MIGHTY SERF

Obama Says He'll Sign Bill Banning Insider Trading on Capitol Hill

2012-01-25T10:39:00.000-08:00

As many of you are aware, Peter Schweizer, Governor Palin's adviser and an editor for Breitbart, has been leading the fight in exposing the insider trading and abuse of power by the nation's lawmakers. To the surprise of many of us, President Obama took up the issue of insider trading on Capitol Hill in last night's State of the Union speech.

Consider me skeptical, yet encouraged by Obama's statement on this particular issue. The other 99% of his speech was just more of the same class warfare, leftist drivel that we've come to expect from the current commander-in-chief, and thus, not very encouraging at all.

Via BigGovernment:

In a State of the Union speech devoid of clarity or specifics, President Barack Obama offered but one shining exception: a direct call for members of Congress to send him a bill to ban congressional insider trading.

“Send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of Congress and I will sign it tomorrow,” President Obama said to applause. “Let’s limit any elected official from owning stock in industries they impact.”

Since the release of “Throw Them All Out,” Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer has been a one-man battalion fighting for members of Congress to abide by the same insider trading laws that apply to all Americans. President Obama’s speech Tuesday night is evidence that Schweizer’s battle against congressional insider trading and cronyism has scored a critical victory.

“It appears that our message has finally broken through,” said Schweizer in an interview Tuesday night with Breitbart News. “Thousands of citizens across America have called and written their representatives and the White House demanding a ban on congressional insider trading. The President’s speech tonight is proof that their efforts were not in vain. Now is the time to apply maximum pressure and get behind Rep. Sean Duffy’s (R-WI) RESTRICT Act. It’s the best proposal I’ve seen to date.”

The RESTRICT (Restoring Ethical Standards, Transparency, and Responsibility in Congressional Trading) Act (H.R. 3550) would require members of Congress to either establish blind trusts or submit to a three day public disclosure of any and all investments. According to Schweizer, the bill is preferable to other bills, such as the STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) Act, which Schweizer believes do not go far enough to remedy the problem...

“There’s still much work to be done,” said Schweizer. “We need to get behind Rep. Duffy’s RESTRICT Act and let our leaders know that we will not stand idly by as members of Congress profit off of access to material, nonpublic information.”

You can read the entire piece by Wynton Hall here.

While this is indeed a "victory" in the fight against corruption in government, I'll believe that the president is serious about signing a bill when I see it. I'd also like to read any bill he does sign if it ever does land on his desk. Obama is good at selling one thing as another, and since the media rarely calls him out on this, why wouldn't he be?

One last thing that struck me about the president's comments was his sheer hypocrisy. Towards the end of the clip above, he says:

Let's make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can't lobby Congress, and vice versa – an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington.

Yes it does, Mr. President. However, the same should apply to the executive branch, shouldn't it? If you recall, Obama's bundlers were at the heart of the Solyndra scandal.

From the Washington Post:

A major Obama fundraiser strategized with one of his associates last year about how to get White House and Energy Department assistance for a solar company in which his family funds had a substantial interest, according to e-mails released Wednesday by House Republicans.
Tulsa billionaire George Kaiser advised on how to press officials for federal contracts and additional loan assistance for Solyndra, the failed solar company that left taxpayers on the hook for $535 million in federal loans, the e-mails show...

Kaiser was a bundler for Obama’s 2008 campaign and has been a frequent White House visitor, using meetings with top officials to seek stimulus funds for Tulsa-based projects and to discuss his charitable projects, he has said. His family foundation was the biggest investor in Solyndra, but he has denied that he had any involvement in discussions of Solyndra’s 2009 federal loan...
The new e-mails suggest more contact between Solyndra officials and White House officials than was previously known. They suggest that Kaiser and his advisers had hopes that Solyndra would secure a second federal loan.

I do commend Obama for talking about the "corrosive influence of money in politics," I also recognize that the current administration is just as 'corroded' as Congress. My advice to voters is to do as the title of Schweizer's book suggests and "throw them all out" come November, and that includes Obama.

Romney Lacks Credibility to Attack Crony Capitalism

2012-01-19T22:21:00.000-08:00

At Thursday night's GOP presidential debate in South Carolina, Mitt Romney rightly attacked Barack Obama on the issue of crony capitalism. As noted by NBC's Mark Murray:

And Romney adopts the Palin/Perry "crony capitalism" line against Obama, and dings president on Keystone

Good for him!

Unfortunately, Romney's history shows that he lacks the credibility to make this a real issue during the general election. While serving as the Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney handed over $4.5 million in state government money to cronies of his very own, for companies that failed. Via the Boston Herald (emphasis):

GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has hammered President Obama for his administration’s tax-funded investment blunders — but when Romney was governor, the state handed out $4.5 million in loans to two firms run by his campaign donors that have since defaulted, leaving taxpayers holding the bag.

The two companies — Acusphere and Spherics Inc. — stiffed the state on nearly $2.1 million in loans provided through the state’s Emerging Technology Fund, a $25 million investment program created while Romney was governor in 2003 that benefited 13 local firms.

Acusphere, a biotechnology firm headed by a Romney campaign donor, got $2 million in 2004 that it was supposed to put toward a $20 million manufacturing facility in Tewksbury, which never became fully operational. Calls to Acusphere’s headquarters in Lexington were not returned...
Spherics Inc., meanwhile, was lured from Rhode Island to Mans–field with much fanfare from the Romney administration, partly through a $2 million loan in 2005. By 2008, the company laid off all employees and completely shut down. The state received about $300,000 when the company liquidated its assets, but the firm defaulted on more than $1.5 million of the state loan, Abbruzzese said.

Together, the two companies’ investors and executives donated more than $7,000 to Romney’s past campaigns.

The hypocrisy didn't go unnoticed by a pro-Obama Super PAC called "American Bridge." NBC's Domenico Montanaro reports:

Democratic-aligned Super PACs are going after Mitt Romney on what they depict as essentially his own Solyndra, a further sign that Democrats see the writing on the wall and that they believe Romney will be President Obama's opponent this fall.

A video produced by American Bridge, called “Romney’s energy loan hypocrisy,” hits Romney for loans made while he was governor of Massachusetts to two companies that eventually failed or moved away – and had ties to Romney campaign donors.

They certainly didn't do a very good job of exonerating Obama, but I digress.

Couple this information with what we already know about Romney's inclination to grow and link government with certain businesses. As Timothy Carney wrote in the Washington Examiner last May:

Examine Romney's dalliances with big government that have caused him such grief, and you'll see a trend: They all are described as "pro-business," they all amount to corporate welfare, and they all reflect the technocratic mind-set you'd expect of a business consultant. Romney's record and rhetoric show how managerialism veers away from the free market and into corporatism.

