PALIN girl POWER: A Post by Conservative Girl with a Voice

Like many of you, I often turn to the internet when I want to get briefed on the latest current events. One of the things I love most about the internet is the ability of having so many media sources at the click of a mouse. While browsing the web today, I came across an article on www.CNN.com that caught my eye. The article is in the entertainment section and is entitled: "Free-Spirited Drew Barry more Champions Women." (Ms. Barrymore's entire interview can be found in this month's edition of "In Style" Magazine.) Like many of you, I am sick and tired of the elitists in Hollywood who think everyone thinks and believes the same way they do. Instead of acting, which is what they are supposed to do best, they take it upon themselves to use their famous names to preach liberal propaganda. Usually, I would not have given this article a second look if not for the title. As I began to read the article, nothing seemed to strike me as news worthy until I came to the part in which Ms. Barrymore speaks of girl power.






While I don't agree with Ms. Barrymore politically, I have always enjoyed her work as an actress in movies such "Never Been Kissed," "Ever After" and my all-time favorite girls-kick-butt movie "Charlie's Angels." It's just too bad she can't strictly stick to acting. It is no secret that Ms. Barrymore, like many liberal actresses in Hollywood, is a big activist and supporter of abortion and gay marriage, but it is what she said regarding "girl power" and female empowerment that I found the most interesting. Here's what CNN reported Ms. Barrymore said to "In Style" about her strong belief in the importance of female friendships:


"I like teams -- I like buddies. I don't understand women who are competitive, apart from positive forums like athletics. One person is a powerful thing, but a tribe is unstoppable."



I couldn't agree more, Drew. While I thank Drew for speaking out regarding the importance of empowering females and the importance of females sticking together, I take issue with her, as well as other liberal women in that while they speak of female empowerment, they don't empower and speak on behalf of all women; instead, they do compete and they do tear down fellow women in their quest to spread their liberal agenda.






I can't help but remember an interview Ms. Barrymore gave to "Harper's Bazaar," back during the 2008 presidential election, in which she talked not only about helping to get out the vote for then-candidate Barack Obama, but also made some interesting comments about Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton. Here's the excerpt:


"She (Barrymore) has mixed feelings on McCain: 'He is a good person and he does care, but he has voted against things that are shocking as far as people's liberties and economic choices. I study everyone's voting record because they say one thing and do another.' As for McCain's choice for vice president, Sarah Palin, Drew chooses her words carefully. 'I think people realize the intention of the choice,' she says. She supports a female leader, but not one chosen simply because she is female. She is a big fan of Hillary Clinton. 'It hurts me to see women so upset that she didn't get in. Not voting because you're angry? That won't work.'"




Is she hypocritical or what? The main issue I take with the above quote is the way in which she speaks about Sarah versus Hillary. While she implies Sarah, the conservative candidate, was only picked because she is a women, she's a big fan of Hillary? This doesn't sound like a woman who believes in the importance of empowering women to me; instead, Ms. Barrymore sounds like a woman who, if you agree with her politically, she adores you, but if you're a conservative woman like myself, she loses that loving feeling, if you know what I mean.
This is just further proof of how hypocritical the extreme the liberal left has become. We are adored and praised by these individuals if we agree with them, but as soon as we speak out in opposition, we are belittled and called the most disgusting words.






These Hollywood starlets need to wake up and realize that there are many people out there who do not agree with their views. I find Ms. Barrymore's explanation as to the reason behind Sarah's nod to be the Republican Party's Vice Presidential nominee to be laughable at best. Unless Ms. Barrymore was a fly on the wall, she has no right to assume the sole reason behind John McCain tapping Sarah to be his running mate was gender based. Perhaps it didn't cross Ms. Barrymore's mind that Sarah cleaned up the corruption as governor of Alaska, or that she was a strong constitutionalist, or that she was a fiscal conservative, or that she worked across party lines, or that she was a maverick who was known to do the right thing. No, Ms. Barrymore didn't give any of those reasons; instead, she used the lowest line in the book implying Sarah was picked just because she was a woman- so much for girl power and empowerment. I don't know about you, but I believe Sarah was the best choice! She not only rejuvenated a party, but she reminded so many of another great Western governor, Ronald Reagan.






Did it ever occur to Ms. Barrymore as well as many on the liberal left that women probably voted for Hillary just because she was a woman? Or that many voted for President Obama simply because he was black? No, it didn't because Ms. Barrymore knows the real reason she can't praise Sarah is because, as I have discussed before, Sarah stands for everything so-called feminists like Ms. Barrymore have fought so hard against. Sarah is a Pro-life, pro-traditional family values, pro-Second Amendment modern-day feminist, and this scares the hell out of these so-called feminists like Ms. Barrymore. It scares the hell out of them because Sarah chose to give her precious baby, Trig, life.







The vile way in which the far left attack is what sets them apart from conservatives. As a young conservative woman, I have always admired strong female leaders regardless of party. My family and friends would tell you that while I disagree politically with Hillary Clinton, I greatly admire her for her strength and determination. I will be the first to admit that I openly cried when Hillary made her decision that she would drop out of the race for the White House. This does not mean that I was one of her supporters because I never was. The reason I cried is because this woman, whether you agree with her or not, is strong, intelligent and fearless. As a conservative woman, I am not afraid to commend someone whom I disagree with politically, which is a lesson that many on the far-left have yet to learn. While I am able to commend someone from a different party, it is hard for me to name any far-left, Obama-supporting female who has ever stuck up for Sarah.






