The leftist assaults on Sarah Palin have been unrelenting. After less than a week in the public spotlight, the media were demanding that she give interviews, said that she was ducking them etc.

Palin is a really bright and articulate person and since she doesn’t tow the media line, and since she is about to obliterate the media template of ‘the powerful woman’, the attacks have been merciless. When she finally sat down with “Charlie” Gibson of ABC News, the picture was clarified.

Palin obviously had to be uncomfortable because she knew that they would be gunning for her in the person of Gibson who has been called the least biased of the major network anchors. But this interview proved that Gibson is just “one of them”. Look a the interview picture on the ABC News website. Gibson is practically pushed up against Palin. Did he invade her space?

The body language was telling. Gibson sat unsmiling and positively sneering over his half-glasses, the kind of treatment that Obama never gets. When Obama gaffes and says “my Muslim faith”, Stephanopoulos gently corrected him and the Ancient Media have barely mentioned the comment. If Palin had made any such statement, it would be all over.

There were no kind words and smiles to start. Gibson asked Palin directly if she was ready to be vice president and maybe president. She said “I didn’t hesitate, no” when McCain asked her to join the ticket, and that “I have the confidence” and “you can’t blink”.

Compare this to Joe Biden saying about Hillary that “quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me”?

Who sounds more confident and ready to lead?

Gibson immediately jumped to foreign policy which he knows is Palin’s weak suit. And Palin answered with one of the best rejoinders ever, that “energy is a foundation of national security”.

Which is crucial because it is. But Gibson needed to change that subject saying “national security is a whole lot more than energy”.

Which is true, but Palin really opened up a new avenue of thought. Because this is a new era in which energy is as important as Georgia and Iraq. Moreso in its own way. After all, we are in Iraq partly because of oil.

Gibson was strangely unsmiling, revealing his real side. His tone was condescending. He asked Palin if she had ever traveled outside the United States before last year, dismissed her negotiations with foreign officials on behalf of the state of Alaska, and asked if she had ever met a foreign head of state.

Yet Obama had met few heads of state before his summer trip to the Middle East and Europe. Where was the media scrutiny about that? Or on Obama’s general lack of governing experience?

Gibson, obviously out for some political red meat, asked Palin about her comment that our soldiers are fighting “on a task from God.”

Certainly atheist media titans are not familiar with the spiritual basis for our nation and Palin enlightened the oh-so-enlightened Gibson about the difference between the old convenient adage of having God on our side and being on God’s side, which is a profound difference worth pondering deeply.

Gibson and his media friends do not understand the basis of our nation which is Natural Law or God’s Law, under which man is granted inalienable rights not by man but by the Supreme Being, and that this is the basis of our freedoms. Palin could have taught Gibson a thing or two.

Gibson’s quoted her as saying “There is a plan and it is God’s plan”, and this must have sent the leftist atheists in America into a tailspin.

When she said that the Russian invasion of Georgia was “unprovoked”, Gibson asked “You believe unprovoked…” which was a trap he was setting only to unnerve her.

And of course Russia was unprovoked. Everyone knows that. Even Putin, after seeing the world reaction, finally drew back because he knew his true nature had been unmasked.

Palin could see that Gibson was assailing her and she made some small talk about Russia being visible from Alaska. Gibson would have no part of it. Small talk is for Obama.

“What insight does that (Russia’s proximity to Alaska) give you into what they (the Russians) are doing in Georgia?” Gibson asked without a whit a smile or an acknowledgment of Palin’s position, as if he were superior to her.

When she said she favored putting Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, Gibson immediately grabbed for the hot poker, that NATO membership could draw the US into a military conflict with Russia.

Replied Palin: “What I think is that smaller democratic counties that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against.”

Well said. Compare this to Obama saying that the Iraq ‘surge’ succeeded “beyond our wildest dreams”. So who is out of touch?

She also mentioned Putin’s desire to control the energy supplies of that region through military force.

National security, anyone?

When Gibson asked if we should allow Iran to get nuclear weapons, Palin said that we shouldn’t “second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.”

Which is the right answer. Except to the Israel-haters in Islam… and in the Democrat party.

“Why do you think those hijakers attacked?” Gibson asked about 9/11.

Does anyone wonder why Gibson’s own qualifications might be questioned after a question like that?

He then asked her if she agreed with “The Bush Doctrine’, and she responded that it is the correct approach to try and rid the world of terrorism and to spread freedom, including the right of anticipatory self-defense.

Palin replied that “I agree that a president’s job…is to defend the United States of America.”

Good answer, governor. This is a basic truth that liberals do not understand.

Gibson asked if we have the right to make cross-border raids into places like Pakistan, where there was one recent action. Gibson was not satisfied with her answer and said the reply was a “blizzard of words”.

Gibson was on a witch hunt with Palin. Yet Palin answered the questions better than Obama ever could. After all, Obama could not even tell when life begins in the Saddleback interview, something he has had a lifetime to ponder. And Rick Warren was actually friendly in that interview.

Palin gave many answers that liberals disagree with. But at least she did not say that Mitt Romney would have been a better pick to be vice president.
When will Joe Biden’s words get such scrutiny? Or his past quotes, some of which are out of the park.

Gibson revealed himself not as a tough, unbiased questioner but as an inquisitor. The one news anchor said to be the open, unbiased interviewer showed himself to be just another arm of the Democrat left. He literally harassed Palin. And Gibson loses credibility with this interview.

Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more.