Joan of Arc
YES, IT IS TRUE!
SARAH PALIN IS AN ANALOGUE OF JOAN OF ARC!
NOTE WELL THAT I SAID THAT SHE IS AN ANALOGUE
OF JOAN OF ARC, I AM NOT SAYING THAT SHE IS ANOTHER
JOAN OF ARC.
There are a lot of similarities in the lives of Sarah and Joan.
First of all, look at the condition of France in the first half of the 15th Century [from Wikipedia]:
The historian Kelly DeVries describes the period preceding her appearance with, "If anything could have discouraged her, the state of France in 1429 should have." The Hundred Years' War had begun in 1337 as a succession dispute to the French throne with intermittent periods of relative peace. Nearly all the fighting had taken place in France, and the English use of chevauchée (similar to scorched earth) tactics had devastated the economy. The French population had not recovered from the Black Death of the previous century and its merchants were cut off from foreign markets. At the outset of her career, the English had almost achieved their goal of a dual monarchy under English control and the French army had won no major victory for a generation. In DeVries's words, "the kingdom of France was not even a shadow of its thirteenth-century prototype."
The French king at the time of Joan's birth, Charles VI, suffered bouts of insanity and was often unable to rule. The king's brother Duke Louis of Orléans and the king's cousin John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy, quarreled over the regency of France and the guardianship of the royal children. This dispute escalated to accusations of an extramarital affair with Queen Isabeau of Bavaria and the kidnappings of the royal children. The matter climaxed when the Duke of Burgundy ordered the assassination of the Duke of Orléans in 1407.
The factions loyal to these two men became known as the Armagnacs and the Burgundians. The English king, Henry V, took advantage of this turmoil to invade France, winning a dramatic victory at Agincourt in 1415, and capturing northern French towns. The future French king, Charles VII, assumed the title of Dauphin as heir to the throne at the age of 14, after all four of his older brothers died. His first significant official act was to conclude a peace treaty with Burgundy in 1419. This ended in disaster when Armagnac partisans murdered John the Fearless during a meeting under Charles's guarantee of protection. The new duke of Burgundy, Philip the Good, blamed Charles and entered into an alliance with the English. Large sections of France were conquered.
In 1420, Queen Isabeau of Bavaria concluded the Treaty of Troyes, which granted the French royal succession to Henry V and his heirs in preference to her son Charles. This agreement revived rumors about her supposed affair with the late duke of Orléans and raised fresh suspicions that the Dauphin was a royal bastard rather than the son of the king. Henry V and Charles VI died within two months of each other in 1422, leaving an infant, Henry VI of England, the nominal monarch of both kingdoms. Henry V's brother, John of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Bedford, acted as regent.
By the beginning of 1429, nearly all of northern France and some parts of the southwest were under foreign control. The English ruled Paris, while the Burgundians controlled Reims. The latter city was important as the traditional site of French coronations and consecrations, especially since neither claimant to the throne of France had yet been crowned. The English had laid siege to Orléans, which was the only remaining loyal French city north of the Loire. Its strategic location along the river made it the last obstacle to an assault on the remainder of the French heartland. In the words of one modern historian, "On the fate of Orléans hung that of the entire kingdom." No one was optimistic that the city could long withstand the siege.
Now, here is the story of Joan [Wikipedia]:
Joan was the daughter of Jacques d'Arc and Isabelle Romée in Domrémy, a village which was then in the duchy of Bar (later annexed to the province of Lorraine and renamed Domrémy-la-Pucelle). Her parents owned about 50 acres (0.2 square kilometers) of land and her father supplemented his farming work with a minor position as a village official, collecting taxes and heading the local watch. They lived in an isolated patch of northeastern territory that remained loyal to the French crown despite being surrounded by Burgundian lands. Several local raids occurred during her childhood and on one occasion her village was burned.
Joan said she was about 19 at her trial, so she was born about 1412; she later testified that she experienced her first vision around 1424 at the age of 12 years when she was out alone in a field and heard voices. She had said she cried when they left as they were so beautiful. She would report that Saint Michael, Saint Catherine, and Saint Margaret told her to drive out the English and bring the Dauphin to Reims for his coronation.
