Sarah Palin Information Blog

Sarah Palin Web Brigade

  • Upcoming Palin Events

  • Sarah Palin’s Endorsees

  • Sarah Palin Channel

  • Amazing America

  • The Undefeated

  • ‘Stars Earn Stripes’

  • ‘Game Change’ Lies Exposed

  • Good Tidings and Great Joy: Protecting the Heart of Christmas

  • Our Sarah: Made in Alaska

  • America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag

  • Going Rogue: An American Life

  • Other Sarah Palin Info Sources

  • Login/RSS

  • Governor Palin on Twitter

  • @SarahPalinUSA

  • Governor Palin on Facebook

  • SarahPAC Notes

  • RSS SarahPAC Notes

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • SPWB on Facebook

  • SPWB on Twitter

  • @SarahPalinLinks

    Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

  • Join the SPWB Twibe!

  • Posts by Date

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • __________________________________________
  • Top Posts & Pages

  • __________________________________________
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • __________________________________________

Archive for March 29th, 2011

Palin: Are we at war?

Posted by loricalabrese on March 29, 2011

President Obama delivered his first televised address Monday evening about the first military operation he has initiated as commander in chief. Americans had wished the president was going to answer the many questions Americans have about the operation in Libya and even the questions Congress has. How long does the administration intend to fight in Libya? What is the end goal?

However, as Obama left to a round of applause, it left many Americans still scratching their heads wondering what the end goal is. So many questions remain unanswered and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin addressed that issue during On the Record with Greta Van Susteren Monday night.

Palin said, “I think that was a profoundly disappointing speech because it proved that the Obama doctrine is still full of chaos and questions. It’s dodgy. It’s dubious. And it’s a good question that you asked, Greta, because we’re not hearing from our president what is the end game here. And with Qaddafi still in power, if we’re not going to oust him via killing or capturing, then there is no acceptable end state.”

I think the uncertainty of the administration was clear as Obama stumbled over the tele-prompted text, something unusual for the usually polished speaker. During times of conflict, Americans want to be inspired by their president, however many didn’t find Obama’s speech confidence-inducing. Even though Obama acknowledged in his speech that Qaddafi must go, he refuses to do what it takes to remove him. Why? I think it’s apparent that this anti-Iraq war president is floundering, simply because he does not want to mirror President Bush’s strategy in Iraq, something Obama was strongly against.

NATO is set to take command of Operation Odyssey Dawn, as the campaign is called, and the U.S. military will fall back into a supporting role, but Palin explained that U.S. interests have got to be met if we are going to intervene.

Palin said, “I have to again ask why in the world will our military might be used according to the U.N. and Arab League desires and NATO’s leadership in this skirmish or this war or whatever it is that Obama calls it or doesn’t want to call it. He did not make the case for this intervention. U.S. interests have got to be met if we are going to intervene. And U.S. interests can’t just mean validating some kind of post-American theory of intervention, wherein we wait for the Arab League and the United Nations to tell us, Thumbs up, America, you can go now, you can act, and then we get in the back of the bus and we wait for NATO. We wait for the French to lead us. That’s not inspirational.”

I thought Palin had an excellent point when she stated that if we are going to protect civilians, doesn’t that mean getting rid of the bad guy? Obama once referred to Qaddafi as a bad guy then flip-flopped. Even during the November 15th Democratic presidential debate, Obama had said, “The overall strategy[in Iraq] is failed, because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq’s political leaders, and that is the essence of what we should be trying to do in Iraq.” So what’s the essence of what we should be trying do in Libya? Shouldn’t we see a change in behavior among Libya’s leader, Qaddafi? Qaddafi is a bad guy period. He took control of his country through a coup. and in 42 years, there have been many atrocities conducted by Qaddafi. Palin stressed that Obama is ignoring history and engaging in inconsistency. Something our country does not need and what’s making many Americans distrust the administration and its role.

Palin continued, “U.S. interests are Qaddafi’s got to go, killing him or capturing. He’s got to go because he’s going to seek revenge on the United States of America. That will be his MO from here on out, and he will sponsor terrorism unless he’s gone.”

However, it seems President Obama thinks differently. In his speech, Obama said that while the “world will be better off with Qaddafi out of power,” broadening the U.S. mission to include regime change would be a “mistake.” He allowed that he and other world leaders would pursue regime change in Libya through “non-military means.” Van Susteren pointed out that on NATO’s website, it explains that their goal is to be impartial. But even Van Susteren stressed that it’s hard to be impartial when you’re flying over some country and shooting off missiles.

Palin said, “…another big question that has to be asked, Greta, is, Are we at war? I haven’t heard the president say that we are at war. And that’s why I, too, am not knowing, do we use the term “intervention,” do we use “war,” do we use “squirmish,” what is it?”

As published on

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

TIME picks the top 140 Twitter feeds

Posted by loricalabrese on March 29, 2011

Twitter isn’t just a $1.1 billion company. It’s become a way to interact, not just for ordinary people, but for celebs and politicians. Celebs use the forum to reveal themselves, speak directly to their fanbase, and even break up with their boyfriends. Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey announced their breakup on Twitter after five years. Ashton Kucher posted a picture of Demi Moore’s rear. And reporter Ann Curry used Twitter to convince the U.S. Air Force to allow a plane full of physicians to land in Haiti.

Whether it’s entertainment, politics, or global awareness, billions of tweets by presidents and pop stars have shaped the conversation and as a result, TIME is picking the top 140 Twitter feeds.

