Is Sarah Running Afterall?

Sarah Palin says it’s not too late for someone to jump into the Republican presidential race.

Asked by Fox Business Network’s “Follow the Money” about the likelihood that she’d become a candidate, the former Alaska governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee said it’s not too late for “folks” to jump in.

Said Palin: “Who knows what will happen in the future.”

The full interview is scheduled for broadcast Monday night.

Palin told Fox News Channel over the weekend that she felt no enthusiasm for anyone in the current GOP field and that she needed to feel something before she would offer an endorsement.

Palin said in October that she wouldn’t seek the GOP nomination. She said she could be more effective helping others get elected.

———————————————————–

What do the people say? Should Sarah Palin run?

Peaceful Muslims Continue to Kill

Hey, it’s what they do, have done and will do. Don’t like it? You are a greazy islamophobe.

Obama say,”Respect it!” George Harrison say, “hare krishna, krishna krishna, hare.” Geller say, “Defeat the bastards!”

Muslims attack Hare Krishna temple in Denmark Europe News

Uriasposten December 15 2011

The Hare Krishna temple in Western Copenhagen was recently assaulted by a group of young Muslims, throwing stones and breaking windows. To diminish the risk of confrontations with the Muslim-dominated neighbourhood, the devotees of the temple are from now on requested to not wear their characteristic clothes outside the temple, in order to not provoke similar attacks in the future. Below is the original account of the attacks.

Just like the Jews have been advised not wear religious symbols or clothing or risk life and limb from Muslim Jew haters.

Danish police took a report of the assaults.

Read more here.

Disgruntled Teacher Arrested After She ‘Chucked’ Hash Browns at a McDonald’s Worker

Holder Pulls Out Race Card

Attorney General Eric Holder accused his growing chorus of critics of racist motivations in a Sunday interview published in the New York Times. When reached by The Daily Caller Monday morning, the Department of Justice provided no evidence to support the attorney general’s claims.

Holder said some unspecified faction — what he refers to as the “more extreme segment” — is driven to criticize both him and President Barack Obama due to the color of their skin. Holder did not appear to elaborate on who he considered to make up the “more extreme segment.”

“This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” Holder said, according to the Times. “Both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

The White House hasn’t returned requests for comment on whether President Barack Obama agrees with his top law enforcement officer’s allegations of racial motivations.

Holder’s accusations come as resignation calls mount from a growing list of 60 congressmen, two senators, every major Republican presidential candidate and two sitting governors, spurred on by the congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious.

Additionally, seventy-five congressmen have signed onto a House resolution for a vote of “no confidence” in Holder as attorney general. Between the two lists, there are 86 total in the House who no longer trust Holder to head the Department of Justice.

It’s not the first time the race card has come into play in efforts to protect Holder from criticism.

Most recently, during a December 8 House Judiciary Committee hearing into Fast and Furious where Holder was testifying, Georgia Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson argued that Fast and Furious wasn’t that big of a scandal because “white supremacists,” among others he described, were able to purchase weapons at “gun shows.” Johnson, who was concerned Guam may “tip over and capsize” if more military personnel are sent there, later told TheDC that he thinks the tea party movement and the National Rifle Association “manufactured” Fast and Furious as a scandal to try to attack the president.

Read more here.

‘The Taliban, Per Se, Is Not Our Enemy’: VP Biden’s Jaw-Dropping Gaffe

Joe Biden has a long history of verbal flubs, but this one may take the cake.

‘The Taliban, per se, is not our enemy,” Biden said.

Specifically, he said:

“Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That’s critical. There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy because it threatens U.S. interests. If, in fact, the Taliban is able to collapse the existing government, which is cooperating with us in keeping the bad guys from being able to do damage to us, then that becomes a problem for us.”

About those self-evident truths

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident…” What truths? What has happened to our passion for liberty? I am concerned that we conservatives, instead of making our case as fearless champions of liberty, are too often on the defensive, preoccupied with trying to prove we aren’t the demons the left says we are.

In the GOP primary contest, you’ll hear one candidate scolding the others for lacking compassion, another demagoguing a rival for advocating essential entitlement reform, and another shaming an opponent for being too wealthy.

Shouldn’t our side do a better job of proudly proclaiming our case for what we believe in rather than have our tails tucked between our legs, apologizing for conservatism and all too often neglecting our first principles?

Because we face an existential threat to the nation in our exploding discretionary and entitlement spending, we rightly aim our rhetoric against the deficits and the debt.

That’s critically important, but in the process, do we forget to explain that we favor smaller government also as a matter of principle? Do we make the case that we oppose a bigger and more intrusive government because a) it is incompatible with what we stand for — robust political liberty — and b) other than metastasizing and swallowing up the private sector and our individual liberties, government does only a few things well?

Likewise, do we connect the dots between our confiscatory tax policies and the diminution of our liberties, demonstrating a nexus between oppressive taxes and serfdom?

Do we protest that we are already overtaxed and that an onerous tax system, enforced by a menacing federal agency, devours our political liberty?

To the contrary, instead of communicating our passion for liberty — the bedrock principle upon which the nation was founded, lest we forget — we spend too much time defending against the false charge that we are evil elitists protecting a tax structure that is tilted in favor of the wealthy. It’s not.

We say we can’t support tax cuts during tough economic times, but are we tacitly conceding that it will be just fine to tax ourselves further into oblivion once the economy turns around?

How about saying, “We are taxed too much at every level, and our government’s financial problems are a result of overspending, not of under-taxation, and they will be solved not by increasing liberty-choking taxes, but by cutting spending”?

Read more here.

What do the “Useful Idiots”(the Left) See in Islam?