At the age of 16, she asked a kinsman, Durand Lassois, to bring her to nearby Vaucouleurs where she petitioned the garrison commander, Count Robert de Baudricourt, for permission to visit the royal French court at Chinon. Baudricourt's sarcastic response did not deter her. She returned the following January and gained support from two men of standing: Jean de Metz and Bertrand de Poulengy. Under their auspices, she gained a second interview where she made a remarkable prediction about a military reversal near Orléans.
Robert de Baudricourt granted her an escort to visit Chinon after news from the front confirmed her prediction. She made the journey through hostile Burgundian territory in male disguise. Upon arriving at the royal court she impressed Charles VII during a private conference. He then ordered background inquiries and a theological examination at Poitiers to verify her morality. During this time Charles's mother-in-law Yolande of Aragon was financing a relief expedition to Orléans. Joan petitioned for permission to travel with the army and wear the equipment of a knight. She depended on donated items for her armor, horse, sword, banner, and entourage. Her armor was said to be white. Historian Stephen W. Richey explains her attraction as the only source of hope for a regime that was near collapse:
“ After years of one humiliating defeat after another, both the military and civil leadership of France were demoralized and discredited. When the Dauphin Charles granted Joan’s urgent request to be equipped for war and placed at the head of his army, his decision must have been based in large part on the knowledge that every orthodox, every rational, option had been tried and had failed. Only a regime in the final straits of desperation would pay any heed to an illiterate farm girl who claimed that the voice of God was instructing her to take charge of her country’s army and lead it to victory. ”
"King of England, and you, Duke of Bedford, who call yourself regent of the kingdom of France...settle your debt to the king of Heaven; return to the Maiden, who is envoy of the king of Heaven, the keys to all the good towns you took and violated in France."
Her Letter to the English, March–April 1429; Quicherat I, p. 240, trans. Wikipedia.
She arrived at the siege of Orléans on 29 April 1429, but Jean d'Orléans, the acting head of the Orléans ducal family, initially excluded her from war councils and failed to inform her when the army engaged the enemy. This did not prevent her from being present at most councils and battles. The extent of her actual military leadership is a subject of historical debate. Traditional historians such as Édouard Perroy conclude that she was a standard bearer whose primary effect was on morale. This type of analysis usually relies on the condemnation trial testimony, where she stated that she preferred her standard to her sword. Recent scholarship that focuses on the nullification trial testimony asserts that her fellow officers esteemed her as a skilled tactician and a successful strategist. Stephen W. Richey's opinion is one example: "She proceeded to lead the army in an astounding series of victories that reversed the tide of the war." In either case, historians agree that the army enjoyed remarkable success during her brief career.
The inner keep at Beaugency is one of the few surviving fortifications from Joan's battles. English defenders retreated to the tower at upper right after the French breached the town wall.
She defied the cautious strategy that had characterized French leadership. During the five months of siege before her arrival, the defenders of Orléans had attempted only one aggressive move and that had ended in disaster. On 4 May the French attacked and captured the outlying fortress of Saint Loup, which she followed on 5 May with a march to a second fortress called Saint Jean le Blanc. Finding it deserted, this became a bloodless victory. The next day she opposed Jean d'Orleans at a war council where she demanded another assault on the enemy. D'Orleans ordered the city gates locked to prevent another battle, but she summoned the townsmen and common soldiers and forced the mayor to unlock a gate. With the aid of only one captain she rode out and captured the fortress of Saint Augustins. That evening she learned she had been excluded from a war council where the leaders had decided to wait for reinforcements before acting again. Disregarding this decision, she insisted on assaulting the main English stronghold called "les Tourelles" on 7 May. Contemporaries acknowledged her as the heroine of the engagement after she sustained an arrow wound to her neck but returned wounded to lead the final charge.
"...the Maiden lets you know that here, in eight days, she has chased the English out of all the places they held on the river Loire by attack or other means: they are dead or prisoners or discouraged in battle. Believe what you have heard about the earl of Suffolk, the lord la Pole and his brother, the lord Talbot, the lord Scales, and Sir Fastolf; many more knights and captains than these are defeated."
