Sarah Palin is a dominionist, meaning she believes in spreading her false version of "Christianity" by force. Christ told Peter to put away his sword. Palin would have kept the sword out swinging.
Palin is the most dangerous female on the face of the earth because even if she doesn't win the presidency, she will likely broker in a neocon. Neocons are secular people, like the Bush's and Cheney, etc, who also believe in world domination.
Aligning and dominionist with neocons is like setting dry grass on fire with gasoline.
Don't be fooled, Beck and Palin are dangerous. They will try to get us into a war with Russia or China and the nukes could fly. I don't know when, but it will happen or at least be in the stages of happening before God puts a stop to it.
I'm not a fan of hers, and I'm pretty much a Conservative leaner on a most things (certainly not all). I wrote her off as far as paying any attention to what she's doing goes; but then again, that last election was such a circus I tuned out of the whole business (not particularly happy to say that, but it's true).
I'd really like to see the Republican party make her go away and put someone else out there I could take seriously. Apparently, though, a lot of Republicans DO take her seriously! (That's why I tuned out of the whole thing - right or wrong - I couldn't vote Liberal but I sure as heck wasn't about to vote for the circus act. )
So, I'm not sure what, of your post, I would agree with or not agree with. Some I do. Some, based on the fact that I've tuned it all out (after a lifetime of not being tuned out), I haven't been paying enough attention to to have much of an opinion on.
Having said all that, what does hit me in the face about the Christianity thing (and although I was raised Catholic, and was taught that Catholic are "Christians too" , I wrote off church when I grew up too. ); is that I can't imagine anyone who aligns himself with what Jesus is said to have taught with someone who made such a big show and a big deal out of all that killing of innocent creatures Palin is apparently proud of. That, alone, tells me this individual doesn't really value the life of "all God's creatures" the way some people seem to think she does.
But, she (and a whole lot of other people in politics) is a circus act, and apparently circus acts fly these days.
The Republican party doesn't have to be dangerous in the ways you say, but it has earned the reputation that it is. (Palin, aside - and I've never paid any attention to radio/tv "personalities" when it comes to forming my own opinions; contrary to what a lot of people think about Conservative "leaners" and Conservatives.) I think, as things stand, the other side is dangerous in its own, and different ways. I live in Massachusetts, have seen, first-hand, how dangerous and destructive so much Liberal thinking in government can be to individual lives; and I'm not at all comfortable with what's going on at the top of the Federal government. (I won't go into all that here, but, believe me, I could back up the stuff about Massachusetts destroying lives and people, causing a lot of the problems it then turns around and pretends to want to fix, but can't (because the cause of the problems is within the government, and not the individual citizens).
So, until some better people get brought forward, and until American voters start to expect more than circus acts for elections, the country's in big trouble one way or another - and a whole lot of us don't know what to do about it, because nobody values the things the are most important in good leaders.
(One thing, though, I don't really care for calling a woman a "female". Call her "the most dangerous person" or "most dangerous woman" or whatever else; but circus act, disregarder-of-life, of whatever else she is; she's a member of "half" of the human race called "women"; and calling any woman a "female" is kind of demeaning to all the rest of the women that are out there. We don't often hear people say, "He's the most dangerous male on the face of the Earth." Why do people do that when it comes to women? I know it's unrelated to your post, but, as they say, "just saying". )
Here is the deal Lisa. Historical conservatives were slow to war and fiscally responsible. Neocons are empire builders and for endless war.
And even if she doesn't win the nomination, she will be so powerful she could broker a neocon into the White House, where we will have massive spending and empire building and antoher weakening of the middle class.
Until the conservatives take their party back, there is not much hope for Republicans. Even Pat Buchanan calls the neocons the war party. Something to think about.
Lisa, my politics sound a lot like yours, and Palin scares the heck out of me! What's really frightening is how many conservatives practically worship her. I fear this will "knock out" any moderate conservatives from running in 2012.
BTW, which republicans would you like to see run in 2012?
Habee, thanks for the encouragement. I have written that on economics, the republicans want to cut too much and the dems want to spend too much. I say cut the military except for defensive positions which should be strengthened, and then the government should aggressively invest in technology. We cannot just support the industries of big bankster credit and the military.
And I am for less war as we cannot afford it, not are aggressive wars moral.
I agree with you there. I fully support some government programs, but I do think the dems spend too much. I'm often "caught in the middle," politically speaking. I refer to myself as a moderate conservative or a conservative moderate. On social issues, I support some liberal views, too.
Slow to war and fiscal conservatives -- that sounds great to me! And just what we need right about now (actually, always).
It would seem to me that anyone putting forth those values would be extremely popular and a definite contender for public office -- whether as a governor, a senator, or the POTUS.
I haven't researched who specifically (demographics) are being taken in by Palin. I can only imagine they don't know what a dominionist is (or even how to spell it).
Do they understand what she is really all about underneath the sexy packaging (gag me) and the faux-folksy rhetoric???
Sometimes I feel like the little boy shouting "The emperor has no clothes!" Why can't people see how evil and dangerous she is?
It breaks my heart and, as Habee said, scares the bejeezes out of me to think Americans are so easily duped.
Hi Mighty Mom. The definition of dominionist is a person who seeks to spread their version of the gospel by war and violence. It is no different than a muslim radical view of holy war. It is not based on any teaching of Christ.
It is dangerous, and is blind.
by rhamson6 years ago
With all the excitement generated by Sarah Palins new book "Going Rogue" and what some say is an obvious run at the White House, could she be the answer the Rebublican party is looking for?
by Susan Reid6 years ago
Ok, so Sarah Palin got paid beaucoup denaro to speak at University of California UC) Stanislaus. God forbid the controversy leading up (protests) and coverage of the speech itself should be "enough" for the...
by Stacie L5 years ago
Alaska set to release thousands of Sarah Palin emails"The messages date from Palin's first days in office in December 2006 through September 2008â��a period that covers most of the presidential election,...
by Cedar Cove Farm6 years ago
PLease, only answer if you have been a traditional conservative. I am a conservative Christian and my view is that the neo-conservatives stink just as bad as the liberals. I want true, American old fashined...
by American View4 years ago
I find it interesting when Democrats say the only reason people will vote for Romney is because he is a Republican. They chastise the people on the right who are loyal to their party. They cannot see that people will...
by Dr Billy Kidd3 years ago
It's been a couple of days now. Fox News Reporter Andrea Tantaros said that if you see a person who voted for Obama, hit 'em in the face. Why is there no discussion of this? Is inciting to violence the new hate message...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.