Mama Grizzly Eats Fish

Rahm "Soon-to-be-Dead" Fish practically tries to be dinner.

Are You Capable of Decency, Rahm Emanuel?

The newly-released mind-boggling, record-smashing $3,400,000,000,000 federal budget invites plenty of opportunity to debate the merits of incurring more and more debt that will drown the next generation of Americans. Never has it been possible to spend your way out of debt. So... let the debate begin.

Included in the debate process will be opportunities for our president to deliberate internally the wisdom of this debt explosion, along with other economic, military and social issues facing our country. Our president will discuss these important issues with Democrat leaders and those within his inner circle.

I would ask the president to show decency in this process by eliminating one member of that inner circle, Mr. Rahm Emanuel, and not allow Rahm’s continued indecent tactics to cloud efforts. Yes, Rahm is known for his caustic, crude references about those with whom he disagrees, but his recent tirade against participants in a strategy session was such a strong slap in many American faces that our president is doing himself a disservice by seeming to condone Rahm’s recent sick and offensive tactic.

The Obama Administration’s Chief of Staff scolded participants, calling them, “F---ing retarded,” according to several participants, as reported in the Wall Street Journal.

Just as we’d be appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever used the “N-word” or other such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities – and the people who love them – is unacceptable, and it’s heartbreaking.

A patriot in North Andover, Massachusetts, notified me of Rahm’s “retarded” slam. I join this gentleman, who is the father of a beautiful child born with Down Syndrome, in asking why the Special Olympics, National Down Syndrome Society and other groups condemning Rahm’s degrading scolding have been completely ignored by the White House. No comment from his boss, the president?

As my friend in North Andover says, “This isn’t about politics; it’s about decency. I am not speaking as a political figure but as a parent and as an everyday American wanting my child to grow up in a country free from mindless prejudice and discrimination, free from gratuitous insults of people who are ostensibly smart enough to know better... Have you no sense of decency, sir?”

Mr. President, you can do better, and our country deserves better.

- Sarah Palin

Sean Hannity Interview

Here's Sarah on Sean Hannity on January 28th:



And Palin let two more Facebook hand grenades fly, the first was just an infomercial, the second sent out some major shrapnel:

On Wednesday night, the president asked us to “let him know” if we had any better ideas, and today John Boehner handed him a compilation of the policy alternatives that have been advanced over the past year. These are ideas that deserve to be considered to turn down the volume on the rhetoric and use common sense. Please take a look at Solutions.GOP.gov. You can read the compilation of policy alternatives, called “Better Solutions."

- Sarah Palin

Okay, enough Mrs. Nice Governor, bring on the good stuff:
-------------

Stay Focused: Relocating Terrorists' Trial Doesn't Solve the Main Problem -

People are celebrating the fact that the Obama Administration is considering relocating the terrorists’ trial from New York to another American city. Yet there’s still no talk of moving the trial out of our U.S. civilian courts to where it should take place – a military tribunal.

Now the administration is backtracking in order to fix its initially blundered decision to try these dangerous terrorists in New York City despite the great danger and cost to New Yorkers. This scenario is all too common in Washington.

The tactic is to propose something so outrageous that the public will rise up and demand common sense, and then the White House “concedes” and changes its initial decision to give the impression of newfound reasonability and moderation.

But the problem still isn’t solved! The trial location debate becomes a diversion so that we’ll take our eyes off the ball. The point missed is that our President still wants to give these terrorists U.S. constitutional protections in our civilian courts, allowing them to lawyer-up on our dime.

This tactic is in the same vein as another Washington game: creating the appearance of a “crisis” in order to push for a radical solution. (“The health care crisis must be fixed by government now or we’re all gonna die! The earth’s temperature is fluctuating; government must fix this crisis now or we’re all gonna die! Private businesses made poor decisions and bureaucrats claim they’re too big to fail, so government must fix this crisis now or we’re all gonna die!”)

Politicians and lobbyists announce that there is a “crisis,” and never letting a good crisis go to waste, they propose a radical solution to fix it. The public listens intently, and in a sincere desire to help, an alternative to the politicians’ radical solution gets put forward. The politicians then “concede” and mellow out their radical solution.