Sarah is a woman whom I greatly admire. I speak out and defend her because I believe in her and agree with the vision she has for America. it pains me to see a woman like Ms. Barrymore who speaks of the need to empower, when they don't practice what they preach. Instead of accusing Senator McCain of not practicing what he preaches, like she did in the quote above, maybe should look at herself. In saying Sarah was picked only because she was a woman, Ms. Barrymore is taking many steps backward in her attempt to encourage strong women. I would have respected her opinion if she had said something like "While I don't agree at all politically with Governor Palin, I admire her for all she has accomplished." If women like Ms. Barrymore truly wish to encourage girl power and non-competitive female friendships, I suggest they wake up and actually start practicing what they preach.



(I'm a Conservative Girl with a Voice!!! Visit my blog and become a follower: http://www.conservativegirlwithavoice.com. I'm on Twitter too @rachellefriberg.)

Another Governor Palin Apology

By Adrienne Ross - www.motivationtruth.com

On August 3rd, in an article called "Fagan Who? More Apologies to Sarah Palin Coming," I expressed what I believed to be the first of many apologies that would be extended to Governor Palin.

Certainly Dan Fagan's admission of guilt was not a small thing after such vehement criticism of the governor. What the title suggested, however, was that there would be many more apologies to follow, and the article went on to express why I was making such a claim.

I wrote:

The big surprise was an apology printed in the Anchorage Daily News by Dan Fagan. Now, for those who don't know, Fagan is a talk show host in Alaska. He is most known as a chief Palin hater in her state--very vocal, very disrespectful, very anti-Palin. So what happened?

[...]

The apology issued, as far as I can see, is only the beginning of more to come, just a confirmation of what I knew was coming. It seems so wild, so far-fetched, so completely out of the blue--but expect more.

[...]

Not everyone is going to understand the popularity, power, and success Sarah Palin will increasingly experience, and I'm sure that's no surprise to you. But mark my words: more realizations that the personal attacks against her were wrong, and more accurate, evil, are coming.

Read the entire article here and discover the reasoning behind my prediction, prophecy, or insight--whichever you choose to call it.

Today brought Apology #2. As covered by Amy Siskind, the Daily News-Miner has also seen the light on a particular issue. Rod Boyce wrote:

Today I must apologize to Mrs. Palin personally and on behalf of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner for the choice of words used on the bottom of Wednesday’s front page regarding her speaking engagement in Hong Kong this week to a group of global investors.

We used offensive language — “A broad in Asia” — above a small photograph of the former governor to direct readers inside the newspaper to a full story of her Hong Kong appearance.

There can be no argument that our use of the word “broad” is anything but offensive. To use this word to describe someone of the stature of the former governor — who is also the former vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party — only adds to the anger that many people appropriately feel.

[...]

There’s widespread belief that too much meanness exists in political discourse today. The media, already held in low regard, need to be extremely wary of that meanness slopping over into their own work. I am responsible for the content of this newspaper and need to ensure that our employees adhere to acceptable standards of decency.

I will say it clearly again now: We made a terrible mistake.

Mrs. Palin, please accept this apology from the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.

And please accept it from me.

Read the entire article here.

None of this is to say that all who have heretofore despised Governor Palin have had a complete change of heart and are now her most ardent supporters. What it does say is that people are changing their perspective of the governor--and a change of perspective will always be followed by a change of approach. Not too long ago it seemed impossible for some to deem her worthy of any respectful treatment whatsoever. The idea of actually apologizing to her, even when an apology was in order, would have been unthinkable. The hatred, the anklebiting, the media malpractice--so intense--had rendered her fair game for derogatory comments of all sorts. Nothing seemed to be off limits--not her family, not her intellect, and certainly not her gender. Use of the word "broad" would absolutely not have elicited a formal apology.

Why now?

Now Governor Palin has had some months of calling her own shots, rather than being mishandled by a campaign that failed to recognize and capitalize on her strengths. Now she is free to be the Governor Palin her constituents in Alaska always knew she was when her approval rating was through the roof. Now she has emerged with wisdom on health care, tort reform, and foreign relations. She is speaking in her own voice both at home and now internationally. She is playing by her own rules this time, and she must be taken seriously. Even those who were fiercely critical are waking up and taking notice. It is precisely this kind of notice that makes people do a self-check when they step out of line. It's called respect.

Back in August I asked, "Fagan Who?" Today I ask, "Boyce Who?"

Now that we get to see more and more of a Governor Palin who has the liberty to speak freely, now that Governor Palin gives herself permission--as her dad said during the campaign--to "Let Sarah be Sarah," more eyes will see what millions have already seen, and apologies will come as people come stand behind this leader who is standing behind America. Once again, mark my words.