Her Letter to the citizens of Tournai, 25 June 1429; Quicherat V, pp. 125–126, trans. Wikipedia.
The sudden victory at Orléans led to many proposals for offensive action. The English expected an attempt to recapture Paris or an attack on Normandy. In the aftermath of the unexpected victory, she persuaded Charles VII to grant her co-command of the army with Duke John II of Alençon and gained royal permission for her plan to recapture nearby bridges along the Loire as a prelude to an advance on Reims and a coronation. Hers was a bold proposal because Reims was roughly twice as far away as Paris and deep in enemy territory.
Notre-Dame de Reims, traditional site of French coronations. The structure had additional spires prior to a 1481 fire.
The army recovered Jargeau on 12 June, Meung-sur-Loire on 15 June, then Beaugency on 17 June. The Duke of Alençon agreed to all of Joan's decisions. Other commanders including Jean d'Orléans had been impressed with her performance at Orléans and became her supporters. Alençon credited her for saving his life at Jargeau, where she warned him of an imminent artillery attack. During the same battle she withstood a blow from a stone cannonball to her helmet as she climbed a scaling ladder. An expected English relief force arrived in the area on 18 June under the command of Sir John Fastolf. The battle at Patay might be compared to Agincourt in reverse. The French vanguard attacked before the English archers could finish defensive preparations. A rout ensued that devastated the main body of the English army and killed or captured most of its commanders. Fastolf escaped with a small band of soldiers and became the scapegoat for the English humiliation. The French suffered minimal losses.
The French army set out for Reims from Gien-sur-Loire on 29 June and accepted the conditional surrender of the Burgundian-held city of Auxerre on 3 July. Every other town in their path returned to French allegiance without resistance. Troyes, the site of the treaty that had tried to disinherit Charles VII, capitulated after a bloodless four-day siege. The army was in short supply of food by the time it reached Troyes. Edward Lucie-Smith cites this as an example of her luck: a wandering friar named Brother Richard had been preaching about the end of the world at Troyes and had convinced local residents to plant beans, a crop with an early harvest. The hungry army arrived as the beans ripened.
"Prince of Burgundy, I pray of you — I beg and humbly supplicate — that you make no more war with the holy kingdom of France. Withdraw your people swiftly from certain places and fortresses of this holy kingdom, and on behalf of the gentle king of France I say he is ready to make peace with you, by his honor."
"Her Letter to Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, 17 July 1429; Quicherat V, pp. 126–127, trans. Wikipedia.
Reims opened its gates on 16 July. The coronation took place the following morning. Although Joan and the duke of Alençon urged a prompt march on Paris, the royal court pursued a negotiated truce with the duke of Burgundy. Duke Philip the Good broke the agreement, using it as a stalling tactic to reinforce the defense of Paris. The French army marched through towns near Paris during the interim and accepted more peaceful surrenders. The Duke of Bedford headed an English force and confronted the French army in a standoff on 15 August. The French assault at Paris ensued on 8 September. Despite a crossbow bolt wound to the leg, Joan continued directing the troops until the day's fighting ended. The following morning she received a royal order to withdraw. Most historians blame French grand chamberlain Georges de la Trémoille for the political blunders that followed the coronation.
OK, so what are the similarities?
Joan was born of humble parentage; Sarah was born of humble parentage.
Joan was born in a small rural town; Sarah was born in a small rural town.
Joan’s roots were tied to the land; Sarah’s roots were tied to the land.
Joan was not well educated; Sarah is not well educated.
Young Joan felt called to politics; Young Sarah felt called to politics.
Joan offered herself for public service; Sarah offered herself for public service.
Joan had to cope with corrupt leaders; Sarah had to cope with corrupt leaders.
Joan was selected by a weak Dauphin; Sarah was selected by a weak John McCain.
Joan waged a good campaign; Sarah waged a good campaign.
Joan was immensely popular; Sarah is immensely popular.
Joan lost in the end to corrupt politics; Sarah lost in 2008 to corrupt politics.
Joan was burned at the stake; Sarah has never stopped being roasted by liberals.
