Is Sarah Palin a Hillary Clinton? In my opinion I say no. She did a fair job as governor of Alaska, I would say. On some political issues, if she were president, I would argue she could turn out to be placed politically in the center. On others, she would likely be center-right. But the truth about her political platform on the whole is, she is all the way to the right, on every political issue that the country faces right now. This I find is absolutely perilous.
Monica Crowley, on the McLaughlin Group, finds her politics plausible for she is an extreme conservative. I on the other hand, find it untrustworthy. Such extreme right-wing thinking is exemplary of the era before the Civil Rights Movement and the direct result of it.
Sarah Palin, running for vice-president in the republican party, during the 2008 campaign election, stated at the Republican National Convention she was for hockey-moms, since she herself was a hockey-mom. This admission of being just an ordinary, down-home, white, conservative female mother, connotes, she can identify with over fifty-percent of middle-class and lower-class white females, nationwide, conventionally conservative, and maybe can understand just what it is they stand for and want from a politician, and that she fits that bill. Further, since she shares their outlook on the political landscape of America, they should know, she most assuredly has their self-interests at heart.
This is a horse-of-a-pill to swallow. War is not a game of hockey. That is the first problem I have with Sarah’s political platform as a capitalist and centrist. Second, terrorism is shifting its methodology from simple suicide attacks in the present to biological and bacterial attacks in the coming future. Monica Crowley, on the McLaughlin Group, compared Washington’s recent paralyzing snow storm that shut the city down to what an Anthrax attack could do should the Taliban and or Al-Qaida put forth such a scheme. She is dead wrong. What nitwit would risk such an open and easily trackable plan. The idea of a counter-terrorist attack (whatever type) on the enemy, is put forth with a goal in mind and not to fail. That is to say, details of failure, by radical terrorists, would have been pre-considered I’m sure.
What is being undermined by experts in the Pentagon and Monica Crowley is these guys are Suicide-hardliners. That is, they sacrifice their lives for the greater good of the whole. This connotes, there is nothing they won’t do. For material meeds are not the ends that justifies the means. Their meeds are immaterial and are perceived to be metaphysically amassed.
With this in mind, their [the jihadists] next move could be in the bacterial realm of attack. Let me explain what I mean. First off, man can easily emulate mother nature in many areas of evolution in the laboratory now. Insects such as mosquitos, flies, fleas, bats, and even dogs, are carriers for Eukaryotes and Prokaryotes that feed off the human species. These types of carriers usually possess enzymes, due to millions of years of evolution, that prevent the parasite from the eradication of the host. Thus they, the insect and the bacterium, or virus, live symbiotically as one.
This very same principle of co-sharing, by insects and microorganisms, can be used to launch a bacterial attack. Remember the Bubonic Plague or Black Death, Yersinia Pestis, that first struck in 429, and 427/6 BC in Athens, and then reappeared during the early Renaissance in the 1300s and killed nearly half the population of Europe? How did this occur? Simply put, for the Greeks by Professor Thomas Noble, fleas got on rats. Rats got on trading ships. Once on the ships the fleas got off the rats and got onto humans. Simple as that. Moreover, we as humans already live symbiotically with Prokaryotes such as Staphylococcus, E. Coli, and Streptococcus, which however are considered avirulent strains.
Why can’t this model be repeated? I argue it can be. It is a simple process of culturing a parasite that can be injected into man as a host, provided symbiosis is transient, not quite like that of the example with the aforementioned Bubonic Plague, because of the method of direct injection, then, based on the means to transmit the disease, for example, sharing food, sexual intercourse, shaking of hands, coughing, sneezing, whatever’s fastest and most efficient, all could be an undetectable means of initiating the biological chain reaction of human contamination. This is not rocket science I am discussing here. Such possibilities are within the realm of reason right now. Since Immigration policy in the US is relaxed, newcomers could bring a manufactured parasite, living in their bodies, into the country, which can do irreparable damage once inside and transmission starts. In contrast, they, the host, is a mere vessel for the deed and disease, they are sacrificed eventually and for a national religious cause.
The day is coming for such extreme measures of religious counter-warfare. Understand, the point of a war, let me remind you, is to vanquish your enemy, if total eradication is necessary, than so be it. This is the foremost fundamental principle of war: To eliminate the chance of your enemy regrouping and initiating a potential new threat. One even more devastating than the first encounter.
Sarah Palin as a devout hockey mom up against such odds would be way out of her league, no pun intended. What this country needs are political leaders, now and in the future, whose rationale is focused on what is best for America. And in time of war, especially when men are being sacrificed for the sake of freedom and national security, or when foreign policy demands that the armed forces, protect its allies, games have no place in such matters of magnitude.
Hillary Clinton would be able to gird herself with the mental fortitude to undertake such a costly task, should such a contest between Palin and herself occurred and she [Hillary Clinton] wins. She is, empirically, better suited for political problems such as the ones I mentioned. She understands the world is in a state of flux, as Heraclitus the philosopher and empiricist, from sixth century BC, philosophized.
Emphatically, the governance of one state is far different from the governance of 50 states. Sarah Palin,’s rhetoric is easily understood as spin or sophistry, but I am not persuaded. What I think she is doing is laying the ground work politically for other more favorable republican candidates, in the future, who can eventually, as we get closer once more to the primary election, pose a more serious threat for the democratic party, and if, Obama nose dives by then, shift the plurality, in government, back to the GOP.