Sarah Palin: Best Wishes for the Jewish High Holidays

By Adrienne Ross - www.motivationtruth.com

A mark of true leadership is recognizing cultural practices that are unique and precious to people. Sarah Palin recognizes and honors our Jewish Community. Read her Facebook note below:

Todd and I would like to offer our best wishes to the Jewish community as they celebrate the High Holy Days. With the celebration of the Jewish New Year this week and the observance of the Day of Atonement next week, we are reminded of the hopeful commitment to renewal and peace exemplified by the Jewish tradition and the Jewish people throughout history.

Yom Kippur, the most solemn and important of the Jewish holy days, is a time of reflection and supplication for forgiveness. The timeless human struggle to promote justice, harmony, and peace is seen here in this process of atonement – in humbly seeking pardon for past wrongs in the hope of a new beginning. It reminds us that if we wish to co-exist globally, we must all strive for forgiveness and tolerance.

A speech was given at the United Nations General Assembly yesterday that was full of hateful anti-Semitic rhetoric. It was a shameful display before a body whose very charter is premised on the need for co-operation and harmony in pursuit of peaceful co-existence between nations. Such talk was especially abhorrent coming as it did during the Jewish High Holidays. The world community must speak with one voice in declaring anti-Semitism and all forms of intolerance and racism utterly unacceptable. There is no place in the community of peace-loving nations for those who traffic in hate or deny the terrible atrocity of the Nazi Holocaust.

In this holy season, we join the Jewish people in the struggle to promote justice, harmony, and peace. May God bless them.

- Sarah Palin

Video: Sarah Palin Speaks at Hong Kong Airport

By Adrienne Ross - www.motivationtruth.com

Sarah Palin stopped to speak at the airport as she prepared to depart Hong Kong where she spoke at the CLSA Investors' Forum. Her speech, considered a major success even by her critics, was closed to the media, but you may read about it here.

(H/T C4P)

Sarah Palin Rocks Hong Kong

As expected, Sarah Palin made a worldwide splash with her speech at the 16^th Annual CLSA Investor’s Forum. According to CLSA’s website it was standing room only with over 1100 institutional fund managers and heads of leading Asian, Australian and US corporations.

Reports are Sarah received a lengthy standing ovation at the end of her speech. It’s also reported that a couple of whiny liberals left before she was finished., I guess they couldn’t handle the truth! They also wouldn’t go on the record. No guts, no glory!

In his introduction, CLSA Chairman and CEO, Jonathan Slone, quoted President Eisenhower on the responsibilities of citizens in a democratic society to debate issues that matter.

Following her remarks, Governor Palin responded to questions from CLSA’s clients.

You know how one knows this thing was a home run? The New York Times ran a fair story about Sarah’s speech without an ounce of snark! I imagine Maureen Dowd had a stroke!

From the New York Times:

HONG KONG — Sarah Palin, in what was billed as her first speech overseas, spoke on Wednesday to Asian bankers,investors and fund managers.

A number of people who heard the speech in a packed hotel ballroom, which was closed to the media, said Mrs. Palin spoke from notes for 90 minutes and that she was articulate, well-prepared and even compelling.

"The speech was wide-ranging, very balanced, and she beat all expectations," said Doug A. Coulter, head of private equity in the Asia-Pacific region for LGT Capital Partners.

"She didn’t sound at all like a far-right-wing conservative. She seemed to be positioning herself as a libertarian or a small-c conservative," he said, adding that she mentioned both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. "She brought up both those names."

Of course, the comparison’s of Sarah Palin to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher are inevitable We’ve done it ourselves. No less than Michael Reagan, son of the great Renaldus Magnus, has compared the two favorably as well, as he did in his piece: "Welcome Back Dad."

Last December, writing in the Wall Street Journal, John O’Sullivan wrote a piece called "Conservative Snobs Are Wrong About Palin." In his article, he compares Sarah favorable to Lady Thatcher, and cites Sarah’s executive experience as a major reason for why she will be successful on the larger stage. It should be noted that O’Sullivan was a special adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Now let’s be honest. Sarah Palin is not Ronald Reagan, or Maggie Thatcher. Sarah is her own person, with her own ideas, and her own brand of conservatism. But Reagan was a huge influence on her, and as Reagan and Thatcher really dominated the world stage in their day, I’m sure some of that interaction made an impression on a young Sarah Palin.

"Common sense conservatism" was a common theme from those that heard her speech.

Here’s the reason why everyone and their uncle compares Sarah Palin favorably to Ronald Reagan. Like Reagan, Sarah Palin is strong, and unwavering in her beliefs. She will tell you what she thinks, straight up, just like Reagan. And like Reagan, Sarah says what she means, and means what she says.

Sarah also articulates conservatism, real conservatism better than anyone out there today. This too is something she shares with Reagan, along with an unabashed love for America, and an unbridled optimism. Reagan’s optimism was key to his success. Reagan, like Sarah, was a realist, he knew we had issues, but at the end of the day, He knew America had it in her to shine. You hear that same spirit in Sarah Palin every time she speaks.

So fairly, or unfairly, this is why the two are always compared, and compared favorable. As a recent Rasmussen poll pointed out, "being like Ronald Reagan" is the only positive political description that voters care about. It’s the gold standard that all conservatives are judged by.

More from the Times:

Cameron Sinclair, another speaker at the event, said Mrs. Palin emphasized the need for a grassroots rebirth of the Republican Party driven by party leaders outside Washington.