Begin with health care. Romney last week defended his Obamacare prototype in Massachusetts by pointing to the findings of a think tank that was "funded by business." In a similar vein, the Boston Globe attacked Romneycare's critics in an April editorial: "if they weren't hyperventilating about the national law, they might come to recognize that the role Romney played on the state level was skillful, creative, and business-friendly."

Yes, the legislation was business-friendly -- in a big-government way: It required individuals to buy health insurance, and it provided taxpayer subsidies for health insurance, helping insurers and employers at the expense of taxpayers and patients...
Romney didn't compete for business through lower taxes and regulation: He tried to entice them to the state with special subsidies. In 2005, Romney lured Spherics, a pharmaceutical company, away from Rhode Island by offering a $2.5 million direct loan from the state's "Emerging Technology Fund." That same year, he signed a bill creating the Massachusetts Film Office that was empowered to hand out special tax credits to studios filming movies in the Bay State.

Romney's corporatism isn't limited to the state level. In his 2010 book "No Apology," he lays out a national energy plan including more federal funding for energy research and supporting subsidies for "infant industries." He has supported that favorite of Iowa caucus-voters, ethanol subsidies.

On one hand, it's great that Romney is going after Obama for his crony dealings, failed energy policies, and kowtowing to special interests. On the other, how is he going to make the case against Obama during a general election when the president's supporters (as they already have done) can point right back at Romney and invoke rule #4 in Alinsky's book? Mitt Romney needs to ensure the country that he will not partake in crony capitalism on a national level, if he is elected as the GOP nominee. For now, his record indicates that he lacks the credibility to do so.

Imploring Mitt Romney to Release His Records

2012-01-16T12:15:00.000-08:00

Last week, Governor Palin urged Mitt Romney to be release his tax records and back up his "job creation" claims.

Via BigGovernment:

“Governor Romney has claimed to have created 100,000 jobs at Bain, and people are wanting to know: is there proof?” Palin told Sean Hannity on Fox News.

Rick Tyler, former Gingrich aide and head of Newt Gingrich’s Super PAC, has already accused Romney of having created those 100,000 jobs in Asia and Mexico. Earlier this week, Big Government pointed out that Romney’s claim to have created 100,000 jobs contrasts with claims he made during his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign, when he claimed to have created 10,000 jobs at Bain. Romney retired from Bain Capital in 1999.

Palin said that Romney needed to come clean about his record, given the likelihood that Democrats would probe the tax issue and Romney’s tenure at Bain if he were to become the Republican nominee.

While being interviewed again last Saturday, Governor Palin restated why she believes Mitt Romney needs to be more transparent about his record:

"Let's talk about job creation claims by a candidate and get to the bottom of it. And the candidate who is being accused of maybe not creating all of the jobs that they have claimed, well he can capitalize on it and he can explain what his record is."

Governor Palin is absolutely correct. Mitt Romney can use the opportunity of people calling on him to release his records to make his case. By releasing his tax records, the data he used to come up with the number of jobs he "created" at Bain Capital, and even the names of his bundlers, he can "inoculate" himself for what is sure to come.

As the front-runner in this GOP primary cycle, the left is presently storing up ammunition to use against Mitt Romney come general election season. They are fully aware that Romney has yet to release these very important documents. Without them, the left is free to assume any reason they want as to why he hasn't.

As Eleanor Clift did over the weekend, via Newsbusters:

ELEANOR CLIFT, NEWSWEEK: Romney’s refusal so far to release his income tax returns will be linked to probable investments in the Cayman Islands and the likelihood that he paid a very small percentage of his income in taxes.

I'm not here to debate the use of offshore accounts. I personally feel that taxes should remain low on principle, but it is a line of attack that Democrats will use to vilify Romney in the general. Another line of attack will be Romney's refusal to release information pertaining to his bundlers. This can been seen in a Washington Post editorial titled "Why won’t Romney release his tax returns?" from January 11th:

Tax returns offer information not available on the financial disclosure forms that are legally required of candidates, including their charitable deductions and use of tax shelters. Tax information could be especially revealing in the case of Mr. Romney and his extensive investment income, which may be why he has been reluctant to release it. During his 1994 Senate race, Mr. Romney called on Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D) to release his tax returns and show he had “nothing to hide.”Neither candidate released his tax information. Such secrecy will not stand for a presidential nominee.

The identity of a candidate’s bundlers is similarly important. Campaign finance laws limit individual contributions to a candidate to $2,500 per election ($5,000 if you include the primary and general election campaigns), but bundlers haul in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars by tapping extensive donor networks. Knowing to whom and for how much candidates are indebted is essential information, of which candidates and their advisers are exquisitely aware. Yet under current law the only bundlers whose identities candidates must disclose are registered lobbyists. That information is useful but insufficient: A CEO who bundles $500,000 for a candidate can have as much influence as the company’s Washington lobbyist. Why should this knowledge be kept from voters?

The New York Times agrees:

It is not too much to ask someone seeking the nation’s highest office to sacrifice some personal privacy to reassure voters that they have no hidden entanglements.

And this is not the only place where secrecy has been a problem. Unlike Mr. Obama or John McCain, or George W. Bush in earlier contests, this year’s presidential hopefuls have refused to identify the “bundlers” who reel in many hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions for their campaigns, disclosing only those bundlers who are registered lobbyists, as the law requires.

Only Mitt Romney's campaign can save itself (and possibly the GOP as a whole) a lot of future headaches by releasing the information in question. If they continue to stone-wall, the left and their friends in the media can imply anything they want the general public to believe, as to why Romney is being so secretive.

I implore Mitt Romney's campaign to release Romney's tax records, his jobs numbers claim, and the information about his bundlers, in a day in age when crony capitalism and insider trading rules Washington DC at the expense of the nation.

You can do the same by emailing the Romney campaign at: info@mittromney.com

Via snail mail at:

Mitt Romney for President
P.O. Box 149756
Boston, MA 02114-9756

Or by phone at: 857-288-3500

Dear Hot Air, What Did Palin Ever Do to You?

2012-01-05T20:11:00.000-08:00

I'm wondering what Governor Palin ever did to garner the level of caustic snark she has received from the writers at Hot Air. Aside from Ed Morrissey, who has generally covered the governor in a respectful and substantive manner, the other writers seem to have a bad case of PDS.

For example, while covering the CPAC keynote address announcement yesterday, Tina Korbe took the opportunity to rehash old memes and linked to a couple deranged Palin-haters. Why the need for this kind of "analysis" just to cover a simple announcement? I guess it would make more sense if Hot Air were a lefty rag, or a regular MSM page, but it's not. It's one of the top conservative blogs online, so this attitude held by most of it's writers isn't based on ideological grounds. Or is it? I really don't know because I don't understand it, hence the title of this piece.