The public’s attention has been diverted to tinkering on the periphery, all the while ignoring the real problem at the heart of the “crisis” that started the whole debate.

The fact is our government has a choice as to where to try the terrorists. We don’t have to try them in our civilian courts. The peripheral debate regarding in which city to try these evil, dangerous haters-of-America is a diversion. Let’s get back to the heart of the matter: what choice will our government make – terrorist trials in civilian courts or military tribunals?

- Sarah Palin

KOTUS Uses LOTUS to Slam TOTUS

Sorry for the cheesy headline. :)

The Kickboxer of the United States hammers the President in a new Facebook note:

The Credibility Gap -

While I don’t wish to speak too harshly about President Obama’s state of the union address, we live in challenging times that call for candor. I call them as I see them, and I hope my frank assessment will be taken as an honest effort to move this conversation forward.

Last night, the president spoke of the “credibility gap” between the public’s expectations of their leaders and what those leaders actually deliver. “Credibility gap” is a good way to describe the chasm between rhetoric and reality in the president’s address. The contradictions seemed endless.

He called for Democrats and Republicans to “work through our differences,” but last year he dismissed any notion of bipartisanship when he smugly told Republicans, “I won.”

He talked like a Washington “outsider,” but he runs Washington! He’s had everything any president could ask for – an overwhelming majority in Congress and a fawning press corps that feels tingles every time he speaks. There was nothing preventing him from pursuing “common sense” solutions all along. He didn’t pursue them because they weren’t his priorities, and he spent his speech blaming Republicans for the problems caused by his own policies.

He dared us to “let him know” if we have a better health care plan, but he refused to allow Republicans in on the negotiations or consider any ideas for real free market and patient-centered reforms. We’ve been “letting him know” our ideas for months from the town halls to the tea parties, but he isn’t interested in listening. Instead he keeps making the nonsensical claim that his massive trillion-dollar health care bill won’t increase the deficit.

Americans are suffering from job losses and lower wages, yet the president practically demanded applause when he mentioned tax cuts, as if allowing people to keep more of their own hard-earned money is an act of noblesse oblige. He claims that he cut taxes, but I must have missed that. I see his policies as paving the way for massive tax increases and inflation, which is the “hidden tax” that most hurts the poor and the elderly living on fixed incomes.

He condemned lobbyists, but his White House is filled with former lobbyists, and this has been a banner year for K Street with his stimulus bill, aka the Lobbyist’s Full Employment Act. He talked about a “deficit of trust” and the need to “do our work in the open,” but he chased away the C-SPAN cameras and cut deals with insurance industry lobbyists behind closed doors.

He spoke of doing what’s best for the next generation and not leaving our children with a “mountain of debt,” but under his watch this year, government spending is up by 22%, and his budget will triple our national debt.

He spoke of a spending freeze, but doesn’t he realize that each new program he’s proposing comes with a new price tag? A spending freeze is a nice idea, but it doesn’t address the root cause of the problem. We need a comprehensive examination of the role of government spending.

The president’s deficit commission is little more than a bipartisan tax hike committee, lending political cover to raise taxes without seriously addressing the problem of spending.

He condemned bailouts, but he voted for them and then expanded and extended them. He praised the House’s financial reform bill, but where was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in that bill? He still hasn’t told us when we’ll be getting out of the auto and the mortgage industries. He praised small businesses, but he’s spent the past year as a friend to big corporations and their lobbyists, who always find a way to make government regulations work in their favor at the expense of their mom & pop competitors.

He praised the effectiveness of his stimulus bill, but then he called for another one – this time cleverly renamed a “jobs bill.” The first stimulus was sold to us as a jobs bill that would keep unemployment under 8%. We now have double digit unemployment with no end in sight. Why should we trust this new “jobs bill”?

He talked about “making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development,” but apparently it’s still too tough for his Interior Secretary to move ahead with Virginia’s offshore oil and gas leases.