A number of attendees thought Mrs. Palin, the former vice presidential candidate, was using the speech to begin to broaden her foreign policy credentials before making a run for the presidency in 2012.

"She’s definitely a serious future presidential candidate, and I understand why she plays so well in middle America," said Mr. Coulter, a Canadian.

And this from a New Yorker and an Obama supporter who attended:

Melvin Goodé, a regional marketing consultant, thought Mrs. Palin chose Hong Kong because, he said, it was "a place where things happen and where freedom can be expanded upon."

"It’s not Beijing or Shanghai," said Mr. Goodé . "She also mentioned Tibet, Burma and North Korea in the same breath as places where China should be more sensitive and careful about how people are treated. She said it on a human-rights level."

Mr. Goodé, an African-American who said he did some campaign polling for President Obama, said Mrs. Palin mentioned President Obama three times on Wednesday.

"And there was nothing derogatory in it, no sleight of hand, and believe me, I was listening for that," he said, adding that Mrs. Palin referred to Mr. Obama as "our president," with the emphasis on "our."

Mr. Goodé, a New Yorker who said he would never vote for Mrs. Palin, said she acquitted herself well.

"She was articulate and she held her own. I give her credit. They’ve tried to categorize her as not being bright. She’s bright."

Appearing Wednesday night "On The Record" with Greta Van Susteren, Wall Street Journal’s Asia page editor Mary Kissel, who was in Hong Kong, told Greta that Sarah’s appearance generated the most interest in the forum’s 16 year history. That the media even followed her to the airport as she was leaving the country.







Speaking of which, the Wall Street Journal, had this to say:

The former vice presidential candidate understands Beijing better than the Obama Administration does.

The Journal added:

Sarah Palin was pounded by the media as a foreign-policy novice during last year's presidential campaign. But when it comes to the U.S. approach toward China, she has ideas worth listening to.

"Twenty years ago, many believed that as China liberalized its economy, greater political freedom would naturally follow," the former Alaska governor and Republican nominee for the vice presidency told a Hong Kong audience yesterday. "Unfortunately that has not come to pass."

Mrs. Palin sees China's authoritarian nature as a security concern for the U.S. and its allies in Asia-Pacific, and she has a point. North Korea, Burma and other rogue regimes couldn't sustain themselves without Chinese support. Not to mention the hundreds of missiles Beijing has pointed at Taiwan and its navy's increasingly muscular attitude in the South China Sea. "How many books and articles have been written about the dangers of India's rise?" she asked.

The solution, she argues, is to encourage political change from within China—a movement that regained momentum last year with the launch of Charter 08, a democratic manifesto.

Such developments, she argued, are in everyone's interest. "The more politically open and just China is, the more Chinese citizens of every ethnicity will settle disputes in courts rather than on the streets," she said. The more open China is, "the less we will be concerned about its military buildup and intentions."

Mrs. Palin also espoused the value of alliances with like-minded democratic countries in the region such as Japan, Australia and India. The U.S. "can, must and should" work with China to address issues of "mutual concern," she said. "But we also need to work with our allies in addressing the uncertainties created by China's rise."

The Obama Administration could take a page from this book. So far, the White House has gone out of its way to downplay human rights in China and tiptoe around recent crackdowns in Tibet and Xinjiang, preferring to focus on hipper issues like climate change. This "don't ask, don't tell" approach to Beijing does no favors to the Chinese people, much less to the West's core interests in Asia. At the same time, America's other alliances in the region have been largely ignored.

Mrs. Palin also made a timely call against trade protectionism—an issue that will be high on the U.S.-China agenda this week at the Group of 20 meeting in Pittsburgh. She spoke up for the U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement, now stalled in the U.S. Congress. She also called the Obama Administration's decision to slap a 35% duty on Chinese tires a "mistake," while adding that China needed to respect intellectual property rights and "improve its rule of law." Again, she made the connection with human-rights: "Our economic relationship will truly thrive when Chinese citizens and foreign corporations can hold the Chinese government accountable."

Mrs. Palin's speech will almost surely be dismissed by her critics as a scripted exercise. What we heard was a balanced and realistic view of China, founded on universal values that Westerners and Chinese alike can believe in.

Appearing on Sean Hannity’s "Great American Panel" Wednesday Night, famed Notre Dame coach Lou Holtz has this to say:

"Sarah Palin excites me. She stands for something."

Holtz went on to expand on this, noting that Ronald Reagan’s successes came from standing for something, and that this recent tendency to "moderate" the message in an attempt to draw people in is a mistake. This echoes what we have been saying for a long time. Be who you are, true to your school. Reagan had the same conservative message for every single American.

People want someone who stands for something, believes in something. Those are the people we know we can trust. Those are the people we know will never, ever waver under pressure.

Sarah herself, recognizing folks wanted to hear a little bit of what she had to say in her address, released excerpts of her speech on her Facebook page, which we covered here.

Having read the excerpts from her speech, it’s simple to say this was some serious red meat, a nice, thick, grilled ribeye steak with garlic mashed potatoes and some veggies on the side, in fact! A good solid meal that was very filling.