They’re asking you to take a look and vote on whether you think these top tweeters should be on their list. Currently, rounding out the top 10 are Neil Gaiman, Andy Borowitz, Lady Gaga, Neil Patrick Harris and Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin entered the world of Twitter on April 29, 2009, and there’s been no turning back. Her first tweet stated simply, “This is my official Twitter feed – from here I’ll provide updates on issues concerning Alaskans.” But there’s no doubt, Palin’s Twitter account has catapulted into shaping the political conversation.

TIME says, “Love ’em or hate ’em, Sarah Palin’s tweets command media attention like those of few other political figures. The former governor of Alaska has used Twitter to delve into a host of issues, like cheering on daughter Bristol on the reality show Dancing with the Stars, blasting Obama’s “very wrong” tax policy, endorsing midterm candidates and most famously asking “Peaceful Muslims” to “refudiate” the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero. That last tweet prompted Palin to compare herself to Shakespeare because of their shared fondness of coining new terms. She might have been half-kidding, but Palin’s Twitter prowess is no joke.”

As published on

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Woody Harrelson will play Schmidt in Game Change

Posted by loricalabrese on March 29, 2011

The actors are coming in for HBO Films’ Game Change, and the latest is the announcement that Woody Harrelson will join Julianne Moore and Ed Harris. Based on the bestselling book Game Change, by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, the film will follow McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, from his selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (Moore) as his running mate to their defeat in the general election.

Harrelson will play Steve Schmidt, McCain’s senior campaign strategist and adviser. Schmidt is the highest ranking former member of McCain’s inner circle to acknowledge tensions with and openly criticize Palin. He has been critized himself for revealing his views of the behind-the scenes wrangling that went into the McCain/ Palin campaign, including leaks of what he says happened before Palin’s debate against then Senator Joe Biden.

Last year, Schmidt appeared on CBS’ 60 Minutes with the authors of Game Change. Although he praised her for her convention speech and debate performance, he also claimed there were “numerous instances” when Palin said things that were not correct.

As Politico said after the interview, “A losing campaign always brings out the knives, but they are usually wielded in the shadows. The pure spectacle of a former campaign strategist going on national television to trash the candidate whose image he once stage-managed — as Schmidt did Sunday on “60 Minutes” — is virtually unprecedented.”

Harrelson is best known for his role as bartender Woody Boyd in the television sitcom, Cheers, but he’s also starred in White Men Can’t Jump, Kingpin, Natural Born Killers and The People vs. Larry Flynt.

As published on

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Benyamin Korn Talks to Bill Kristol about Sarah Palin

Posted by Dr. Fay on March 29, 2011

On his  weekly Jewish Independent Talk Radio broadcast on Sunday at, Benyamin Korn  talked to Bill Kristol about Kristol’s recent controversial remarks about Governor Palin.  

Video courtesy of PalinTV


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Proof Palin Is Living Rent Free In Obama’s Head

Posted by traceyporreca on March 29, 2011

Robert Gibbs, former white house press secretary, left that position recently to the cheers of conservatives and clear-thinking individuals who were tired of his side-stepping or simple refusal to answer the most basic of questions. Who gave him another thought? Who cares where he goes, right? Well, now you should care, because it looks like facebook is seriously considering hiring Mr. Gibbs for a high level position within its organization.

For all the left’s humanitarian, anti-capitalist talk, this latest step by someone within the tight inner-Obama circle sure smacks capitalistic to me. Articles citing facebook’s upcoming positioning as a public company, and Gibbs desire to be in a position to cash in on this with a high figure salary and ability to direct certain messaging, sure sounds capitalistic. Don’t fool yourself into thinking Mr. Gibbs is doing this for the common good. So why then – why would he leave a position where he had the ear of the entire nation (via our lamestream media) and free reign to run amuck over free speech? I don’t believe he’s left the white house at all. I believe the white house and president Obama still have full control over Mr. Gibbs.

Sarah Palin is undoubtedly in Obama’s head, rent free, 24/7. Our lefty media reports on her every step through the slanted prism of the socialist white house agenda. Via facebook, Sarah Palin has been able to direct her message to her audience, an audience hungry and thirsty for the truth and a clear vision of the future through the eyes of someone who understands our founding principles and our exceptionalism. I can just see it now – a white house staffer standing outside the office of the president, dreading the fact that he has been chosen (via a game of papers/scissors/rock) to be the one to approach our leader and tell him, “She’s posted to facebook, again.” Obama’s shoulders fall as he looks over her latest assault to his national transformational agenda. And then, it hits him.

“We have to figure out a way to control her message. We need to figure out a way to control – facebook.” I find it more than ironic that the very medium that Sarah Palin has used to relay her message is the one that a senior white house official, after leaving the white house, is now being considered for as a senior executive.

Facebook is currently a private company that is looking to go public. I cannot see what facebook and Mark Zuckerberg find appealing in hiring Gibbs. I certainly would not consider him a social guru. In fact, I find him to be one of the least appealing people I’d want to be stuck in a social situation with. What corporate board would seriously want him guiding their message? Somehow I just don’t see him as a part of what could potentially be one of the largest and most lucrative corporate boards in America. His only real claim to fame was being white house press secretary, and he wasn’t all that good at that. He was only good at side-stepping and dodging.

Still thinking this scenario is a stretch? Gibbs is also reportedly planning on helping with Obama’s re-election campaign (see here). Do you seriously think he won’t use a position at facebook to assist his buddy in his bid for re-election? There is a bigger agenda here, and I believe the white house is looking to take control of facebook and Sarah Palin’s message, via positioning Gibbs as a senior executive. Do you really want Gibbs in control of your social experience? Yes, Sarah Palin is living rent free in Obama’s head and if we’re not careful, Obama could be in control of much more.

(See more articles by Tracey Porreca at

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »