Palinsucks. See Why!

While I am for free speech I am just incensed that people make Sarah Palin pop culture lenses without exposing what she stands for. That is so irresponsible and is such a lie. If you want to make Sarah a pop star fine, but just realize that she thinks killing people in Iraq is holy!!! At least set aside a small part of your pop star website to warn people about her views and implications of those views.

Views like that are not accidental and we all need to be on our toes here. If you like this look into the real Sarah Palin please Join My Fan Club Sarah Palin is a Theonomist, or you could substitute other names with similar meanings, like Reconstructionist, Dominionist, Theocrat. Not only do these views set her apart as one who wants a "Christian" nation, but these views establish that she wants to take this crusade into battle all over the world.

She has no qualms about provoking Russia, a nation that could destroy the world, and she has said that the Iraq Oil War was simply a holy war. It is rather a very greedy, unholy war and there is a mountain of evidence to that point.

From a religious perspective Jesus set up a barrier between church and state when He said that his kingdom was NOT of this world which is why His servants would not fight. The Dominionist who claims to be a follower of Christ fails to listen to these words and wants to make war both to establish a church/state in their own country, but also to carry that crusade througout the world. While Sarah Palin doesn't look evil you can be assured that Dominionism that she espouses is very evil and very dangerous to world peace.

Do not think that Sarah Palin is going away. She is not. She may crash and burn, but she is not going away. You must realize that this woman is a serious threat to US foreign policy decisions in the future. She may not even have to attain the presidency to gain this influence.

It is not just that Palin is a destroyer of that barrier between church and state. There are a lot of marginal figures who are in that category. No, the danger is the FUSION of Dominionism and Neoconservatism. The neocons, if you study PNAC on Wikipedia and study their guru Leo Strauss on Wikipedia, are essentially amoral, atheistic liars. To fuse the amoral lying empire builders with a woman who wants to make the world "Christian" by force is a fusion that is in a word, demonic. Sarah Palin, sweet Sarah, is a monster in her world view. And she is NOT going away. BE WARNED. And help me stop this woman by spreading the word about her dangerous views.

I am so surprised that those who claim to follow Christ and those of Jewish descendency who follow Jewish law would support both amoral, atheistic neocons and misguided zealots like Palin. It is time more of those people started to SPEAK OUT.

Palinsuresucks.com by bgamall
customize a bumper sticker on zazzle
Browse People Health Cultures Bumper Stickers

Sarah Palin has many detractors. Yet most of these point to her family life, her disputes with inlaws, her animal rights record. While those deserve attention, clearly, the real reason Palin sucks is because she is a Dominionist. Being a Dominionist is not usually considered a serious matter in American politics because most of these folks are marginalized. But Sarah Palin has bypassed that obscurity through her relationship with neocons, Bill Kristol and Karl Rove.

Neocons have, as their basic principle the expansion of American power, with amoral undertones. Neocons are for invasion, illegality, aggression, as means to extend American power throughout the world. The danger of course is that pushing Russia with this behavior is very dangerous and even suicidal. Neocons are like bulldogs because they are not going away anytime soon.

But with the exit of George Bush, these neocons need a populist figure to sweep them again into power in 2012. Sarah Palin, the Dominionist, has become that major vehicle of the neoconservatives. So then, what is a Dominionist? Simple, a Dominionist is one who believes in extending the power of a "Christian" nation far beyond her borders and ultimately all around the world. Furthering religion by force is the hallmark of those who would blur the separation of church and state. The neocons would normally care less about this theology, except that it fits into their concept of world domination by the United States.

From a purely theological perspective, Jesus Christ pronounced that his own kingdom was not of this world and that his servants should not resist the physical authorities. That lesson is missing from the Dominionists and has been missing for those who have done all manner of mischief and evil through persecutions, crusades, wars over religion, hatred of other men for their views, etc. These men have historically done great harm to the world over time.

From a political perspective, this FUSION of Dominionism with Neoconservatism is a very dangerous brew. The world will not be a safer place with these people in charge of American foreign policy and with Palin's little bony finger on the nuclear trigger. You think Dick Cheney scared you? Sarah Palin as president would be the poster child for bomb shelters.

I am not alone in my opinion of the neocons. Even Pat Buchanan has called them the War Party and views their provocation of the bear as being folly. While he has a more favorable view of Sarah Palin than I do Buchanan's optimism is simply not supported by the facts.

It is time that Americans come to terms with the toxic ambition that a Neocon Dominionist merger would foment. It is time Americans educated themselves as to the dangerous thinking of these people. America has every right to defend itself and its allies. However, provoking the Russian bear has never been the policy of the United States and it cannot be the policy of the United States in the future.

business directory

From Slate here is an excerpt:

"Besides, it's not even clear that sucks has naughty origins. We might trace its roots to the phrase sucks hind teat, meaning inferior. Or there's sucks to you, a nonsexual taunt apparently favored by British schoolchildren of yore. Of course, when a 9-year-old girl walks up to you tomorrow and tells you that "Blue's Clues sucks," she won't be aware of these past usages. But neither will she have in mind (or understand) the much dirtier alternative. The point is that sucks has become untethered from its past and carries no tawdry implications for those who use it.

But this debate is tired. We could argue all day about whether sucks is an obscenity or not. (I'll just note that time is on my side. Frequent usage in all sorts of contexts means sucks grows less obscene by the minute.) What's far more interesting to me is the word's utility.

Sucks is the most concise, emphatic way we have to say something is no good. As a one-syllable intransitive verb, it offers superb economy. Granted, some things require more involved assessments (like, say, James Joyce: I find his early work unparalleled in its style and its evocation of emotion, while his later writing became willfully opaque in a manner that leaves me cold). But other things don't require this sort of elaboration (like, say, John Grisham: He sucks)."

Suck It Up From Slate

Isle of Squid Directory



Submit Your Poltical or Economics Lens to My Group!