If they’re dragging their feet on leases, how long will it take them to build “safe, clean nuclear power plants”? Meanwhile, he continued to emphasize “green jobs,” which require massive government subsidies for inefficient technologies that can’t survive on their own in the real world of the free market.

He spoke of supporting young girls in Afghanistan who want to go to school and young women in Iran who courageously protest in the streets, but where were his words of encouragement to the young girls of Afghanistan in his West Point speech? And where was his support for the young women of Iran when they were being gunned down in the streets of Tehran?

Despite speaking for an hour, the president only spent 10% of his speech on foreign policy, and he left us with many unanswered questions. Does he still think trying the 9/11 terrorists in New York is a good idea? Does he still think closing Gitmo is a good idea? Does he still believe in Mirandizing terrorists after the Christmas bomber fiasco? Does he believe we’re in a war against terrorists, or does he think this is just a global crime spree? Does he understand that the first priority of our government is to keep our country safe?

In his address last night, the president once again revealed that there’s a fundamental disconnect between what the American people expect from their government, and what he wants to deliver. He’s still proposing failed top-down big government solutions to our problems. Instead of smaller, smarter government, he’s taken a government that was already too big and supersized it.

Real private sector jobs are created when taxes are low, investment is high, and people are free to go about their business without the heavy hand of government. The president thinks innovation comes from government subsidies. Common sense conservatives know innovation comes from unleashing the creative energy of American entrepreneurs.

Everything seems to be “unexpected” to this administration: unexpected job losses; unexpected housing numbers; unexpected political losses in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey. True leaders lead best when confronted with the unexpected. But instead of leading us, the president lectured us. He lectured Wall Street; he lectured Main Street; he lectured Congress; he even lectured our Supreme Court Justices.

He criticized politicians who “wage a perpetual campaign,” but he gave a campaign speech instead of a state of the union address. The campaign is over, and President Obama now has something that candidate Obama never had: an actual track record in office.

We now can see the failed policies behind the flowery words. If Americans feel as cynical as the president suggests, perhaps it’s because the audacity of his recycled rhetoric no longer inspires hope.

Real leadership requires results. Real hope lies in the ingenuity, generosity, and boundless courage of the American people whose voices are still not being heard in Washington.

- Sarah Palin

----------------

I am honest-to-goodness speechless. Wow. Just, wow.

POW! Obama's Gonna Hurt Tomorrow

The Kickboxer in Chief leaves Obama dazed on the mat.


Mr. President: Please Try, "I'm Listening, People," Instead of "Listen Up, People!" -

We’ve now seen three landslide Republican victories in three states that President Obama carried in 2008. From the tea parties to the town halls to the Massachusetts Miracle, Americans have tried to make their opposition to Washington’s big government agenda loud and clear. But the President has decided that this current discontent isn’t his fault, it’s ours. He seems to think we just don’t understand what’s going on because he hasn’t had the chance – in his 411 speeches and 158 interviews last year – to adequately explain his policies to us.

Instead of sensibly telling the American people, “I’m listening,” the president is saying, “Listen up, people!” This approach is precisely the reason people are upset with Washington. Americans understand the president’s policies. We just don’t agree with them. But the president has refused to shift focus and come around to the center from the far left. Instead he and his old campaign advisers are regrouping to put a new spin on the same old agenda for 2010.

Americans aren’t looking for more political strategists. We’re looking for real leadership that listens and delivers results. The president’s former campaign adviser is now calling on supporters to “get on the same page,” but what’s on that page? He claims that the president is “resolved” to “keep fighting for” his agenda, but we’ve already seen what that government-growth agenda involves, and frankly the hype doesn’t give us much hope.
Real health care reform requires a free market approach; real job creation involves incentivizing, not punishing, the job-creators; reining in the “big banks” means ending bailouts; and stopping “the undue influence of lobbyists” means not cutting deals with them behind closed doors.

Instead of real leadership, though, we’ve had broken promises and backroom deals. One of the worst: candidate Obama promised to go through the federal budget “with a scalpel,” but President Obama spent four times more than his predecessor. Want more?