SARAH PALIN IS NO JOAN OF ARC BUT SHE COULD HELP SAVE
OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC IN WAYS SIMILAR TO JOAN’S SAVING OF FRANCE
Present-day Republicans are too similar to the weak and irresolute French of Charles VII’s court.
Present-day Obamacrats are too similar to the corrupt English and their French
Like Joan, Sarah is unifying the more conservative elements in the Republican Party and she is very appealing to the Blue Dog Democrats who will eventually break with Barack Hussein Obama.
Sarah is not now qualified to be President of the United States,
but she is a fast learner and by 2012 or, more likely 2016, she will be ready.
In the meantime she needs to push aside the castrati who are the leaders
of the Republican Party and deal directly with the American public.
While 150 lawsuits were more than she could withstand as Governor, she is free now.
She has proven her ability to survive the flame-throwing liberal blogs and MSM.
To rise and not fall
OPINION: There are several steps Sarah Palin must make if she is to have a future in national politics | Cal Thomas
The soon to be former governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, is like one of those soufflés my mother sometimes made. The recipe warned against premature removal from the oven because the dish would collapse.
That is the saga of Gov. Palin. Prematurely plucked from relative obscurity by John McCain and touted as a rising star by many Republican conservatives, Palin collapsed. Though she was treated unfairly and in ways that no liberal woman would have been—not even Hillary Clinton—she clearly was not prepared to discuss the issues, the command of which—or least familiarity of which—are essential to anyone seeking national office.
Palin energized the shrinking Republican base, but could never get beyond them to connect with independents and conservative Democrats who might have taken her seriously had she displayed more seriousness. It is not enough to talk about what has been lost in America. One must speak of a vision for the future and ways to reach it.
Many commentators are speculating whether quitting as governor is good or bad political strategy. Few want to take Palin’s word at face value, that she is tired of the ethics probes (all but two of the 15 ethics complaints filed against her have been dismissed with no findings of wrongdoing) and the big media’s refusal to examine her accomplishments as governor and the substance of her views. Fair enough. But anyone running for national office must traverse a media gauntlet—with the notable exception of Barack Obama and his worshipful media disciples. While conservatives can expect worse treatment than liberals, they can prevail with the right strategy.
It was unfair to Palin to have been selected as McCain’s running mate so soon after the birth of her youngest child, especially one with Down syndrome, and the pregnancy of her teenage daughter. Either event would have required more motherly attention than usual, but both demand a level of emotional energy that no human being can muster while running for vice president.
If Palin is to have a future in national politics (assuming she wants one) there are several steps she must take. First, she needs a complete makeover. The big media will never admit they were wrong in their judgments, but they might write stories about the “new Sarah Palin.” She should hit the books and learn as much as she can about the modern world, history and court cases. She should read newspapers so that when future interviewers hit her with questions, she can dazzle them like a Jeopardy champion.
What she should not do is become a cable TV pundit. That’s too predictable. Instead, she might follow Ronald Reagan’s example and deliver a daily radio commentary. Radio takes the focus away from outward appearance and places it on the substance of what is said. She should write these commentaries herself, as Reagan did, and the outlets ought to include mainstream stations, as well as conservative and Christian ones.
Palin should hire a speech coach and follow that person’s advice. She has a pleasant enough speaking voice, but the tone needs to be adjusted, as do her word choices. “You betcha” should be banned from her vocabulary. Such slang may resonate well with some people, but national candidates should have rhetoric that soars and gets attention.
Lastly, she needs a hair, makeup, and wardrobe makeover. She is a beautiful woman, but appearance should not be the first thing one reacts to when people look at her.There aren’t many second acts in politics because the media tend to gobble people up and constantly search for the “new” and exciting. Sarah Palin can be “born again” in a political sense and excite beyond her base if she allows herself to be “baked” at the proper temperature and for the right amount of time. If she does that, she may emerge again and this time she’ll rise, not fall.
BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.
This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).
He is not eligible
because he was not born of
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth as required by the Constitution.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.
The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources.
However, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all even if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.
Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS
“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”
- Leo Rugiens