By Alex Pappas – Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said Tuesday: “I’m proud to endorse Donald J. Trump for president.”
The announcement comes after two days of speculation that the 2008 Republican presidential nominee would back the New York businessman. It’s likely the biggest endorsement Trump has won at this point.
The buzz intensified when it was revealed that a Canadair Challenger twin-jet departed Anchorage for the Des Moines International Airport on Monday.
Palin is expected to appear at a rally with Trump at Iowa State University in Ames on Tuesday evening.
“I am greatly honored to receive Sarah’s endorsement,” Trump said in a statement. “She is a friend, and a high-quality person whom I have great respect for. I am proud to have her support.”
The endorsement is a disappointment for Texas Sen. Ted Cruz , who is battling for the top spot in Iowa with Trump. Prior to Tuesday, Palin had spoken positively of both candidates.
But on Tuesday, the endorsement led to drama between Palin and Cruz. After it became clear Palin might endorse Trump, Cruz communications director Rick Tyler said on CNN he thought “it would be a blow to Sarah Palin, because…she would be endorsing someone who’s held progressive views all their life.”
Palin’s daughter, Bristol, took Tyler’s comment as a slight against her mother, penning a blog post saying: “After hearing what Cruz is now saying about my mom, in a negative knee-jerk reaction, makes me hope my mom does endorse Trump. Cruz’s flip-flop, turning against my mom who’s done nothing but support and help him when others sure didn’t, shows he’s a typical politician. How rude to that he’s setting up a false narrative about her!”
Prior to her endorsement, Palin tweeted her daughter’s critical post about Cruz.
For his part, Cruz attempted to smooth things over with the former governor. “I love @SarahPalinUSA,” Cruz wrote. “Without her support, I wouldn’t be in the Senate. Regardless of what she does in 2016, I will always be a big fan.”
I love @SarahPalinUSA Without her support, I wouldn’t be in the Senate. Regardless of what she does in 2016, I will always be a big fan.
During CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, Jake Tapper asked Former Alaska Gov. and 2008 GOP Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin what she thought of recent comments from GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump criticizing Jeb Bush for using his ability to speak both English and Spanish to relate to voters, and Bush criticizing Trump for having a “lack of tolerance.”
Palin said that she doesn’t know what opposition to “choosing to speak English or Spanish in a conversation” has to do with tolerance, and that she thinks it can be a benefit for the current GOP candidates who are fluent in both languages.
“I think it’s a benefit of Jeb Bush to be able to be so fluent in Spanish because we have a large and wonderful Hispanic population that is helping to build America, and that’s good, and that’s a great relationship and connection that he has with them through his wife and through his family connections,” Palin explained.
Palin said that when it comes to immigrants who are in the U.S. legally, she thinks they should “speak American” because it is the “language that is understood by all” and she sees it as a unifying aspect for the nation:
[quote_box_center]“I think we can send a message and say, ‘You want to be in America? A. You better be here legally or you’re out of here. B. When you’re here, let’s speak American,’” Palin said. “I mean, that’s just — let’s speak English and that’s kind of a unifying aspect of a nation — the language that is understood by all.”[/quote_box_center]
Palin also said that if Donald Trump were elected President in 2016, she would consider the position of energy secretary, and as head of the federal energy department, she would “get rid of it.”
“I think a lot about the department of energy, and if I were head of that, I’d get rid of it,” Palin said. “And I’d let the states start having more control over the lands that are within their boundaries and the people who are affected by the developments within their states.”
WASHINGTON, DC, October 29, 2014 – On Tuesday, former Governor and 2008 vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) appeared on Fox News Business and delivered a strong message of capitalism and true feminism, while also expressing her hopes to one day run for public office again.
When asked if the frequent criticism leveled at her and her family has driven her away from politics Palin stated, “No, bless their hearts. Those haters out there, they don’t understand that it invigorates me, it (makes me) want to get out there and defend the innocent. It makes me want to work so hard for justice in this country.”
Palin went on to state, “So, hey the more they pour it on, the more I’m gonna bug the crap out of them by being out there with a voice, with a message, hopefully running for office in the future too.”
In her interview Palin leveled some harsh criticism at her liberal critics who claim to support women and equality. “These liberals underestimate the wisdom of the people, especially the wisdom of women,” Palin stated, “What the democrats would like to do is make women feel that they are not capable enough, strong enough, smart enough to make it on their own and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.”
Mocking the hypocritical platform of the democratic party’s alleged defense of women while continuing to tie them to government support, Palin stated, “Hey women, you need to rely on big brother government and those men…you need to rely on those men to do it for ya.”