Korbe began by stating:

For the past four years, she has swayed, danced and dodged around the Conservative Political Action Conference, but, this year, Sarah Palin says she has committed to deliver the keynote address Feb. 11, the last day of the conference. ABC’s The Note recounts the rocky history between the former vice presidential candidate and CPAC’s sponsor, the American Conservative Union:

She declined to keynote the event in 2011, citing a scheduling conflict. But her refusal to participate fueled speculation that she wasn’t going because of GOProud, a gay Republican group, that planned to attend. She denied that was the case. Her political action committee, SarahPAC, did sponsor a reception at the convention.

In 2010, Palin cited ACU’s business dealings, particularly those of its then-chairman David Keene, as the reason for dodging CPAC.

In 2009, she initially accepted an invitation to kick off the convention, but then dropped out, saying that she had to attend to the “duties of governing.” She sent a taped message instead.

And in 2008, Palin cancelled her speech just two weeks before the event. By then, she had not been named Sen. John McCain’s vice presidential candidate, but in 2007, the man who would eventually become her running mate was booed by the crowd.

Yes, in 2009 Governor Palin had her hands full in Alaska, not to mention she was getting sued every time she even thought about leaving the state. In 2010, there were some issues with CPAC head, David Keene. In 2011, the CPAC keynote address took place on the same day as the Iron Dog banquet, so there was a scheduling conflict. That's not exactly what I would refer to as 'swaying,' dancing,' or 'dodging' the event, and it certainly had nothing to do with GOProud's participation. Both Tina Korbe and ABC could stand to do a little research before writing their articles. Then again, that wouldn't help them distort perceptions, so why would they?

Korbe continues:

Why now? It’s fun to speculate. Could be that she’s keen to recover her standing in the CPAC straw poll, in which she’s fallen over the years.

Um, no. We all know how Governor Palin feels about polls:

"Polls? Nah... they're for strippers and cross country skiers,"

It's laughable to suggest that Governor Palin would accept an invitation to give the keynote address at this years CPAC conference, all because she wanted to get higher numbers during the event's straw poll. During a year in which she's NOT even running for office, no less. Korbe continues:

Could be that she doesn’t have quite so many opportunities to nab headlines as she once did.

Governor Palin can "nab" a headline anytime she wants to. Korbe is obviously a person who doesn't understand Governor Palin very well. The governor doesn't "nab" headlines to get attention for herself. She has always used her platform to push a message of reform, fiscal sanity, and responsible government. If people would just get over their media-driven, false perceptions they might just hear what Governor Palin has to say. Next:

Could be that she thinks CPAC could be an ultra-dramatic setting to drop an endorsement.

Ah yes, we all know how Governor Palin uses "ultra-dramatic" settings to make announcements. After all, she announced she was running for the Governor of Alaska from her kitchen, and announced she wasn't running for president by calling in to a radio talk show. Try again, Tina:

Or it could be that she still believes strongly in the message of limited government that she’s articulated from her first day on the national scene — and sees this as a timely opportunity to remind voters of that message.

Bingo! She finally gets it. So why all of the meme-driven, garbage speculation on the way to reality? Because that's what Hot Air does. She goes on (emphasis replaces links in original piece):

It’s certain, though, that she’s still a lightning rod for emotion and opinion. As just one recent example, her remark to the effect that Michele Bachmann should drop out of the presidential race drew exceptional cheers and jeers. Today, Twitter and the blogosphere are alight with folks who say they’re excited to hear Palin speak at CPAC and those who say they saw this coming and, frankly, consider Palin a little passé.

These highlighted examples that I removed the links from, were not from honest people who really took issue with Governor Palin over her Bachmann statement, or just some folks who only now consider her "a little passé." No, the former link was to John Ziegler's website, who has flipped his own script in trying to obtain relevancy and a meal. The latter is a link to someone who has always had an irrational hatred for Governor Palin, by the name of Doug Mataconis. Yet, Korbe links to them without any context as if they are honest brokers without the need to include their background information to her readers. It's an old dirty trick that requires readers to be informed before they actually read the piece. If not, they may walk away from the article without all of the facts.

I guess it makes sense that a site run by an anonymous PDSer like "Allahpudit" would seek other writers who share his disdain for the reformer from Alaska. What I don't get is why that disdain exists in the first place. If she were running against their candidate in this year's GOP primary, it would make sense, but she isn't. Whether people such as Jazz Shaw and Tina Korbe like it or not, Governor Palin is a leading voice in the Republican party and with grassroots conservatives. Just this week, Mr. "Electable" himself, Mitt Romney referred to Obama as a "crony capitalist." That never would have happened had the governor not made this an issue during this election.

Governor Palin and her family have endured more crap from the media and the left than anyone who writes for Hot Air ever has. She has been calling Obama out since 2008, and has been a major voice shaping the issues that concern our movement and our nation. She deserves more respect than she gets from GOP, and most certainly from a group of bloggers who supposedly agree with her on those very issues.

Behind the Smears of HBO's "Game Change"

2011-12-22T16:42:00.000-08:00

Many months ago, HBO announced it was planning to make a movie based on the book, "Game Change" by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin. After reading John Nolte's article, which indicated that the movie would be focused primarily around Governor Palin and it wouldn't be portraying her in a very positive light, I decided to study up on it. I purchased a copy of the book, read the TWO chapters based on Governor Palin, and took down some notes.

As Nicole recently noted, HBO decided to release a trailer to that movie during this holiday week. The actual movie doesn't air until March of 2012, or as John Nolte wrote in his follow-up piece on Wednesday:

The one dynamic HBO probably didn’t count on was Palin’s decision not to run for the 2012 nomination. The film’s promotion and the cable news chatter that’s sure to follow seems timed to hit on, before, and around March 6, which is Super Tuesday.

The one line from the notes I took back in March that stood out as I was reviewing them for this piece, was:

Even though this book is supposed to be a story about 2008, it's really all about 2012.

This movie was orchestrated from start to finish as a way to damage Governor Palin during an election year by people who are not merely "artists & entertainers." Just look at the people involved in the making of the movie. First you have the director, Jay Roach who donated $2,300 to Barack Obama in 2008. Danny Strong, the person who wrote the screenplay, gave Obama $2,500 in 2008. Julianne Moore, the woman who does a poor impression of the governor, only gave $250 to Obama in '08 but shelled out $2,500 to the DNC in 2010. And then there's the film's producer, Tom Hanks, who has one of the most nauseating donation lists I have ever seen, including giving a staggering sum of $345,000 to Obama. It's safe to say that these people only donate large sums of money to causes they believe in. By looking at their donations, it's easy to see what it is that they believe in.