Candidate Obama promised that lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House,” but President Obama gave at least a dozen former lobbyists top administration jobs. Candidate Obama promised us that we could view his health care deliberations openly and honestly on C-SPAN, but President Obama cut deals behind closed doors with industry lobbyists. Candidate Obama promised us that we would have at least five days to read all major legislation, but President Obama rushed through bills before members of Congress could even read them.

Candidate Obama promised us that his economic stimulus package would be targeted and pork-free, but President Obama signed a stimulus bill loaded with pork and goodies for corporate cronies. Candidate Obama railed against Wall Street greed, but President Obama cozied up to bankers as he extended and expanded their bailouts. Candidate Obama promised us that for “Every dollar that I’ve proposed [in spending], I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches.” We’re still waiting to see how President Obama will cut spending to match the trillion he’s spent.

More than anything, Americans were promised jobs, but the president’s stimulus package has failed to stem our rising unemployment rate. Maybe it was unfair to expect that an administration with so little private sector experience would understand something about job creation. How many Obama Administration officials have ever had to make a payroll or craft a business plan in the private sector? How many have had to worry about not having the resources to invest and expand?

The president’s big government policies have made hiring a new employee a difficult commitment for employers to make. Ask yourself if the Obama Administration has done anything to make it easier for employers to hire. Have they given us any reassurance that the president will keep taxes low and not impose expensive new regulations?

Candidate Obama over-promised; President Obama has under-delivered.

We understand you, Mr. President. We’ve listened to you again and again. We ask that you now listen to the American people.

- Sarah Palin
---------------




That had all the punch of another speech. Hmmmm. What one was it?.....

Welcome to 2010 - It's War, Not a Crime Spree

Welcome to 2010. A year of Congressional races and comeupances; of the storm that is Sarah Palin, and the blooming of the Tea Party movement.

The LOTUS kicks off the year with a scolding for President Obama:

It’s War, not a Crime Spree -

President Obama’s meeting with his top national security advisers does nothing to change the fact that his fundamental approach to terrorism is fatally flawed. We are at war with radical Islamic extremists and treating this threat as a law enforcement issue is dangerous for our nation’s security. That’s what happened in the 1990s and we saw the result on September 11, 2001.

This is a war on terror not an “overseas contingency operation.” Acts of terrorism are just that, not “man caused disasters.” The system did not work. Abdulmutallab was a child of privilege radicalized and trained by organized jihadists, not an “isolated extremist” who traveled to a land of “crushing poverty.” He is an enemy of the United States, not just another criminal defendant.

It simply makes no sense to treat an al Qaeda-trained operative willing to die in the course of massacring hundreds of people as a common criminal. Reports indicate that Abdulmutallab stated there were many more like him in Yemen but that he stopped talking once he was read his Miranda rights. President Obama’s advisers lamely claim Abdulmutallab might be willing to agree to a plea bargain – pretty doubtful you can cut a deal with a suicide bomber.

John Brennan, the President’s top counterterrorism adviser, bizarrely claimed “there are no downsides or upsides” to treating terrorists as enemy combatants. That is absurd. There is a very serious downside to treating them as criminals: terrorists invoke their “right” to remain silent and stop talking. Terrorists don’t tell us where they were trained, what they were trained in, who they were trained by, and who they were trained with.

Giving foreign-born, foreign-trained terrorists the right to remain silent does nothing to keep Americans safe from terrorist threats. It only gives our enemies access to courtrooms where they can publicly grandstand, and to defense attorneys who can manipulate the legal process to gain access to classified information.

President Obama was right to change his policy and decide to send no more detainees to Yemen where they can be free to rejoin their war on America. Now he must back off his reckless plan to close Guantanamo, begin treating terrorists as wartime enemies not suspects alleged to have committed crimes, and recognize that the real nature of the terrorist threat requires a commander-in-chief, not a constitutional law professor.

- Sarah Palin

It's even better when Tammy Bruce reads it:


I do believe that I am grinning from ear to ear:)

I apologize for being distracted lately by the Bristol/Levi custody battle and other things. When nothing's going on I tend to track down the rabbit trails. But the lull is finally over, and the two sides now reengage. As far as the custody issue is concerned, I leave it to the court. Leaving Levi's publicity seeking aside, it might actually be better for Sarah if Levi is successful in obtaining joint custody. We'll address the fallout as those issues arise.