While discussing the vile and vicious attacks she received from liberals as the first female Republican nominee for vice president Palin stated, “The bottom line of course is that liberals they love those Saul Alinsky rules for radicals where they’re out there playing the politics of personal destruction. They do want to destroy personally those who they disagree with. They’re very very intolerant of those who maybe hold opposing views to their liberal, failed agenda views. They want to crush us.”
The former governor also said in her interview that the current leaders of the GOP need “more guts”. Palin stated, “I just would like to see them have more confidence in what it is that we stand for because history proves these time tested truths that are embraced, or should be embraced by conservatives, they’re the ones that work.”
When asked rather the sect of the Republican party that strictly adheres to capitalism was the sect that currently could win elections Palin responded by stating, “It’s the common sense side of the party. It’s the common sense side of the American populace, where we do understand that free markets are how we can grow or prosper because this is how we built America. It was development of our national resources, and reward for work ethic. That is what was the foundation of America.”
Palin continued by stating, “When that was essentially erased from the agenda on the federal government level then we get what we have today in America. One of the highest corporate taxes in the world, we have energy dependence…We have all these things that are going to create more and more failure in the market place.”
“If we were to embrace those planks in the Republican platform that allow for competition and allow government to get the heck out of the way so that businesses can do what they do best and prioritize according to their needs and their wills, then we will be prosperous,” Palin finished.
What is being penned by the Talking Points Memo as an “ultra-conservative” Third Party, has been suggested by the former California assemblyman and conservative activist Steve Baldwin, and he wants Sarah Palin to lead the new party.
Baldwin wrote a piece for the online conservative-Christian website, Barbwire, saying the GOP has turned its back on the more conservative wing of the party as well as the Tea Party.
“It has become increasingly clear that the GOP leadership will do everything in its power to prevent the party from being influenced in any way by the Tea Party,” wrote Baldwin. “I have given up on the GOP and am simply not sure it can ever be reformed.”
The newly proposed Third Party would be a conglomerate of Tea Party members and, what are being called by the Raw Story, “Christian extremists.” Key issues the party would be centered around would be the elimination of all federal funding for abortions, defense of the 2nd amendment, and restricting special rights to citizens based on their sexual orientation or behavior.
Baldwin seems to believe Republicans in leadership roles throughout the government have done nothing but bicker amongst themselves when other issues are at hand. Rather, Baldwin wants to “unite conservatives, libertarians, the Christian Right, and the Tea Party movement,” despite the differences between the party sects, in order to replace the Republican Party and be the main contender with with Democratic Party, according to TPM.
In terms of the leadership of the new party, Baldwin writes in his BW article how he would like to see “respected national conservative leaders such as Sarah Palin and others to lead the charge on such an effort.”
The plan to start the party though will not be a nationwide movement, but will consist of small, state-by-state operations to help boost support and establish the new party. Baldwin hopes to start the movement in the state of Iowa and move outwards from there.
“Such an effort may take years but even the process of building a viable Third Party may be beneficial,” wrote Baldwin. “Perhaps even the mere existence of such an effort will possibly save the GOP.”
Duck Commander Phil Robertson Suspended Indefinitely From A&E’s Duck Dynasty
LOS ANGELES, December 19, 2013 — I recently published an article illustrating the events that have unfolded surrounding Duck Commander patriarch Phil Robertson‘s recent suspension from Duck Dynasty after an interview with GQ.
Many government officials and individuals have been issuing statements claiming that Robertson’s First Amendment rights were violated.
Former Alaska Governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin stepped in to support Robertson. “Free speech is an endangered species. Those ‘intolerants’ hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us,” wrote Palin on Facebook. Those who know me are well aware that I have a massive crush on Palin. However, she’s missed the mark here.
One reader left a comment that she was disappointed with the article I wrote because I didn’t talk about the first amendment. “You can do better,” she said. Why should I talk about the First Amendment when it’s not even slightly applicable?
This commentary would be parallel to the Supreme Court laying out rules in landmark cases that have absolutely nothing to do with the case before them. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld the Supreme Court felt compelled to use their own commentary, as a means to legislate from the bench, ways the federal government could indefinitely detain US citizens. In dissent, Justice Scalia & Justice Stevens wrote that the Supreme Court’s ruling was extra-constitutional because the Court had no right to provide such commentary as rule of law to indefinitely detain citizens.
So, here’s the commentary outside of the news article –where it belongs:
First we must examine the groups making these claims. They are conservatives, and most conservatives claim to be free-market supporters. I am also a conservative (more so a “conservatarian”), but those making these claims are wrong, and they clearly do not understand the free-market.
When Chic-Fil-A’s CEO Dan Cathy made anti-gay comments and donated to traditional marriage groups conservatives criticized liberals who protested Chic-Fil-A. “It’s a private business. Deal with it,” conservatives shouted. However, now the tables have turned. Today, conservatives are screaming, “First Amendment rights!” Meanwhile, from those same conservatives, hardly a trickle of non-bias commentary is provided, which is under the tone of being neutral, and in support of the free-market.