Danny "Obama Victory Fund" Strong, based his HBO screenplay on a book that came under significant scrutiny after it was published, even by MSM types. The thing that stood out amongst most of it's critics was the fact that Heilemann and Halperin didn't source any of the accusations they made. They claim to have interviewed over 300 people during their research, but not one of those people are named. Heilemann and Halperin do however, name the people who were present during each instance during the '08 campaign that they claim happened. I found it interesting that within the Palin chapters of the book, Nicolle Wallace, her husband Mark Wallace, Steve Schmidt, and or the mysterious "famous GOP strategist" are always present. It's no secret that Nicolle Wallace has been trashing and undermining Governor Palin since the 2008 race. Most recently, she was caught in a lie by a former senior adviser to the McCain campaign, Charlie Black. From National Review Online:

Over at the Washington Examiner, Byron York reports that Wallace is claiming, in a new Time interview, that McCain’s team considered bumping Palin from the veep slot. “There certainly were discussions — not for long because of the arc the campaign took — but certainly there were discussions about whether, if McCain were to win, it would be appropriate for her to be sworn in,” Wallace tells the magazine.

[Charlie] Black says that’s nonsense. “Nicolle, like any author, is trying to sell books. This comment to Time, like her book [It’s Classified], is a piece of fiction. There were never any such discussions. At no high level of the campaign was there ever such talk. She’s probably doing this to sell her book.”

“Look, I was with McCain 90 percent of the time. If I wasn’t around, I knew what was happening. And nothing like this happened.” Wallace, he says, “is one of the few dissidents,” one of the “disaffected” staffers who continues to criticize Palin, and “she is inaccurate in doing so.”

Steve Schmidt also has a long history of trashing Governor Palin. In a 2010 post, Dan Riehl pegged the source of Schmidt's animosity (emphasis):

The only modest bit of news in all this is that the pathetic Steve Schmidt continues to lack the class and intelligence required to simply shut up. Look at the basic facts even Schmidt is forced to confess. He would make it seem as though Palin was the absolutely worst thing about the McCain campaign, then he turns around and admits that, without her, things would have been much worse. That makes no sense.

On top of that, the fools running the campaign, including Schmidt, continued to consider Joe Lieberman for VP up until the very last minute, absolutely without realizing what a disaster that would have been. It took reactions outside the campaign to finally give them a clue how foolish they were in formulating and managing the campaign. Now suddenly, Schmidt is the all wise and wonderful know it all with the reputation, intellect and credibility to dump on Palin yet once, again? That makes no sense, either.

In continuing to not take responsibility for what a colossal failure he, as much, if not more than anyone else, was - all Schmidt has managed to accomplish with all his blathering is to put every potential national Republican candidate on notice that hiring Schmidt for perhaps anything other than coffee and sandwich fetching, would be an unmitigated disaster dooming them and their campaign to eternal hell across the Republican base.

It's clear that McCain's campaign failed on many levels. But former staffers who were responsible for that failure, used the leftist media to shift blame from themselves on to Governor Palin, and that is reprehensible. Both the left and these former staffers had a motive to run this trash against the governor. They simply made up anything they thought sounded really bad then leaked it to an eager, Obama-rooting media who was more than happy to take their word for it. So, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the Wallaces and Schmidt are consistently present during Heilemann and Halperin's tales. But what does that say about Heilemann and Halperin as journalists?

Can you really be a "respected journalist" if you never cite your sources? Sources are used so that readers can judge for themselves the credibility of each claim. Without them, "journalists" are doing nothing but repeating rumors, which usually earns one the title, "Gossip Columnist." What about bloggers? Personally, I try not to write on an important topics without listing my sources and posting links to back up claims. It's one reason that I've never wrote a piece about all of the rumors I've heard about Mark Halperin sexually harassing and making inappropriate comments to female professional acquaintances. After all, they're just rumors, right? (note: I have actually heard these rumors before, I didn't just make them up for effect)

For years now, I've held to the notion that Governor Palin's foes will do whatever it takes to destroy perceptions of her in the eyes of Americans. From ex-staffers with an axe to grind, to smear merchants like Heilemann and Halperin, to the left-wing activists who "produce" all things Hollywood, this book and the movie that followed shows how folks with an agenda can work in concert to achieve their ends. While each player may have a different overall agenda, the goal is the same. In the United States, 28.2 million households subscribe to HBO. That's a lot of people who, by and large, are not familiar with the antics of the Wallaces, Schmidt, the rumors about Mark Halperin, or how devoted Tom Hanks is to pushing liberalism with campaign contributions and through the use popular culture. A fact not unnoticed by those responsible for this production.

New York Times Pushes Ban on Congressional Insider Trading

2011-12-04T10:07:00.000-08:00

The New York Times published an editorial today supporting a bill banning the common practice of insider trading on Capitol Hill. They wrote:

A long-languishing bill to ban stock trading on inside information that lawmakers glean at private hearings and discussions has begun moving toward passage. The bill was lifted from hibernation by a new study from the Hoover Institution and a report on “60 Minutes” detailing the apparent freedom lawmakers have long enjoyed from the insider trading ban that applies to the rest of America.

The reports question the trading practices of leading legislators in the House like Speaker John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic minority leader, and Spencer Bachus, chairman of the House financial committee, when issues like health care reform and the financial crisis occupied center stage. All deny any wrongdoing but, with many others, are jumping aboard legislation offered five years ago by Louise Slaughter, a Democrat of New York.

Ms. Slaughter first proposed the bill when a Republican staffer privy to inside information was discovered making thousands of day trades from his office. The measure gathered dust and only nine co-sponsors — until the “60 Minutes” report was broadcast Nov. 13. Since then, more than 130 other members have signed up.

That report complemented research by Peter Schweizer of the Hoover Institution tracking the stock profits and legislative activities of lawmakers who wind up millionaires. Earlier university studies had found stock-trading legislators smartly outperforming the market by 6 percent to 12 percent in the 1980s and 1990s.

The potential for trading on insider information from the halls of Congress is undeniable and needs to be policed. Indeed, Congress should have protected itself long ago.

Read the entire piece here.

Peter Schweizer discussed the bill on Fox News Business, but doesn't believe it goes far enough. He doesn't think that the SEC will prosecute congressmen once the bill is passed out of the fear of having their own budget cut.

Leading Without a Title

2011-12-03T23:47:00.000-08:00

Twenty-three days after Governor Palin posted a statement to Facebook calling for Eric Holder to be fired in the wake of the "Fast and Furious" scandal, Mitt Romney took the bold step of echoing her call. Just as Rick Perry (using much of her language) did almost two weeks after her statement, Romney said, via The Blaze:

“Either Mr. Holder himself should resign, or the president should ask for his resignation or remove him... It’s unacceptable for him to continue in that position given the fact that he has misled Congress and entirely botched the investigation of the Fast and Furious program.”

This cycle's GOP presidential candidates have a history of echoing Governor Palin, while very few (okay maybe only one of them) actually attributing her as their source.

Back in September, I wrote a piece after a republican debate about this occurrence. I showed examples of Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann taking on crony capitalism, and Rick Perry adopting the governor's language to push for Social Security reform.

During an interview with Greta Van Susteren, Governor Palin remarked:

“I’m getting kind of a kick out of … getting out there, giving a speech, making some statements about things that must be discussed and then the very next day watching some of the candidates get up there and discuss what it was that we just talked about, like the corruption, the crony capitalism, the waste, the fraud – some of those things that are going on right now. It’s like, come on, candidates, it’s about time you started talking about that!”