Leaving all of that sideline stuff on the sidelines, we press forward into a new year and onto a new front. Among other things, Obama is missing the Iranian Revolution; he is saying "now you stop that now" to the terrorists before retreating back to his golf course to suck his thumb. It is time to take this country back. It is time for some courage. It is time to remind ourselves who we are.

No more hangover from the 2008 election - this is a new year; a new war; a new beginning. And we are going to be led into battle by a general who has spent the last year and half learning how to weather the storm. Thank you, libs for providing the boot camp.

I don't know about you, but I feel good:)

Anybody else think Palin needs to shut up and do her homework?

Just because the mainstream media isn't talking about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Countless articles screaming that Sarah Palin has no substance don't make her Facebook posts that reach over a million people disappear. Here's the latest from the LOTUS:
-------------

Last weekend while you were preparing for the holidays with your family, Harry Reid’s Senate was making shady backroom deals to ram through the Democrat health care take-over. The Senate ended debate on this bill without even reading it. That and midnight weekend votes seem to be standard operating procedures in D.C.

No one is certain of what’s in the bill, but Senator Jim DeMint spotted one shocking revelation regarding the section in the bill describing the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (now called the Independent Payment Advisory Board), which is a panel of bureaucrats charged with cutting health care costs on the backs of patients – also known as rationing. Apparently Reid and friends have changed the rules of the Senate so that the section of the bill dealing with this board can’t be repealed or amended without a 2/3 supermajority vote. Senator DeMint said:

“This is a rule change. It’s a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. I mean, we want to bind future congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future congresses.”

In other words, Democrats are protecting this rationing “death panel” from future change with a procedural hurdle. You have to ask why they’re so concerned about protecting this particular provision. Could it be because bureaucratic rationing is one important way Democrats want to “bend the cost curve” and keep health care spending down?

The Congressional Budget Office seems to think that such rationing has something to do with cost. In a letter to Harry Reid last week, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted (with a number of caveats) that the bill’s calculations call for a reduction in Medicare’s spending rate by about 2 percent in the next two decades, but then he writes the kicker:

“It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.”

Though Nancy Pelosi and friends have tried to call “death panels” the “lie of the year,” this type of rationing – what the CBO calls “reduc[ed] access to care” and “diminish[ed] quality of care” – is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor.

This health care bill is one of the most far-reaching and expensive expansions of the role of government into our lives. We’re talking about putting one-seventh of our economy under the government’s thumb. We’re also talking about something as intimate to our personal well-being as medical care.

This bill is so unpopular that people on the right and the left hate it. So why go through with it? The Senate is planning to vote on this on Christmas Eve. Why the rush? Though we will begin paying for this bill immediately, we will see no benefits for years. (That’s the trick that allowed the CBO to state that the bill won’t grow the deficit for the next ten years.)

The administration’s promises of transparency and bipartisanship have been broken one by one. This entire process has been defined by midnight votes on weekends, closed-door meetings with industry lobbyists, and payoffs to politicians willing to sell their principles for sweetheart deals. Is it any wonder that Americans are so disillusioned with their leaders in Washington?

This is about politics, not health care. Americans don’t want this bill. Americans don’t like this bill. Washington has stopped listening to us. But we’re paying attention, and 2010 is coming.

- Sarah Palin

Your Blue Dogs Are Showing

From the lips of the LOTUS - Speaker Pelosi: Your Blue Dogs are Howling:

Like many Americans, I’m very concerned about the efforts underway to rush through the 2,000 page Pelosi health care bill this weekend. Why the rush? That’s a lot of pages to read. Why not give everyone the chance to read it and debate it? How much will this bill cost us? It’s unclear because the figures coming out of Washington keep changing – and always in the direction of costing more, not less.