Do you support the free-market, or not? Either you believe in private enterprise, or you believe that laws should govern the market. No ambiguous middle ground can exist here. Why? When one violates the underlying principle of free-market capitalism in pursuance of supporting individual values, the principle of economic liberty, at this moment, is destroyed. Moving forward, all with differing values will pursue law and government intervention in order to achieve these values. This is the philosophical argument.
The lawful argument is simple. No one’s First Amendment rights were violated here. The Bill of Rights is applicable to laws passed by the federal government, and the federal government alone. The Bill of Rights was intended to keep the federal government from becoming too strong– not state governments and certainly not private businesses.
The Supreme Court has held multiple times that the Bill of Rights was not, and was never intended to be incorporated to the individual states by means of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Adamson v. California Justice Frankfurter wrote that the idea of incorporation would, “tear up by the roots much of the fabric of law in the several States, and would deprive the States of opportunity for reforms in legal process designed for extending the area of freedom.”
Either you support a limited federal government, or you do not. We already know that the Bill of Rights is applicable only to federal law and not state law. If we know this as Constitutional truth then why would anyone make the argument that A&E, as a private business, violated Robertson’s First Amendment rights? There is no rule of law to give warrant to such claims.
Governor Jindal’s Twitter Account
Governor Jindal (R-LA) took to Twitter with his First Amendment argument, and even paid to have the tweet promoted, which reads, “I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment”. If Jindal doesn’t know that the First Amendment applies only to federal laws, not private enterprise, then I’m not sure how he believes he is a limited government, free-market kind of guy.
Other conservatives have argued A&E violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against religion, sex, national origin, etc. However, when a conservative business makes headlines for not hiring a gay individual many scream in dissent. Now the tables are turned and conservatives cite the Act in support.
Many parts of the Civil Rights Act are unconstitutional (violates the Ninth and Tenth Amendments) and anti-capitalism. Conservatives are more than willing to agree with that unless an avenue to spread their values becomes available through the Act. Saying parts of the Civil Rights Act are unconstitutional immediately labels you as a racist. I would remind those who would label me racist to recall that not too long ago the federal government stepped outside of its constitutionally delegated authority to label a black man a piece of property and not a human (Dred Scott v. Sandford). This same man, or piece of property, as the federal government labeled him, was provided refuge by state governments, but the feds weren’t having it. The United States federal government is the most racist entity in the world, but that’s another story. Furthermore, A&E and the Robertson family are in a private contract. This means that most likely they are not direct employees of A&E, but independent contractors.
With regards to free-speech, until you are willing to fight till your death to defend someone’s right to say something that you, as an individual, disagree with in every fiber of your soul — you do not support free-speech. If you do not fight this fight then you only support free-speech when it is speech you agree with, which is certainly not free-speech at all. This goes for those who support and oppose Robertson.
I support the Robertson family and everything they stand for. However, I certainly do not support the claims that their rights were somehow violated. In fact, I believe that, as a free-market success story, they’d probably agree with my sentiment.
I would argue that if you are truly upset with A&E do not look to unconstitutional laws, or the federal government for resolution. Look to the market. Chic-Fil-A brought in record earnings after they were attacked by the left. Many who watch Duck Dynasty are of the conservative, tea party, libertarian fabric, so simply turn off your TV and A&E will suffer greatly.
According to Sarah Palin, a shutdown is not to fear. In fact, she argues that it might be a good thing.
While on Fox Business, Palin pointed out that the federal government shut down back in 1995 while Bill Clinton was “hooking up with Monica,” and nothing catastrophic happened. Instead, we ended up getting a balanced budget and welfare reform.
Palin also said that Republicans gained two seats in the Senate and continued to hold the House majority after the ’90s government shutdown.
“That sounds pretty good to me. Let government chill for a bit,” Palin said, suggesting that we might see some similar results this time around.
The shutdown will allow us to truly see how unnecessary and irrelevant many parts of the government are, Palin argued. She pointed out that all of the “non-essential” federal employees will not be working during the shutdown; if government employees are non-essential, why are they working at all?
She then blasted the mainstream media for creating a doomsday narrative to scare and vilify Republicans. The GOP must “not blink” or “allow the media to drive this whole narrative,” Palin cautioned.
Palin continues to be a controversial figure, no doubt. However, one can’t help but admit that she brings up some interesting points.
Perhaps we shouldn’t worry about a government shutdown. After all, as Ben Swann pointed out on Tuesday, it really won’t affect us much. “The mail will continue to come. The military will continue to be paid, Social Security checks will continue to be sent out and Veterans hospitals will remain open.”
Are you worried about the government shutdown? Tell us in the comments section below.