It's a good thing that Mitt Romney has finally joined the chorus calling for Eric Holder to resign, even though he avoided the topic for weeks. It would behoove candidates to listen to Governor Palin on the issues, and if they have the credibility to do so, take them on for themselves. The earlier, the better. The longer they delay expressing their positions on such blatant examples of Obama administration incompetence like Eric Holder, the more they look like nothing more than politically expedient, issue-polling machines.

Governor Palin has political instincts that are second to none. This is because she understands the concerns of Americans and the problems that we face as a nation. She isn't compromised by being part of the DC 'in-crowd' and she doesn't mind ruffling their feathers. She doesn't conduct surveys across the country telling her how to feel about the topics of the day. She appears to only "poll" her gut, and her gut seems to reflect that of most Americans. Although she is not running in this presidential election, Governor Palin has expressed the desire to continue pushing for reform in government, also keeping issues such as energy and tax reform front and center.

We, her supporters must help Governor Palin continue to define the debate on a national level. We should get behind her when she makes a statement on an important topic or brings matters to light that should be a part of our national discussion. We should also encourage GOP candidates to continue adopting her issues as their platform, truly without even caring too much about who gets credit. The bottom-line is that it is vital that this nation get on track. We can only do that if our elected officials hear our concerns and we as a people, make demands on them to start fixing the problems. The governor has identified and brought to the public's attention many of the larger issues that plague our country. If we join Governor Palin in this fight, we can all make a difference leading from the outside, and without a title.

John Daly: The Media Can’t Bring Themselves to Detach Palin from Giffords

2011-11-28T10:20:00.000-08:00

John Daly posted an article on BernardGoldberg.com last night, about the ridiculous trick that the media keeps trying to fool their audience with by linking Governor Palin to the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Daly calls out those in the press who once again, tried to assign blame to Governor Palin, as if she had anything to do with the violent actions of the crackpot who committed the crime. He wrote:

Now, it’s lame enough when the media speculates on influences to murderers based on who authored the books that sat on their shelves at home, or who sang the songs they enjoyed listening to. But this was far more of a stretch. At the time the Palin connection was being suggested, the media knew practically nothing about the shooter. They had absolutely no idea of his political leanings. They had no idea if he even had access to the internet, let alone had ever visited the website of Palin’s political action committee.

And despite the concept of targeting districts being used for decades by numerous political strategists (often accompanied with visual representations off cross-hairs, targets, and bulls-eyes), its metaphorical context was selectively disregarded by many in the mainstream media for the purpose of creating a link to Palin. In their well-documented disdain for the former Alaska governor, many despicably went ahead and suggested that she could have been some sort of spiritual accomplice to the shooter.

In the end of course, Loughner was found to be a complete nut-case who former friends actually described as a “liberal” who regularly welled up in anger at the sight of George W. Bush. His longstanding, dangerous fixation on Congresswoman Giffords predated the Tea Party and Sarah Palin’s introduction onto the national scene. Palin was of no influence on him, nor was any coherent political ideology.

One would have thought that the revelation would have put to rest the reckless and politically-motivated media assault on Palin, but as we’ve found out over the last two weeks, it didn’t.

On November 15th, ABC ran a widely praised special on Giffords’ inspirational recovery. The special featured the congresswoman’s grueling rehabilitation and the strength of her marriage. Gabrielle Giffords’ story was a testament to the human spirit, but host, Diane Sawyer chose to cap off the program with these final comments: “After she [Giffords] voted for healthcare, she faced people in her district calling her a traitor, booing her in townhalls. Someone even fired a gun into her office door. And you may remember Sarah Palin targeted her district with an ad that had a gunsight on it.”

Unbelievable. What relevance did any of that have to what happened to Giffords? Did ABC decide that Giffords’ amazing story of triumph after tragedy couldn’t stand on its own? Did they feel the need to concoct a few more villains? A few more hurdles? The answer is no. They just saw another opportunity to take a few political cheap shots (while they had the attention of a large audience) at the supporters of an ideology they abhor.

But it didn’t end there. On November 23rd, Piers Morgan brought up Palin again in a CNN interview with Gabrielle Giffords’ husband, astronaut Mark Kelly.

“Sarah Palin doesn’t come out of this very well, I don’t think, because there was a woman who at the time had been putting these cross hair things on her website and stuff, including Gabby”, said Morgan. “And in her haste to take responsibility didn’t even bother to pick the phone up, to write, do anything.”

When Kelly confirmed that he and his wife were indeed not contacted by Palin, Morgan responded, “I find that extraordinary.”

Extraordinary? Really? Is it customary for someone falsely accused of a crime to reach out to the victim? If anyone owed the Giffords an apology, wouldn’t it be those in the media who used the horrific tragedy to fuel a witch-hunt against those they see as their political opponents?

Sarah Palin didn’t contact the Giffords for the same reason that I didn’t, Piers Morgan didn’t, and hundreds of millions of other Americans didn’t: We didn’t know her or her family. We kept them in our thoughts and prayers instead. Any notion that it would have been responsible for Palin to contact them is absurd. If she had, fine. But she had no moral responsibility to do so. She had no more to do with the Arizona shootings than the very people who unjustly yanked her into the story in the first place.

You can read the entire piece here.

Rick Perry Echoes Governor Palin on Eric Holder

2011-11-22T09:02:00.000-08:00

As of November 18th, 2011, GOP presidential contender Rick Perry had refused to state his position concerning Eric Holder in the wake of the "Fast and Furious" scandal.

Via the Daily Caller:

For weeks, The Daily Caller has been asking Perry staffers, including chief spokesman Mark Miner, for comment on what the border state governor thinks of the operation. Perry and Miner have not commented.

TheDC has also asked Miner if Perry thinks Holder should resign immediately — the stance of 51 congressmen so far. Perry has continued to not answer the question.

Today, Perry came out with a much more decisive stance calling on Eric Holder to resign. He starts off by writing:

Ever since the Department of Justice’s gun-running operation known as Fast and Furious became public, the Obama administration’s response has been slow and infuriating. Of particular concern is Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s lack of candor concerning what he knew and when he knew it.

This is not a typical case of bureaucratic bungling. A 40-year-old Border Patrol agent, Brian Terry, and possibly a U.S. immigration agent, are dead because of a horribly ill-conceived Justice Department operation that went tragically wrong.

Wait a second... This looks awfully familiar, doesn't it?