It’s going to be a lot of fun watching Sarah Palin out there being Sarah Palin. For long time Palinistas, this is the Sarah Palin we liked before it was really cool to like Sarah Palin!

Airport photo courtesy Asia Media, Speech photos courtesy CLSA.

Sarah Palin: My Thoughts From Hong Kong

As a lot of people have been interested in what Sarah Palin had to say in Hong Kong to the CLSA Investors Summit, she has posted some excerpts on her Facebook page.

Many have asked to see my remarks as presented in Hong Kong. Here is an excerpt.

___Sarah Palin

So far, I’ve given you the view from Main Street, USA. But now I’d like to share with you how a Common Sense Conservative sees the world at large.

Later this year, we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall – an event that changed not just Europe but the entire world. In a matter of months, millions of people in formerly captive nations were freed to pursue their individual and national ambitions.

The competition that defined the post World War II era was suddenly over. What was once called "the free world" had so much to celebrate – the peaceful end to a great power rivalry and the liberation of so many from tyranny’s grip.

Some, you could say, took the celebration too far. Many spoke of a "peace dividend," of the need to focus on domestic issues and spend less time, attention and money on endeavors overseas. Many saw a peaceful future, where globalization would break down borders and lead to greater global prosperity. Some argued that state sovereignty would fade – like that was a good thing? – that new non-governmental actors and old international institutions would become dominant in the new world order.

As we all know, that did not happen. Unfortunately, there was no shortage of warning signs that the end of the Cold War did not mean the end of history or the end of conflict. In Europe, the breakup of Yugoslavia resulted in brutal wars in the Balkans. In the Middle East, a war was waged to reverse Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. North Korea’s nuclear program nearly led to military conflict. In Africa, U.S. embassies were bombed by a group called al Qaeda.

Two weeks ago, America commemorated the 8th anniversary of the savagery of September 11, 2001. The vicious terrorist attacks of that day made clear that what happened in lands far distant from American shores directly affect our security. We came to learn, if we did not know before, that there were violent fanatics who sought not just to kill innocents, but to end our way of life. Their attacks have not been limited to the United States.

They attacked targets in Europe, North Africa and throughout the Middle East. Here in Asia, they killed more than 200 in a single attack in Bali. They bombed the Marriott Hotel and the Australian Embassy in Jakarta. Last year in Mumbai, more than 170 were killed in coordinated attacks in the heart of India’s financial capital. In this struggle with radical Islamic extremists, no part of the world is safe from those who bomb, maim and kill in the service of their twisted vision.

This war – and that is what it is, a war – is not, as some have said, a clash of civilizations. We are not at war with Islam. This is a war within Islam, where a small minority of violent killers seeks to impose their view on the vast majority of Muslims who want the same things all of us want: economic opportunity, education, and the chance to build a better life for themselves and their families. The reality is that al Qaeda and its affiliates have killed scores of innocent Muslim men, women and children.

The reality is that Muslims from Algeria, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan and many other countries are fighting al Qaeda and their allies today. But this will be a long war, and it will require far more than just military power to prevail. Just as we did in the Cold War, we will need to use all the tools at our disposal – hard and soft power. Economic development, public diplomacy, educational exchanges, and foreign assistance will be just as important as the instruments of military power.

During the election campaign in the U.S. last year, you might have noticed we had some differences over Iraq. John McCain and I believed in the strength of the surge strategy – because of its success, Iraq is no longer the central front in the war on terrorism. Afghanistan is. Afghanistan is where the 9/11 attacks were planned and if we are not successful in Afghanistan, al Qaeda will once again find safe haven there. As a candidate and in office, President Obama called Afghanistan the "necessary war" and pledged to provide the resources needed to prevail. However, prominent voices in the Democratic Party are opposing the additional U.S. ground forces that are clearly needed.

Speaker of the House Pelosi, Defense Subcommittee Chairman Murtha, the Senate Armed Services Committee Chair, and many others, recently expressed doubts about sending additional forces! President Obama will face a decision soon when the U.S. Commander in Afghanistan requests additional forces to implement his new counterinsurgency strategy.

We can win in Afghanistan by helping the Afghans build a stable representative state able to defend itself. And we must do what it takes to prevail. The stakes are very high. Last year, in the midst of the U.S. debate over what do to in Iraq, an important voice was heard – from Asia’s Wise Man, former Singaporean Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, who wrote in the Washington Post about the cost of retreat in Iraq. In that article, he prophetically addressed the stakes in Afghanistan. He wrote:

"The Taliban is again gathering strength, and a Taliban victory in Afghanistan or Pakistan would reverberate throughout the Muslim world. It would influence the grand debate among Muslims on the future of Islam. A severely retrograde form of Islam would be seen to have defeated modernity twice: first the Soviet Union, then the United States. There would be profound consequences, especially in the campaign against terrorism."

That statesman’s words remain every bit as true today. And Minister Lee knows, and I agree, that our success in Afghanistan will have consequences all over the world, including Asia. Our allies and our adversaries are watching to see if we have the staying power to protect our interests in Afghanistan. That is why I recently joined a group of Americans in urging President Obama to devote the resources necessary in Afghanistan and pledged to support him if he made the right decision.

