Sarah Palin Says “It’s Time A Woman Became President of the United States”

gateway pundit ^ | 3/19/2011 | Jim Hoft

[dforest]

I am by no means surprised by that;^)

[dforest]

Alrighty then.

[Cecily]

Listening to her disjointed syntax and slangy speech is one of the reasons people find her “nails on a chalkboard” irritating. She also won’t do much of anything to shore up her weaks points. She is intellectually lazy. Furthermore, the Zero himself is proof that there are plenty of sheeple around just dying to slobber over some cute “dear leader” figure. Our side has its share of them too.

[USSR Didnt Fall]

Excuses? What policy is Palin wrong on?

You can’t, because all you trolls out there can do is use ad hominem attacks.

I can’t take people like you serious, you clearly have an agenda not based on the saving America.

So have your fun, in the end you’re digging your own grave.

Just don’t come crying to people like myself who are doing everything they can to educate people who just don’t get it.

Cheers

[alstewartfan]

It is NOT “time” for *A* woman to be President. That is silly, though it may well work with a segment of women. It IS time for either Sarah or Michele Bachmann to march into the White House. Bob

[Raider Sam]

Not sure I know what time your talking about.

But my question was more in comparison to how Palin talks about her family. When was the last time a male gov talked about his daughter’s life, had a tv show where he talked about his wife and the rest of his kids?

[Happy Rain]

When true conservatives quarrel about issues or people it is never personal but purely business.
I support Sarah Palin—yes she flubs sometimes and,like Reagan (who was a passionate FDR New Deal Democrat), has flirted with the Left in the past.
True conservatives have an invulnerable faith in the original system,and the main ingredients in it,set up by the Founders and they look for the leader most likely to advance or rescue that system and right now,true conservatives support Sarah Palin more than anyone else.
Oh,a “true” conservative is one who embraces to his innermost soul the values and virtues of not only Judeo/Christian tradition but originalist fundamentalist US Constitutional intent.So-called strictly “fiscal” conservatives or strictly “social” conservatives are not “true” conservatives as they have divided the purity of the ideology.Sarah Palin,warts and all,is,at this time,the only TRUE conservative with a chance of beating Obama—in spite of the lies the Leftist MSM and RINOs spread—if anything,when THOSE devils tell you she is unelectable you best swallow a whole pasture salt-lick brick with the information.
So any who criticize Sarah is thus fair game for any SP supporter response whether profane or prudent because we are debating here WHO we want to save America from the evil Obama Left and thus sometimes heads,and keypads,get a little heated—but it is not personal and the Admin monitors keep it from getting really out of hand.
Or are you just TOO STUPID to understand that!!!!/sarc
;)

[Happy Rain]

I was responding to the assumption by some that “natural born citizen” means being born of natural born citizens as well.
It was near impossible for the immediate generations following the Revolution for capable men needed to govern to NOT have British or other foreign parents.
So a historical rumor has it that a special,and thus temporary,dispensation was allowed—one that no longer applies for present generations.
It's constitutional slight of hand I know,but a valid point when strictly defining what a “natural born citizen" is.

[aruanan]

I was responding to the assumption by some that “natural born citizen” means being born of natural born citizens as well.

It was near impossible for the immediate generations following the Revolution for capable men needed to govern to NOT have British or other foreign parents.

So a historical rumor has it that a special,and thus temporary,dispensation was allowed—one that no longer applies for present generations.

Historical rumor? Try the U.S. Constitution:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Obviously, after the passage of sufficient time there would no longer be any whose U.S. citizenship antedated the requirements in the Constitution adopted in 1789, for those, then the only requirement for citizenship is that of the "natural born Citizen."

To see what was understood by those writing the Constitution by "natural born" it's necessary to go to the literature of the times dealing with the subject of national citizenship. If there were absolutely nothing to be found, then one could say, "Well, it could mean this or it could mean that. We just don't have any evidence either way so we can't claim it means any more than _____." That's not the case, though. And to those who say, "Yes, but the Supreme Court said in whoever v whoever etc., etc., etc" we say, "Well, the Supreme Court has been wrong or has been reversed on quite a few things of great import and, at any rate, a Supreme Court decision is inherently not the same thing as the original intent of the original writers." To discover that, you have to go back to the writings of the time. This tendency to twist the language away from its original intent to serve one's exigent need was well known even to the writers of the Constitution who warned about what they already saw happening and what it would mean in the future.

[Happy Rain]

I did say arguments such as yours were valid points and I personally believe that to be natural born means being raised by natural borns and in order to purge the last vestiges of tyrannical government leanings,either by monarchy or by proto socialistic non republican democracy,the Founders desired such a definition as well.
SCOTUS could settle the matter once and for all but who,for heavens sake,can claim standing in the suit?
Sure we can all claim standing in the lawsuits about the obvious unconstitutionality of Obamacare—but the unconstitutionality of Obama herself—oops,himself?
That would mean ruling against the clear 2008 intent of the American people,no matter how they were duped.
SCOTUS ain't got that kind of guts.
No,the House has to follow their solemn oath to uphold the constitution and impeach then leave it up to the Senate and then SCOTUS to follow their solemn oaths to uphold the constitution as well.
Only way.

[alstewartfan]

She is who she is. Her entire life is about family and country, and that will never change, thank Gog. Bob