Back on November 10th, 2011, Governor Palin released a statement titled "Fire Eric Holder." She wrote:

When the stories about Operation Fast and Furious first broke, it sounded too crazy even for this administration.
Why would any government official with an ounce of common sense think it’s a good idea to facilitate the smuggling of thousands of guns into the hands of violent Mexican drug cartels? That’s what Operation Fast and Furious did.
You might think Eric Holder’s Department of Justice was setting up a sting operation in which our federal agents would swoop down and arrest the bad guys the minute the guns traded hands. But that’s not what happened. Eric Holder’s DOJ had American gun dealers sell weapons to “straw purchasers” tied to drug cartels without actually following the movement of the guns as they were then sold to Mexican drug lords. They apparently thought this so-called “gun-walking” operation would help them chart the path of gun smuggling, but they didn’t have a plan to actually control the weapons’ movements as the guns were allowed to “walk” into Mexico. All Holder’s DOJ did was arm violent criminals. What manner of fools do we have working in this administration? What’s next? Supplying nuclear weapons components to the Iranians so we can track their activities?
Fast and Furious isn’t just your typical government incompetence. This is a deadly tragedy. U.S. border agent Brian Terry was gunned down with weapons connected to Holder’s debacle. At least 200 Mexican citizens were also killed by criminals using Fast and Furious weapons. We can only imagine how many more people will be murdered by criminals our government armed.

And back to Rick Perry's statement:

Hundreds of Fast and Furious firearms have been implicated in criminal activity, and another 1,400 firearms are on the street because the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives engaged in gun-walking – the selling of firearms to straw purchasers in an attempt to locate major weapons traffickers in Mexico. This controversial tactic, involving thousands of weapons, means that brave law enforcement personnel along the border remain at risk.

As details come to light, a larger shadow has been cast on Mr. Holder. When initially asked under oath to say when he first knew about Fast and Furious, Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee on May 3, “I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.”

But the evidence casts serious doubt over that claim. First, President Obama had commented publicly on the operation, noting on March 22 – more than a month before Mr. Holder’s sworn statement – that an inspector general had been assigned to investigate the matter. [...]
Perhaps more damning is that records show Mr. Holder was briefed about the operation as far back as July 2010, when the director of the National Drug Intelligence Center, Michael F. Walther, sent Mr. Holder a written memo that his agency would assist in the investigation of a gun trafficker who had acquired weapons under Fast and Furious. Another memo, from Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, notified Mr. Holder of a sealed Justice Department indictment against weapons traffickers in Arizona.

Mr. Holder’s proclaimed ignorance leaves Americans to draw one of two conclusions: Either he is guilty of extraordinary bureaucratic incompetence or he is guilty of a cover-up meant to shield him from the consequences of an operation that has left at least one federal agent dead and continues to imperil many more.

Either way, it is high time for Mr. Holder to step down. If he refuses to resign, Mr. Obama must fire him immediately.

And Governor Palin's statement from November 10th reads:

And where is President Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder in all of this? When did he first know about the operation? In his testimony to the House Oversight Committee on May 3, 2011, Holder stated, “I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.” But the DOJ’s own documents prove that Holder had been receiving briefings on Fast and Furious for nearly a year before that date. In other words, our government’s top law enforcement official, Eric Holder, lied to the American public. He finally admitted this week to the Senate Judiciary Committee, “In my testimony before the House committee [on May 3], I did say a few weeks. I probably could have said a couple of months. What I said about a few weeks was inaccurate based on what happened.”
When the nation’s highest law enforcement official lies to the American people, he must go.
And if he claims that he didn’t lie, then how else do we explain this situation? He’s either lying or he’s so grossly incompetent and lazy that he didn’t read important life and death briefings from his deputy attorney general and didn’t know about this deadly operation run by people under him. So, which is it? Incompetent, lazy, or lying? No matter which explanation fits, he needs to go.
Holder conceded this week, “I have ultimate responsibility for what happens in the department.” He can prove it by resigning. And if he refuses to resign, then President Obama – with whom the bucks ultimately stop – can prove that he respects honesty, transparency, and accountability in his administration by firing Holder.

Don't get me wrong... I'm happy to see that Rick Perry finally made his mind up on the issue and added his voice to those calling for Eric Holder's resignation. And it is always nice to see any presidential candidate echo Governor Palin on anything, but some attribution would have been nice.

Newsweek Highlights More Revelations from "Throw Them All Out"

2011-11-13T22:50:00.000-08:00

In this week’s edition of Newsweek, Peter Boyer takes a look at the new book by Peter Schweizer, “Throw Them All Out” and uncovers even more revelations about the way US lawmakers conduct their own personal business from their seats of public “service.” He writes:

While examining trades made around the time of the 2003 Medicare overhaul, Schweizer experienced what he calls his “Holy crap!” moment. The legislation, which created a new prescription-drug entitlement, promised to be a huge boon to the pharmaceutical industry—and to savvy investors in the Capitol. Among those with special insight on the issue was Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the health subcommittee of the Senate’s powerful Finance Committee. Kerry is one of the wealthiest members of the Senate and heavily invested in the stock market. As the final version of the drug program neared approval—one that didn’t include limits on the price of drugs—brokers for Kerry and his wife were busy trading in Big Pharma. Schweizer found that they completed 111 stock transactions of pharmaceutical companies in 2003, 103 of which were buys.

“They were all great picks,” Schweizer notes. The Kerrys’ capital gains on the transactions were at least $500,000, and as high as $2 million (such information is necessarily imprecise, as the disclosure rules allow members to report their gains in wide ranges). It was instructive to Schweizer that Kerry didn’t try to shape legislation to benefit his portfolio; the apparent key to success was the shaping of trades that anticipated the effect of government policy.

Senator Kerry’s office responded:

“Senator Kerry does not buy, sell, or trade stocks,” says Jodi Seth, Kerry’s spokeswoman. She notes that Kerry’s holdings are in family trusts and managed by independent trustees with whom he does not communicate. Further, Seth says, Kerry is not a beneficiary of Teresa Heinz Kerry’s trusts, which were established before they were married. In any case, Seth adds, Kerry was running for president when the Medicare bill was passed, and he missed much of the debate.

Schweizer replied:

“It’s not that I think John Kerry is calling up his broker, on health care, and saying, ‘Buy this company, sell that company,’?” Schweizer says. “The issue is one of a double standard.” He notes that if the executive of a health-care company were in discussions with the White House over pending legislation that would affect his industry, and then made a series of unusual stock transactions related to the industry, the SEC might well open an insider-trading investigation. “The only group in America that we exempt is politicians, who are probably the last people about whom we should be saying, ‘Oh, we’ll take their word for it,’?” he says. “That’s what’s so amazing to me.”

The article continues:

The Kerry trustees’ impeccable timing in drug company trades was evident again in 2007, when the federal government was weighing whether to discontinue Medicare reimbursement for certain anemia drugs used by cancer patients. When the government announced that it would limit reimbursements, shares in Amgen, one of the drugmakers at issue, dropped 15 percent. Kerry’s wife happened to be an Amgen stockholder but avoided losses; her shares, valued at between $500,000 and $1 million, were unloaded more than a week before the government’s announcement.

