Why Sarah Palin Will Never be President

Article first published as Why Sarah Palin Will Never be President on Blogcritics.

“But I will tell you … I am not going to sit down. I am not going to shut up.” These words might well serve as Sarah Palin’s political epitaph. While few might care if she sits down, there are many, including members of the Republican Party (Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee for instance), who think she should shut up.

Shutting up, unfortunately, isn’t a Palin strong-point. Having been infected with the Tea Party’s interpretation of freedom of speech (the right to blurt out whatever hateful nonsense happens to flit through one’s mind), she has proven herself incapable of keeping her tongue under the control of her brain.

Tea Party followers can afford to indulge in rash, or even irrational speech. This organization isn’t actually a political party, and its members don’t have to worry about getting elected, but if Sarah Palin, is not ruling out a run for the Presidency in 2012, she needs to give more thought to what she says in public.

The Tuscon shootings provided both Barack Obama and Sarah Palin equal opportunity to prove that they are worthy of the Oval Office, and highlighted why Mr. Obama is, and Ms. Palin isn’t. The President seized the moment, and came up with a speech that pushed all the right buttons to boost his image. Sarah chose to focus on her favorite topic (Sarah Palin), selfishly portraying herself as the true victim in this affair, and once again belligerently lashing out at those who would try to prevent her from exercising her God-given right to recklessly shoot-off her mouth whenever the urge strikes.

Her latest attack of verbal diarrhea came at the expense of breast-feeding mothers. With her usual lack of ability to focus on the real issue, she declared that the only reason for Michelle Obama urging mothers to breast-feed, is the high price of milk. This mother of a large brood, conveniently overlooked the fact that, nursing children are not generally given cow’s milk to replace breast milk, but instead drink baby formula.

These types of statements are even bringing condemnation from within her own party. Mike Huckabee …joined Republicans saying Palin should have controlled her urge to lash out at all things Obama. This wasn’t the first time she drew fire form a Republican Party notable. On the occasion of her infamous “blood-libel” speech, Newt Gingrich suggested she be “…more careful and think through what she’s saying and how she’s saying it.”

This would-be contender in 2012 should have learned something from her run for the office of Vice-President in 2008. Her lack of ability to take direction from people with more experience than herself, saw John McCain’s campaign disintegrate, and her own political ambitions left temporarily in tatters.

Sarah Palin undoubtedly employs professional speech-writers, but seems unwilling to let others put words in her mouth, and as she proved in 2008, believes that she knows better than anyone what to say, and when to say it. If this were true all would be well, but instead she displays an uncanny knack for always saying whatever might prove most damaging to her political future.

As she says herself, Ms. Palin will not sit down and shut up, nor will she ever be President of the United States.

Freedom and Democracy for other Countries: America’s Hypocrisy

Article first published as Freedom and Democracy for Other Countries: America’s Hypocrisy on Technorati.

Hosni Mubarak is out, and Barack Obama is hailing his ouster as a triumph of democracy.

Isn’t this the same President (in fact one of several) that supported the former Egyptian strong-man because he was seen as a friend and ally of the West? Could it be possible that America lends support to foreign leaders for purely selfish and self-serving motives, with no regard for democracy or human rights?

Hosni Mubarak certainly isn’t the first ruthless and corrupt dictator propped up by  U.S. politics.  Over the decades many autocrats have been kept in power with American support, with no interest in the welfare of the people under these tyrants.

The years of suffering of the Cuban people under Juan Batista was a direct result of U.S. protection of American interests on the island, and a wish to keep the Communists from gaining a base so close to home.“I believe that there is no country in the world including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country’s policies during the Batista regime” Despite this admission John Kennedy still did everything possible to stop the overthrow of the Cuban dictator.

The Philippines’ Ferdinand Marcos was as autocratic and corrupt as any third-world dictator, and the main source of his power was American interests in the country. “… the Marcos regime he (Ronald Regan) and previous American presidents had strongly supported even after Marcos declared martial law. The United States, which had provided hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, was crucial in buttressing Marcos’s rule.” After the People Power (or EDSA) Revolution, the United States allowed him to enjoy his stolen billions of dollars in exile in Hawaii.

The Shah of Iran, while initiating many reforms, used torture and execution without trial to brutally suppress all opposition. After the nationalization of the country’s oil industry by Prime Minister Dr. Mosaddeq, the CIA played a crucial role in having him removed and replaced by one of the Shah’s generals, Fazollah Zahedi. Secretary of State, Madeleine K Albright, stated: “…it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.” Yet the Shah continued to receive America’s blessing as a friend and ally, as he kept militant Islam at bay, and guaranteed the flow of oil to the West.

These are just a few of the more notable dictatorships to receive the blessing and support of the United States. There have been many other brutal and corrupt foreign governments that couldn’t have held power without American interference in their internal affairs.

It’s fine to make impressive speeches advocating freedom and democracy in foreign countries, but the hypocrisy of America propping up oppressive regimes for purely selfish motives, makes these fancy words sound shameful.