Mrs Sarah Palin

Posted by T on September 01, 2008

We can simultaneously praise Mrs Sarah Palin for having achieved so much in her young life as to be amazing, and fault her promoters for choosing someone to rule us that has pursued a dual masculine/feminine career.

She was a star in basketball, head of Fellowship of Christian Athletes, a near-miss for Miss Alaska, at which contest she performed on the flute, a sportscaster, mayor, and governor. She is a mother of five, the last of which has Down’s Syndrome, and the eldest of which is about to be deployed to Iraq. In short, she is the very epitome of the super- soccer-mom, the woman who “wanted it all” and got it.

I tend to think this choice is a brilliant ploy from the McCain handlers, which is probably going to deliver the needed constituencies and thus the election. Specifically, (1) soccer moms that are Republican but were tempted to go for “change”; (2) soccer moms that are not Republican but might be intrigued by someone like Palin that could serve as role model for their daughters; (3) some of the female Hillary supporters who might balk at voting for the Negro and now have an ersatz woman to vote for; (4) evangelicals and pro-lifers who now can scamper back to the fold with a clear conscience.

It is brilliant for the cryptocracy, in that they will rope it in for their first choice, while continuing the humiliation and demoralization of the white man: McCain will soon be dead or committed to an insane asylum, which means the election will be a choice between a Negro and a Woman.

On the positive side, there seems to be some truth in what the guys in the lab were saying the other day. Every country tries a female head leader — once. It seems to get it out of their system. England had Margaret Thatcher, Israel Golda Meir, India Indira Gandhi, Pakistan Benazir Bhutto. Germany is taking her turn at bat now with Merkel. The frogs are still holding out: they had a choice between a jew and a woman last time, and took the jew.

So, if we have to catch this chicken pox in order to get it over with and not get it again, it seems like Mrs Palin would be better than anyone else I can think of.

The tragedy however would be if the Christian community presents this situation as something absolutely positive, and Mrs Palin as a role model for girls, and the political realities of today as something acceptable. I fear this could happen. Some have already started suggesting Mrs Palin is our “Deborah.” The foolishness of such a comparison, from either the perspective of exegesis or biblical worldview, is, I hope, too obvious to readers of this blog to warrant spelling it out.

More grim to contemplate is the cryptocracy’s deeper plan. Mrs Palin will deliver their man, but will she still be useful to them after that? She is undoubtedly certified as Israel-safe, but how deep does that go? I doubt anyone knows for sure. We were discussing what means might be employed to move her out of the picture to be replaced by Jew Lieberman once the election is over. I truly hope they would not use a bullet to the skull in the case of a woman. It it sickening to contemplate, but I would expect something more like an aircraft engine “malfunction.”

71 Comments to Mrs Sarah Palin

  • *Note: by “people,” I refer not necessarily to man in general, but more to modern Americans in particular. Perhaps this is a pessimistic analysis, but it seems to me most do not have the zeal and fortitude of our anglo-saxon and southern forefathers. This relates to MRB’s point about preachers–we have very few Knoxes and Dabneys today.

  • Joshua (#50)- tyranny little by little. I just received our township’s newsletter listing the building and zoning permits required for changes you might want to make on “your” property:
    Zoning Permit: a patio; a barn; changing the slope of your roof or adding a dormer; a utility shed of any size; finishing a room in your basement; a deck;
    Building Permit: a fence higher than 6 feet (say for example between your garage and your house 3 feet away; hot tubs and spas; any shed greater than 1000 sq. ft.; any change in size of an existing door or window in your house; a deck if any point of it is 30 inches or more above the ground; a sidewalk which might be construed as public; and of course all the usual others. I don’t even live in a town! This all costs money which must be the point. Tyranny needs to be fed.

  • Now continuing the answer to Jason’s #10 begun in #38. Let me set the stage by telling a parable.