Schweizer, an unabashed conservative and a foreign-policy adviser to Sarah Palin, has written books about Reagan and the Bushes as well as polemics about the ruinous ways of liberalism. But this latest book is not an overtly partisan work; as the title, Throw Them All Out, suggests, it should discomfit conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans, alike…

Boyer then moves on to the underhanded activities of Rep. Spencer Bachus, of Alabama:

One of the more dramatic episodes in the book recounts the trading activity of Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus, of Alabama, who, as the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, was privy to sensitive high-level meetings during the 2008 financial crisis and proceeded to make a series of profitable stock-option trades.

Bachus was known in the House as a guy who liked to play the market, and in fact he was pretty good at it; one year, he reported a capital gain in excess of $150,000 from his trading activities. More striking is that Bachus boldly carried forth his trading in the teeth of the impending financial collapse, the nightmarish dimensions of which he had learned about first-hand in confidential briefings from Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed chairman Ben Bernanke. On Sept. 19, 2008, after attending two such briefings, Bachus bought options in an index fund (ProShares UltraShort QQQ) that effectively amounted to a bet that the market would fall. That is indeed what happened, and, on Sept. 23, Bachus sold his “short” options, purchased for $7,846, for more than $13,000—nearly doubling his investment in four days.

Around the time Congress and the Bush administration worked out a TARP bailout, Bachus made another options buy and again nearly doubled his money. The House turned down the TARP proposal, and Bachus’s own Financial Services Committee remained clued in to revisions of what became the final TARP package. In the earlier closed-door briefings, Bernanke had warned the congressional members that a “meltdown in the global financial system” was imminent and that it would spill over into the broader economy if something wasn’t done. With TARP completed, Bachus seemed confident in its effect, now buying options that effectively bet that the market would rise—to mixed results.

Bachus was hardly the only member of Congress trading as the government was coming to grips with the financial crisis. After the first briefing from Bernanke and Paulson, brokers for Democratic Congressman Jim Moran, of Virginia, and his wife sold their shares in 90 companies, dodging the losses that others who stayed in the market would soon face. Republican Rep. Shelley Capito, of West Virginia, sold between $100,000 and $250,000 of Citigroup stock the day after the first meeting, recording capital gains on Citigroup transactions in that rocky period.

Let me just say that I stand with Andrew Breitbart and call on Representative Bachus to resign. Had he been a member of the general public, he would be going to prison for his actions. He’s a disgrace to this nation, as are all other members of Congress who engage in this behavior.

May I also remind C4P readers that Rep. Bachus was the man who blamed Governor Palin for the GOP not taking over the Senate in 2010. Never mind his twisted reality, at least we now know why he took that cheap shot at her… He’s one of them.

You can go here to read the entire Boyer article where he also covers more detail concerning Nancy Pelosi’s very profitable Visa IPO.

Peter Schweizer Exposes More of Obama's Green Corruption

2011-11-12T13:32:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, I posted a piece about this weekend's episode of 60 Minutes on CBS which will highlight insider trading on Capitol Hill and showcases the new book written by Governor Palin's adviser, Peter Schweizer.

Today, Schweizer released an excerpt from his new book that will also be available in this weeks edition of Newsweek. In this portion, he goes far beyond the the Solyndra scandal and gives Americans a detailed picture of just how the Obama administration operates, and how they manage to hand over BILLIONS of tax dollars to cronies for political kickbacks. He writes:

Where did green-energy cash go? Straight to campaign donors. Read more about Peter Schwiezer’s Throw Them All Out in the new Newsweek on sale Monday.

When President-elect Obama came to Washington in late 2008, he was outspoken about the need for an economic stimulus to revive a struggling economy. He wanted billions of dollars spent on “shovel-ready projects” to build roads; billions more for developing alternative-energy projects; and additional billions for expanding broadband Internet access and creating a “smart grid” for energy consumption. After he was sworn in as president, he proclaimed that taxpayer money would assuredly not be doled out to political friends. “Decisions about how Recovery Act dollars are spent will be based on the merits,” he said, referring to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. “Let me repeat that: decisions about how recovery money will be spent will be based on the merits. They will not be made as a way of doing favors for lobbyists.”

Really?

It would take an entire book to analyze every single grant and government-backed loan doled out since Barack Obama became president. But an examination of grants and guaranteed loans offered by just one stimulus program run by the Department of Energy, for alternative-energy projects, is stunning. The so-called 1705 Loan Guarantee Program and the 1603 Grant Program channeled billions of dollars to all sorts of energy companies. The grants were earmarked for alternative-fuel and green-power projects, so it would not be a surprise to learn that those industries were led by liberals. Furthermore, these were highly competitive grant and loan programs—not usually a hallmark of cronyism. Often fewer than 10 percent of applicants were deemed worthy.

Nevertheless, a large proportion of the winners were companies with Obama-campaign connections. Indeed, at least 10 members of Obama’s finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers were big winners in getting your money. At the same time, several politicians who supported Obama managed to strike gold by launching alternative-energy companies and obtaining grants. How much did they get? According to the Department of Energy’s own numbers … a lot. In the 1705 government-backed-loan program, for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party. The grant and guaranteed-loan recipients were early backers of Obama before he ran for president, people who continued to give to his campaigns and exclusively to the Democratic Party in the years leading up to 2008. Their political largesse is probably the best investment they ever made in alternative energy. It brought them returns many times over.

These government grants and loan guarantees not only provided access to taxpayer capital. They also served as a seal of approval from the federal government. Taxpayer money creates what investors call a “halo effect,” in which a young, unprofitable company is suddenly seen to have a glowing future. The plan is simple. Invest some money, secure taxpayer grants and loans, go public, and then cash out. In just one small example, a company called Amyris Biotechnologies received a $24 million DOE grant to build a pilot plant to use altered yeast to turn sugar into hydrocarbons. The investors included several Obama bundlers and fundraisers. With federal money in hand, Amyris went public with an IPO the following year, raising $85 million. Kleiner Perkins, a firm that boasts Obama financier John Doerr and former vice president Al Gore as partners, found its $16 million investment was now worth $69 million. It’s not clear how the other investors did. Amyris continues to lose money. Meanwhile, the $24 million grant created 40 jobs, according to the government website recovery.gov.

[...]

The Government Accountability Office has been highly critical of the way guaranteed loans and grants were doled out by the Department of Energy, complaining that the process appears “arbitrary” and lacks transparency. In March 2011, for example, the GAO examined the first 18 loans that were approved and found that none were properly documented. It also noted that officials “did not always record the results of analysis” of these applications. A loan program for electric cars, for example, “lacks performance measures.” No notes were kept during the review process, so it is difficult to determine how loan decisions were made. The GAO further declared that the Department of Energy “had treated applicants inconsistently in the application review process, favoring some applicants and disadvantaging others.” The Department of Energy’s inspector general, Gregory Friedman, who was not a political appointee, chastised the alternative-energy loan and grant programs for their absence of “sufficient transparency and accountability.” He has testified that contracts have been steered to “friends and family.”
Friends indeed. These programs might be the greatest—and most expensive—example of crony capitalism in American history. Tens of billions of dollars went to firms controlled or owned by fundraisers, bundlers, and political allies, many of whom—surprise!—are now raising money for Obama again

There will be a lot of revelations coming out in Schweizer's new book, which hits shelves this Tuesday. For now, you can read the entire released excerpt here.