That is why, even during this time of financial distress we need to maintain a strong defense. All government spending should undergo serious scrutiny. No programs or agencies should be automatically immune from cuts.

We need to go back to fiscal discipline and unfortunately that has not been the view of the current Administration. They’re spending everywhere and with disregard for deficits and debts and our future economic competitiveness. Though we are engaged in two wars and face a diverse array of threats, it is the defense budget that has seen significant program cuts and has actually been reduced from current levels!

First, the Defense Department received only ½ of 1 % of the nearly trillion dollar Stimulus Package funding – even though many military projects fit the definition of "shovel-ready." In this Administration’s first defense budget request for 2010, important programs were reduced or cancelled. As the threat of ballistic missiles from countries like North Korea and Iran grow, missile defense was slashed.

Despite the need to move men and material by air into theaters like Afghanistan, the Obama Administration sought to end production of our C-17s, the work horse of our ability to project long range power. Despite the Air Force saying it would increase future risk, the Obama Administration successfully sought to end F-22 production – at a time when both Russia and China are acquiring large numbers of next generation fighter aircraft. It strikes me as odd that Defense Secretary Gates is the only member of the Cabinet to be tasked with tightening his belt.

Now in the region I want to emphasize today: The reason I speak about defense is because our strong defense posture in Asia has helped keep the region safe and allowed it to prosper. Our Asian allies get nervous if they think we are weakening our security commitments. I worry about defense cuts not because I expect war but because I so badly want peace. And the region has enjoyed peace for so long because of our security commitment to our longstanding allies and partners.

Asia has been one of the world’s great success stories. It is a region where America needs to assist with right mix of hard and soft power. While I have so much hope for a bright future in Asia, in a region this dynamic, we must always be prepared for other contingencies. We must work at this – work with our allies to ensure the region’s continued peace and prosperity.

I know that you all -- like all of Asia and indeed the whole world – has a keen interest in the emergence of "China as a great power." Over the past few decades China’s economic growth has been remarkable. So has the economic growth and political liberalization of all of our key allies in Asia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Asia’s economic growth and political development, together with our forward military presence in the region and strong alliances, have allowed the region to prosper in peace for a long time. We hope that Asia will continue to be an engine of world economic growth, will continue to democratize and will remain at peace.

Our future is now deeply linked to Asia’s success. Our children’s future. We must continue to strengthen our key alliance with Japan, a country going through its own democratic change. Together the U.S. and Japan built the security umbrella under which so many Asians prospered. While there is so much attention to China these days, we cannot forget the importance of Japan in helping to make this the "Pacific Century."

The recent elections in Japan demonstrated that voters wanted reform and an end to debt and stagnation. We have a substantial stake in Japan’s success -- our alliance with must continue to be the linchpin of regional security.

With its open political system and vibrant democracy, South Korea wants to play a larger role on the international stage as well. Of course it wants us to work together toward a future where the peninsula is irreversibly denuclearized, and unified. But it also wants to play a global role. We need to work together with Japan, South Korea and our steadfast ally to the south, Australia, to make sure Asia remains peaceful and prosperous.

Australia rightly reminds us to keep our eye on Southeast Asia, where Indonesia has proved that Islam and democracy can co-exist. Indonesia has fought extremism inside its own border and is consolidating a multi-ethnic democracy that is home to hundreds of millions of Muslims. Those who say Islam and democracy are incompatible insult our friends in Indonesia.

Our great democratic friend India is also "looking East", seeking a greater role in East Asia as well. Together with our allies we must help integrate India into Asia. If we do so we will have yet another strong democracy driving Asia’s economy and working on shared problems such as proliferation and extremism. And we must continue working with the region’s most dynamic economy, China. We all hope that China’s stated policy of a "Peaceful Rise" will be its future course.

You know better than most the enormous change that has taken place in China over the last thirty years. Hundreds of millions of Chinese have been pulled out of poverty as China has undertaken economic reforms that have resulted in unprecedented growth. Even today, China’s economy is projected to grow by some 8%. It is helping to edge the world out of recession.

China has amassed huge financial reserves. Chinese diplomats are engaged on every continent and, through its vote on the United Nations Security Council, China has become critical in gaining UN support on multilateral issues from Darfur to Iran to North Korea.

Just four years ago, then-Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick urged China to become a "responsible stakeholder" in the international system. He observed the many benefits to China of a "benign international environment."

The peaceful regional environment that China has enjoyed was created through the hard work of Americans, Japanese, South Koreans and Australians. Secretary Zoellick urged China to step up and play its role too. We are working with China to de-nuclearize North Korea. But to be a responsible member of the international community China should exert greater pressure on North Korea to denuclearize and undergo the fundamental reforms it needs. Zoellick urged China to play a greater role in stabilizing the international energy market by ceasing its support of dangerous regimes.

China could play a role in stabilizing its ally Pakistan, and working for peace in Afghanistan. There are many areas where the U.S. and China can work together. And, we would welcome a China that wanted to assume a more responsible and active role in international politics.

But Secretary Zoellick also noted that many of China’s actions create risk and uncertainty. These uncertainties led nations to "hedge" their relations with China because, in Zoellick’s words: "Many countries HOPE China will pursue a ‘Peaceful Rise’ but NONE will bet their future on it."