The latest numbers show it will cost more than a trillion dollars over the decade, but when has a government program ever come in on or under budget? How will we pay for it? Taxes, of course – and not just on the “rich” (you know, the people who spur the economy by buying goods and running companies that employ people), but also on just about everyone, especially small businesses – the job-creating engine of our economy.

One of the points of health care reform was to help small businesses with the cost, but this bill hurts them – and right at a time when so many Americans are out of work and need the jobs that small businesses produce.

What’s in this bill? The “death panel” provision is in it. Medicare cuts are in it. Coverage of illegal immigrants is in it. And federal funding for abortion is in it. I commend the many Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats who are taking a principled stance to fight this. I had a message for Speaker Pelosi in a speech I gave last night for the Wisconsin Right to Life – “please, please don’t break the ‘transparency promise’ by prohibiting at least a vote of your colleagues on funding abortion-on-demand.”

Speaker Pelosi has already broken many promises thus far in this “reform” exercise. She promised that this would be a bi-partisan effort, but the bill she’s pushing isn’t bi-partisan. She promised that the final version of the bill would be posted online 72 hours before it comes to a vote so that the American people could clearly see what’s in it and how we will pay for it. But she broke that promise too when she decided to rush the bill to a vote this weekend. The speaker must be held accountable for her broken promises.

Now is the time for Americans who believe in the free market and who believe that we need policies that promote job growth instead of job loss to say once and for all, “Enough!” Stand up and make your voices heard before it’s too late.

Call and email your representatives and tell them to vote “no” on Pelosi’s train wreck of a health care bill, or else we will vote “no” to sending them back to Washington when we go to the polls in less than 12 months.

PS: For an idea of the bureaucratic maze that the Pelosi bill would create, take a look at this new chart put out by the Joint Economic Committee.

- Sarah Palin

Happy Birthday To An Iron Lady

From LOTUS:

"I would like to extend warm birthday wishes to Margaret Thatcher today. Baroness Thatcher continues to remain a role model to many people, particularly women, around the world. Her career is a collection of "firsts." She was the youngest female Conservative Party member to stand for election in history, she was the first woman to hold the title Leader of the Opposition, and she was the first woman to become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

"As Prime Minister, she took an active role in defending economic freedom and democratic ideals. Her push to privatize British industry and lower tax rates led to a substantial economic expansion in the United Kingdom. She was just as influential in foreign policy. Along with President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II, Prime Minister Thatcher recognized the evil of Communism and worked tirelessly to erode the power and influence of the Soviet Union.

"Her life and career serve as a blueprint for overcoming the odds and challenging the "status quo." She started life as a grocer's daughter from Grantham and rose to become Prime Minister - all by her own merit and hard work. I cherish the accomplishments of Margaret Thatcher and will always count her as one of my role models."

- Sarah Palin
Methinks Palin sees a bit of herself in Thatcher's story. And methinks I see a touch of Thatcher in Palin. Many of these Thatcher quotes I can hear coming from America's fighting lady:

Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't.

I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.

I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.

I just owe almost everything to my father and it's passionately interesting for me that the things that I learned in a small town, in a very modest home, are just the things that I believe have won the election.

I owe nothing to Women's Lib.

I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air.

If my critics saw me walking over the Thames they would say it was because I couldn't swim.

If you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing.

If you lead a country like Britain, a strong country, a country which has taken a lead in world affairs in good times and in bad, a country that is always reliable, then you have to have a touch of iron about you.

If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman.

It may be the cock that crows, but it is the hen that lays the eggs.

Of course it's the same old story. Truth usually is the same old story.

One of the things being in politics has taught me is that men are not a reasoned or reasonable sex.

Pennies do not come from heaven. They have to be earned here on earth.

Platitudes? Yes, there are platitudes. Platitudes are there because they are true.

There are still people in my party who believe in consensus politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors... I mean it.

There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families.

This lady is not for turning.

We were told our campaign wasn't sufficiently slick. We regard that as a compliment.

What Britain needs is an iron lady.

It's about time America got its fighting lady.

LOTUS

I've added a link in the right column under "Topics" called "LOTUS." Click on it and it will take you directly to Sarah Palin's Notes on her Facebook page.