    A Christian goy named Roy Smith is vying to become Prime Minister of Israel. You read an Israeli editorial by someone from the opposition party who sarcastically refers to him as “Goy Smith.”

    Do you imagine you would be outraged? incensed? burning with indignation? Think about it, and I’ll finish this next week.

  • Jason, now let me set the table a little further by asking, suppose I said, “do you really want Methodist Hillary Clinton as President?”

    The comeback might be something like, “well, there are Methodists, and there are Methodists.” Or, “her politics are much worse than her theology.” Some fool might cry, “we have no religious oath of office” to which I would reply, “and I can vote against someone for any reason I choose.”

    In any case, I doubt you would respond by saying, “I’m embarrassed for having linked to this site.”

    Search yourself: why is that?

  • I’d like to ask several friends who are on board with Deborah Palin if they go along with a Deborah Palin as elder. A good point.

    Someone mentioned that the church in China has many women pastors because men are not available. The OPC mission there is trying to teach that women still shouldn’t lead, even under such trying circumstances.

    Palin supporters should not tell me there are no good men (of neo-con stripe) to be VP–Tom Coburn immediately comes to mind.

    I think that now that the “new” has worn off, Sarah Palin will not be that big a factor in this race.

    [originally posted 9/20]

  • The problems with Mrs. Palin run much deeper than her being a woman. Indeed, her gender has something to commend itself: the effete rule us already, we might as well go all the way.

    There is something else that commends Mrs. Palin. The Heebs hate her.

    Here is a filthy-mouthed jewess, spewing her venom at Mrs. Palin. Listen carefully to her view of the Old Testament and her hatred of anyone who understands it on non-Talmudic lines.

    And, yes, this jewess is being faithful to her vile religion. This is the jewish mindset without the varnish.


  • I never knew a Jew who acted like that. And I had a good many for customers. Awful. How do you find that drivel? By the way, what is a Heeb? I can’t always keep up with the jargon. I agree that Sarah should not be on the ticket. Neither should McCain.

  • Joshua — thanks for that link. Rev Morecraft’s sermon is both insightful and moving, as one should expect from that great man. One insight that I got from this sermon for the first time is cogent: Deborah was not necessarily the “chief executive” of Israel. Another important point is the relation of history and precept, though more would of course need to be said to unpack that thoroughly (as I’m sure Rev Morecraft would also agree).

    We should add to that insight: defining “judge” in the book of Judges would be rather more difficult than looking the word up in a lexicon. The closest I can come from the book itself would be something like this: a judge is a person raised up by God by whose hand God rescued Israel from its time of groaning.

    Once this is realized, then it is immediately apparent that she is not an exemplar of the case: “someone that the people may lawfully appoint as their ruler.” That description is simply not what we see in the book of Judges.

    The quickness of the Christian neo-cons to settle on Deborah as a case that proves women are not excluded from civil rule is amazing to me. Why not conclude instead, for example, “she is an exception to the general prohibition of women ruling” — which, however, would lead to the conclusion that women might also, in exceptional circumstances, lead to ruling in the church or family. Yet they are not willing to go there.

    Instead, they reason that of the three spheres family, church, and state, women are prohibited from rule in the first two but not the third — as if women may not make the final decision as to whether the family will go to the zoo or the farmer’s market this Saturday, nor sit on the board that settles the date of the church picnic, but they may certainly be the one to decide to nuke Iran!

    (Yes, I agree that the church elders do much more important things than set the church picnic, but hopefully you get my point.)

    On the other hand, though the selection of a female chief executive be a great evil, I would not conclude that one could not vote for the ticket containing her name. That is, if I (a) believed that our voting as Americans really decided the issue, and (b) believed that one should vote for the lesser of two evils, I might still conclude to vote the McCain/Palin ticket. I just wouldn’t get that from Deborah.

    Obviously, I don’t hold to either (a) or (b), and I don’t expect to vote for either her or Yo-mama. All I am saying is that I am inclined to the view that even if the selection of a female chief magistrate is an evil, the main alternative we are presented with does seem like an even greater evil.

