes from the barrel of a gun. And if they believe he is going to usher in the, you know, the Venezuelan Democratic revolution here in America. And if he is seen as not doing that, I think he’s in big, big trouble from the left.

SARAH PALIN: Well, I think he did put himself in a box. And I think you are right, that moderation will be absent from his administration because he does have selected around him those so far out on that leftist fringe as to be out of touch with what Americans expect from their government. So putting himself in that box, he is not going to be able… I believe he’s moved towards more of that center. Otherwise he moves his entire base. He, of course, doesn’t have the independent and rightist base right now. He’s going to lose a leftist, too. I think you hit the nail on head there.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “And, you know, if there’s one, one thing that I regret this year is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of, you know, speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are. And I think that, you know, the thing I’m seeing is remoteness and attachment and I think that I can do a better job at that and partly because I believe that.”

…

SARAH PALIN: I think we’re kind of saturated with that communication from the White House. So his thinking on this is, okay, no policy shift, no changes there in what he’s doing to America but instead they will communicate more to us more about what it is that they are doing. That’s not the answer. 

Go back again to the Scott Brown race. Coakley was the epitome of an Obama candidate, quite arrogant, quite disconnected from the electorate in a very, very blue state and yet Massachusetts said, no, we want transparency, accountability, we want a true representative form of government. And we see this in this candidate, Scott Brown, we’re going to elect him. For Obama to be in denial of what took place two days ago is very baffling.  It’s confusing to a lot of Americans who were saying, wait a minute, you are smarter than this Obama, surely he sees what truly is going on.

GLENN: … And B, you are known for bucking the system, but one of the biggest progressives out there is John McCain. And you are still supporting him and you are campaigning for him. I don’t understand it.

SARAH PALIN: I am. I’m supporting him. I keep my word. John McCain is on fire to kill Obama’s government takeover of healthcare and that’s what I want to see, and his commitment and his leadership on national security to win the war on terror. That’s what we need. And I’m going to support him. And he is a statesman, and I don’t hesitate at all to say, no, we do need his leadership, especially on those two fronts: Government takeover of healthcare, he wants to kill it; national security, he gets it. He understands how to win.

SARAH PALIN: I dare say a whole lot of politicians in D.C. are starting to see the light. And I’m not saying that John McCain ever was in the dark, but I think these messages sent via Virginia, New Jersey, Scott Brown’s race in Massachusetts, politicians in D.C., in the GOP and those independents are saying, okay, we’re not alone in this anyway.  Look at this rising up of the Tea Party movement, of activists saying no.  This anti-leftist agenda is what we’re going to be standing for. We want a shrinkage of government, not a growth of government. We want less intrusion in our lives from our government. McCain and others are, I believe, jumping on board, being more adamant than ever about that type of an agenda.

SARAH PALIN: Yeah, don’t put your faith in a politician. No. A politician is going to disappoint you. They will make decisions that you can’t agree with. And too often then that leads to that disenchantment, disenfranchisement from that politician and from their agenda. No, it takes more than one person, and I appreciate that Scott Brown seems to be absent of a political machine around him. I want him to stay pure. I don’t want him to be caught up in…

SARAH PALIN: If you want to be able to sleep well at night and if you are in an elected office, you stay committed to what it is that got you to where you are. That’s what I thought about that every day, Glenn. It would be, because a friend had told me this years ago. He said in politics you are either eating well or sleeping well. I decided I wanted to sleep well and that’s why I’ve made a lot of the decisions that I have that, yeah, really booted me outside of any kind of machine or any kind of I guess comfort and security that you would have knowing that a political machine has your back and they’ll come bail you out and they will come defend you and they will get on the air and they’ll tell you, oh, what a great decision. I haven’t had that luxury at all. But I sleep well at night because I know that I’m doing what is in my heart, my soul, my gut. I believe that I am connected to a whole lot of Americans who think the way that I think, common sense, conservative ideals and principles. I’m sleeping well and I want Scott Brown and other politicians to be in that same position.