See: this is the heart of the issue with China: we engage with the hope Beijing becomes a responsible stakeholder, but we must takes steps in the event it does not. See? We all hope to see a China that is stable, peaceful, prosperous and free. But we must also work with our allies in the region and the world in the event China goes in a direction that causes regional instability.

Asia is at its best when it is not dominated by a single power. In seeking Asia’s continued peace and prosperity, we should seek, as we did in Europe, an Asia "whole and free" – free from domination by any one power, prospering in open and free markets, and settling political differences at ballot boxes and negotiating tables.

We can, must and should work with a "rising China" to address issues of mutual concern. But we also need to work with our allies in addressing the uncertainties created by China’s rise. We simply CANNOT turn a blind eye to Chinese policies and actions that can undermine international peace and security.

China has some 1000 missiles aimed at Taiwan and no serious observer believes Taiwan poses a military threat to Beijing. Those same Chinese forces make our friends in Japan and Australia nervous. China provides support for some of the world’s most questionable regimes from Sudan to Burma to Zimbabwe. China’s military buildup raises concerns from Delhi to Tokyo because it has taken place in the absence of any discernable external threat.

China, along with Russia, has repeatedly undermined efforts to impose tougher sanctions on Iran for its defiance of the international community in pursuing its nuclear program. The Chinese food and product safety record has raised alarms from East Asia and Europe to the United States. And, domestic incidents of unrest -- from the protests of Uighurs and Tibetans, to Chinese workers throughout the country rightfully make us nervous.

It is very much in our interest and the interest of regional stability that China work out its own contradictions – between a dynamic and entrepreneurial private sector on the one hand and a one party state unwilling or unable to adjust to its own society’s growing needs and desires and demands, including a human being’s innate desire for freedom.

I do not cite these issues out of any hostility toward China. Quite the contrary, I and all Americans of good faith hope for the Chinese people’s success. We welcome the rise that can be so good for all mankind. We simply urge China to rise responsibly. I simply believe we cannot ignore areas of disagreement as we seek to move forward on areas of agreement. Believe me, China does not hesitate to tell us when it thinks we are in the wrong.

I mentioned China’s internal contradictions. They should concern us all. We hear many Chinese voices throughout that great country calling out for more freedom, and for greater justice. Twenty years ago, many believed that as China liberalized its economy, greater political freedom would naturally follow. Unfortunately that has not come to pass.

Ummm, in fact, it seems China has taken great pains to learn what it sees as "the lesson" of the fall on the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union: any easing of political constraints can inevitably spin out of control. But, in many ways, it is the essence of China’s political system that leads to concerns about its rise.

Think about it. How many books and articles have been written about the dangers of India’s rise? Almost as large as China – and soon to be more populous – virtually no one worries about the security implications of India becoming a great power – just as a century ago the then-preeminent power, Great Britain, worried little about the rise of America to great power status. My point is that the more politically open and just China is, the more Chinese citizens of every ethnicity will settle disputes in courts rather than on the streets. The more open it is, the less we will be concerned about its military build-up and intentions. The more transparent China is, the more likely it is they we will find a true and lasting friendship based on shared values as well as interests.

I am not talking about some U.S.-led "democracy crusade." We cannot impose our values on other counties. Nor should we seek to. But the ideas of freedom, liberty and respect for human rights are not U.S. ideas, they are much more than that. They are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many other international covenants and treaties. They apply to citizens in Shanghai as much as they do to citizens in Johannesburg or Jakarta. And demands for liberty in China are Chinese, not American, demands. Just last year, many brave Chinese signed Charter 08, a Chinese document modeled on the great Czech statesman Vlacav Havel’s Charter 77. Charter 08 would not be unfamiliar to our Founding Fathers and was endorsed by Havel himself. No, we need not convince the Chinese people that they have inalienable rights. They are calling for those rights themselves. But we do have to worry about a China where the government suppresses the liberties its people hold dear.

Nothing of what I am saying should be seen as meaning conflict with China is inevitable. Quite the contrary. As I said, we welcome China’s responsible rise. America and China stood together against fascism during World War II, before ravages took over in China – we were ready to stand together with China to shape international politics after World War II. Much has been accomplished since President Nixon’s fateful visit. And again, we stand ready to work with what we hope will be a more open and responsible China on the challenges facing the 21st century.

All of you here know how deeply integrated the economies of the United States’ and China’s are. We rely on each other, sometimes unfortunately in unhealthy ways. America spends too much that we don’t have, and then we go to China as a lender of first resort. Our fiscal policy, lately, seems to be "tax, spend, borrow, tax some more, repeat" and then complain about how much debt China holds. America needs to gets its own fiscal house in order. That’s a Common Sense Conservative perspective. We can hardly complain that China holds so much of our debt when it’s over spending that created the debt.

But here’s the reality. If in fact the United States does the "right" thing – if we spend less and save more – then China will also have to rebalance its economy. We need to export more to China – and we’d like China to consume more of our goods – just as we need to save and invest more. This vital process – so crucial to both countries – is impeded by problems of market access.

We must talk about these issues with more candor. If China adopts policies that keep our highest value products out of their markets, by manipulating technical standards or licensing requirements, our economic relationship suffers.