    The bigger point is that the “meta-narrative” (to use the current jargon) shows that the very slate of alternatives that we are allegedly presented with is itself a sign that we are in the “groaning” state from which we need to wait for God’s deliverance — though that “waiting” should certainly not be passive.     [originally posted 9/20]

  • I am confused. I am sure I read the two above posts, #58, #59, already, days ago. But now I see them posted on the 23rd. Am I experiencing some kind of future vision?

  • My bad– i’ve added explanatory notes. It violated blog etiquette not to do so; but I wanted the exegetical considerations to be the keynote for consideration rather than the hebishkeit connection per se.

  • Jason — continuing from my answer, especially in #53… Of course, the fallacy of my counter-example is, that Israel would never tolerate a goy prime minister.

    Only goyim are supposed to not only suffer a kike ruler, but seethe in indignation if one should challenge its propriety.

    If you are the Jason I have heard about, you are a good man, but think! We need you to get past your propagandizement and join us. Your punishment should be exile from New Whiteshire, until something clicks in your thinking.

  • In a panegyric to Mrs. Sarahcuda Palin, “Evangelical postmodernist,” Andrew Sandlin, offers a few deeeep thoughts about women.

    “While men tend to be physically stronger and possess tendencies of daring, risky leadership that are useful in very public, muscular occupations like firefighting, law enforcement, and business (William James: the man’s “world is a theater for heroism”), women are inclined to superior judgment of human character, to better intuitions in making decisions, and certainly to overwhelming capabilities in familial duties. Women are gifted where it really counts: in family, in friendships, and in most decision-making.”

    “The conservative feminists were convinced that women should get the vote not because they were equal to men (what a silly and degrading idea!) but because women, being superior to men on most family matters, should have a big voice in political choices. This explains women’s leadership in the Temperance Movement (to outlaw the production and distribution of alcohol). That movement may have been misguided (as I believe), but its guiding spirit was not: women knew better than anyone the scourge that alcohol abuse poses to the family.”

  • Think Victorian London. Chesterton pointed out that the upper-class woman poking her head into the smoking room to urge the men to come up and join the ladies for a cup of tea is really of a kind with the lower-class woman banging on the door of the pub to demand that her man come home.

    We can appreciate the eternal feminine in both its upper- and lower-class version, even its posturing — even while perhaps sneaking an occasional slug of her own private stash of odorless vodka.

    Of course we should honor women as our superior — in the areas of woman’s calling and strength — while recognizing man’s superiority in his area. But why would fighting fires and modern “business” pop into Andrew’s mind? What about inventing the washing- and laundry-machine? Splitting the nucleus of the atom after developing the equations thereof? Serving on juries and leading armies? Writing sound books of theology? Lynching the attackers of our people?

    Fundamentally, it is dishonesty. It is a combination of flattery and self-deprecation that manipulates and plays into a desired audience, and he is willing to degrade himself to this point even if it leads him to the conclusion of suffragism and Palin.

    Wake up, Candy! We can use your talent in our cause also — but only after you become undeceived.

  • I’m off topic but regarding part of your comment in 67, was J.W. Boothe a “lyncher of the attackers of our people,” or did he act unlawfully?

  • Well Booth is one of my heroes. But to answer the question more objectively and philosophically would require more stage-setting.

  • Well, when you run out of topics to write on, feel free to take a whack at that one. I’d love to read that. I’ve wondered exactly what my disposition toward him ought to be, as I’ve found myself pondering his hero status in my own mind. Whether or not hero is the proper category (and I kind of like it now that you mention it), I’ve thought about things from a number of different angles and just can’t seem to shake a lingering affection–certainly contrary to all I was taught to think about him. Anyway, when I first read your phrase from 67, I thought of him and wondered if he appropriately fit the bill.

1 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *