Did Breitbart Sharpen Palin's Message

A few days ago, I admit I sort of rolled my eyes as I glanced over Sarah Palin's remarks about a "servant's heart" and how she would weigh her options on running  for President based on whether or not she saw that quality in any other candidate.

Now as one of the very early scribes to the whole pro-Sarah Palin movement, these words deeply disappointed.  It's not that I disagree with the concept of a "servant's heart" per se -- and as a Christian I am well aware of the Biblical underpinnings.  It's just that in these times, what is called for is more of an old Testament warrior king kicking than a New Testament disciple servant. 

The instant traction gained in the past couple of years by Chris Christie and Donald Trump has nothing to do with a servant's heart at all.  They have inspired because they have boldly led troops into rhetorical battle by firing the first shots and absorbing the first slings and arrows.

This is exactly what we need.  We do not need a servant's heart overseeing a huge and intrusive government.  We need a kick butt warrior shrinking that government so it does not matter what scoundrel is in charge of it.  That is the whole point our Founders were making when they wrote the Constitution.  They knew the scoundrels would be out there, including many who initially had servants' hearts. 

So Sunday we are besieged with headlines about how bold and fearless and strong Palin's speech was in Wisconsin.  And I'm thinking wow, what happened to the meek unsure servant's heart?  Did she watch "Patton" on the flight to Madison?

I have a theory.  I think she listened to Andrew Breitbart's introduction of her and realized a servant's heart was not going to suffice.  At least not in snowy Madison this weekend.  Breitbart has been perhaps the best at head to head confrontations with those who would destroy our Republic.  He is a national hero for this in my opinion.

Listen to his introduction and decide for yourself if this theory holds water.  And whether or not he had anything to do with Palin's changed tone, his introduction is a great speech in and of itself.  It's 2:56 in length.
A few days ago, I admit I sort of rolled my eyes as I glanced over Sarah Palin's remarks about a "servant's heart" and how she would weigh her options on running  for President based on whether or not she saw that quality in any other candidate.

Now as one of the very early scribes to the whole pro-Sarah Palin movement, these words deeply disappointed.  It's not that I disagree with the concept of a "servant's heart" per se -- and as a Christian I am well aware of the Biblical underpinnings.  It's just that in these times, what is called for is more of an old Testament warrior king kicking than a New Testament disciple servant. 

The instant traction gained in the past couple of years by Chris Christie and Donald Trump has nothing to do with a servant's heart at all.  They have inspired because they have boldly led troops into rhetorical battle by firing the first shots and absorbing the first slings and arrows.

This is exactly what we need.  We do not need a servant's heart overseeing a huge and intrusive government.  We need a kick butt warrior shrinking that government so it does not matter what scoundrel is in charge of it.  That is the whole point our Founders were making when they wrote the Constitution.  They knew the scoundrels would be out there, including many who initially had servants' hearts. 

So Sunday we are besieged with headlines about how bold and fearless and strong Palin's speech was in Wisconsin.  And I'm thinking wow, what happened to the meek unsure servant's heart?  Did she watch "Patton" on the flight to Madison?

I have a theory.  I think she listened to Andrew Breitbart's introduction of her and realized a servant's heart was not going to suffice.  At least not in snowy Madison this weekend.  Breitbart has been perhaps the best at head to head confrontations with those who would destroy our Republic.  He is a national hero for this in my opinion.

Listen to his introduction and decide for yourself if this theory holds water.  And whether or not he had anything to do with Palin's changed tone, his introduction is a great speech in and of itself.  It's 2:56 in length.

RECENT VIDEOS