Our economic interdependence drives our relationship with China. I see a future of more trade with China and more American high-tech goods in China. But in order for that to happen, we need China to improve its rule of law and protect our intellectual property. We need to avoid protectionism and China’s flirtation with state-assisted "national champions." On our part, we should be more open to Chinese investment where our national security interests are not threatened. In the end, though, our economic relationship will truly thrive when Chinese citizens and foreign corporations can hold the Chinese government accountable when their actions are unjust.

I see a bright future for America in Asia. One based on the alliances that have gotten us this far, one based on free and open markets, one that integrates democratic India into East Asia’s political life and one in which China decides to be a responsible member of the international community and gives its people the liberty – the freedom – they so desperately want.

Sadly, however, our largest free trade agreement ever in Asia, with South Korea, sits frozen in the Congress. In contrast, China is behaving wisely in negotiating free trade agreements throughout Asia. We want an Asia open to our goods and services. But if we do not get our free trade act together, we will be shut out by agreements Asians our making among themselves.

All of you here follow global financial markets and economic policy closely, I know that it will come as no surprise to you that United States leadership on global trade and investment is being sorely tested at this moment.

We are struggling with a monumental debate on whether fiscal discipline, or massive government spending, will drive a sustained recovery. We are struggling to repair the excesses that grew in our own economy and served as a trigger to a catastrophic collapse in the global financial system. And we are attempting to do so under the weight of a global imbalance of debt and trade deficits that are not only unbearable for the world’s mightiest economy, but also unacceptable in that they foster tensions between global economic partners like the United States and China.

I am proud to be an American. As someone who has had the tremendous opportunity to travel throughout the United States and listen to the concerns of Americans in towns and cities across the country, I can tell you that there is a sense of despair and even crisis afoot in America that has the potential to shape our global investment and trade policies for years, and even decades to come. Never has the leadership of our government ever been more critical to keeping my country, and the world, on a path to openness, growth and opportunity in global trade and investment.

It would of course be a mistake to put the entire burden of restoring the global economy on the backs of America’s leaders. There is plenty of work for all of us to do in this matter. Governments around the world must resist the siren call of trade protection to bring short term relief during a time of crisis.

Those who use currency policy or subsidies to promote their nation’s exports should remain acutely aware that if there ever were a time in which such policies could be viewed as "tolerable," that time has now passed. All participants who seek to find benefit in the global trading system must also take the responsibility of playing by the rules.

The private sector has responsibilities as well. For instance, it should not be the responsibility of government to dictate the salaries of bankers or the ownership of companies. And yet, due of the excesses committed by some, this is exactly where we find ourselves now because government now owns substantial portions of the private economy – even, unbelievably, in the United States.

These are challenging times for everyone, but we in the United States must humbly recognize that if we are to lead and to set the direction for the rest of the world, it must be by our example and not merely our words. And we must tread lightly when imposing new burdens on the imports of other countries.

Well, CLSA: My country is definitely at a crossroad. Polling in the U.S. shows a majority of Americans no longer believe that their children will have a better future than they have had...that is a 1st.

When members of America’s greatest generation – the World War II generation – lose their homes and their life savings because their retirement funds were wiped after the financial collapse, people feel a great anger. There is suddenly a growing sentiment to just "throw the bums out" of Washington, D.C. – and by bums they mean the Republicans and the Democrats. Americans are suffering from pay cuts and job losses, and they want to know why their elected leaders are not tightening their belts. It’s not lost on people that Congress voted to exempt themselves from the health care plan they are thrusting on the rest of the nation. There is a growing sense of frustration on Main Street. But even in the midst of crisis and despair, we see signs of hope.

In fact, it’s a sea change in America, I believe. Recently, there have been protests by ordinary Americans who marched on Washington to demand their government stop spending away their future. Large numbers of ordinary, middle-class Democrats, Republicans, and Independents from all over the country marching on Washington?! You know something’s up!

These are the same people who flocked to the town halls this summer to face their elected officials who were home on hiatus from that distant capital and were now confronted with the people they represent. Big town hall meetings – video clips circulating coverage – people watching, feeling not so alone anymore.

The town halls and the Tea Party movement are both part of a growing grassroots consciousness among ordinary Americans who’ve decided that if they want real change, they must take the lead and not wait to be led. Real change – and, you know, you don’t need a title to do it.

The "Tea Party Movement" is aptly named to remind people of the American Revolution – of colonial patriots who shook off the yoke of a distant government and declared their freedom from indifferent – elitist – rulers who limited their progress and showed them no respect. Today, Main Street Americans see Washington in similar terms.

When my country again achieves financial stability and economic growth – when we roar back to life as we shall do – it will be thanks in large part to the hard work and common sense of these ordinary Americans who are demanding that government spend less and tax less and allow the private sector to grow and prosper.

We’re not interested in government fixes; we’re interested in freedom! Freedom! Our vision is forward looking. People may be frustrated now, but we’re very hopeful too.

And, after all, why shouldn’t we be? We’re Americans. We’re always hopeful.

Thank you for letting me share some of that hope, and a view from Main Street with you. God Bless You.

__Sarah Palin