CBS Report to Expose Insider Trading on Capitol Hill

2011-11-12T13:30:00.001-08:00

This Sunday on CBS, 60 Minutes will air a report by Steve Kroft highlighting the insider trading that takes place on Capitol Hill. It will show how America's lawmakers legally buy stock based on non-public information. The report also features Governor Palin's adviser Peter Schweizer, who has a new book on this topic called "Throw them All Out."

CBS reports:

Martha Stewart went to jail for it. Hedge fund honcho Raj Rajaratnam was fined $92 million and will go to jail for years for it. But members of Congress can do the same thing -use non-public information to make stock trades -- and there's no law against it. Steve Kroft reports on how America's lawmakers can legally make tidy profits on information only they know, simply because they won't pass a law against themselves. The report will be broadcast on Sunday, Nov. 13 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Among the revelations in Kroft's report:

* Members of Congress have bought stock in companies while laws that could affect those companies were being debated in the House or Senate.

* At least one representative made significant stock purchases the day after he and other members of Congress attended a secret meeting in September 2008, where the Fed chair and the treasury secretary informed them of the imminent global economic meltdown. The meeting was so confidential that cell phones and other digital devices were confiscated before it began.

If senators and representatives are using non-public information to win in the market, it's all legal says Peter Schweizer, who works for the Hoover Institute, a conservative think tank. He has been examining these issues for some time and has written about them in a book, "Throw them All Out." "[Insider trading laws] apply to corporate executives, to Americans...If you are a member of Congress, those laws are deemed not to apply," he tells Kroft. "It's really the way the rules have been defined...[lawmakers]have conveniently written them in such a way as they don't apply to themselves," says Schweizer.

Efforts to make such insider trading off limits to Washington's lawmakers have never been able to get traction.

You can read the whole preview for the report here.

Don't miss 60 Minutes, this Sunday at 7 PM PST/EST and be sure to pick up a copy of Peter Schweizer's new book which will be on shelves this Tuesday.

CBS, Jack Abramoff Interview Highlights DC Corruption

2011-11-07T10:37:00.000-08:00

Recently, when I sat on a panel during the first ever Grizzly Fest Summit, I spoke about being "disillusioned" with the state of politics and Washington DC prior to learning about Governor Palin in 2007. Disgraced former high-power DC lobbyist Jack Abramoff had a lot to do with that because as the Washington Post described back in 2006 (emphasis):

Former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff was sentenced to five years and 10 months in prison on March 29, after pleading guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials in a deal that requires him to cooperate in an investigation into his relationships with members of Congress. Sources familiar with the federal probe have told The Post that half a dozen lawmakers are under scrutiny, along with Hill aides, former business associates and government officials.

Which is one reason I gained admiration for Governor Palin after reading about her record. I wasn't turning a blind-eye to corruption in DC just because the players involved had R's next to their names, and neither did she back in her home state. In fact, she risked everything to expose corrupted officials in her own party, which I knew at the time is exactly what it would take to clean up government at every level.

Sunday night, CBS conducted a fascinating interview with Jack Abramoff in which he gave details about how he was able to "influence politicians and their staffers through generous gifts and job offers." CBS reported that:

As a Republican lobbyist starting in the mid 1990s, he became a master at showering gifts on lawmakers in return for their votes on legislation and tax breaks favorable to his clients. He was so good at it, he took home $20 million a year.

Lesley Stahl opens the interview by getting Abramoff to go into detail about his business leading up to his arrest:

Stahl: Can you quantify how much it costs to corrupt a congressman?

Abramoff: I was actually thinking of writing a book - "The Idiot's Guide to Buying a Congressman" - as a way to put this all down. First, I think most congressmen don't feel they're being bought. Most congressmen, I think, can in their own mind justify the system.
Stahl: Rationalize.

Abramoff: --rationalize it and by the way we wanted as lobbyists for them to feel that way.

Of course they did.

Abramoff then goes on to describe how he spent over $1 million on tickets to sporting events lobbying public officials. Purchasing box seats for them and all of their guests and discussing the fact they didn't care if it was legal or not.

Then Abramoff discloses what felt was "best way" to get an official to do what he wanted them to do (emphasis):

Abramoff: But the "best way" to get a congressional office to do his bidding - he says - was to offer a staffer a job that could triple his salary.
Abramoff: When we would become friendly with an office and they were important to us, and the chief of staff was a competent person, I would say or my staff would say to him or her at some point, "You know, when you're done working on the Hill, we'd very much like you to consider coming to work for us." Now the moment I said that to them or any of our staff said that to 'em, that was it. We owned them. And what does that mean? Every request from our office, every request of our clients, everything that we want, they're gonna do. And not only that, they're gonna think of things we can't think of to do.

I think that speaks to how our elected officials operate. If they mindlessly allow their compromised staffers the ability to dictate their actions, they never were who they claimed to be while getting elected. It's disgraceful.

The interview continues:

Abramoff: At the end of the day most of the people that I encountered who worked on Capitol Hill wanted to come work on K Street, wanted to be lobbyists.

Stahl: You're telling me this, the genius of figuring out you could own the office by offering a job to the chief of staff, say. I'm having two reactions. One is brilliant. And the other is I'm sick to my stomach.

Abramoff: Right. Evil. Yeah. Terrible.

Stahl: 'Cause it's hurting our country.

Abramoff: Shameful. Absolutely. It's the worst thing that could happen. All parts of the system.

Leslie Stahl also interviewed former congressman Bob Ney for this segment. Ney resigned in 2006 and served 17 months in federal prison after pleading guilty to charges of conspiracy and making false statements under oath in relation to the Abramoff scandal:

Stahl: Did he own you?

Bob Ney: Oh, I don't believe Jack Abramoff owned me. But were we involved in the culture of corruption together? Absolutely.
I wanted to be speaker of the House and Jack Abramoff was the beautiful light of day for me to get to the person who I had had some conflicts with, Tom Delay.
But I will still tell you, at that point in time, in order to get a drink at Signatures ["Signatures" was a bar and restaurant owned by Jack Abramoff] you had to shove White House staffers of George Bush the heck away from the bar. And it was packed with people. And there were members. Now that doesn't mean everybody did everything for Jack. But if you wanna talk about strict interpretation of violation of the-- of-- of the laws of drink and food, Katey bar the door, she was wide open, two shotguns blarin'.

Abramoff then delivers specifics about he would help his clients - the people paying him to corrupt officials:

Abramoff: So what we did was we crafted language that was so obscure, so confusing, so uninformative, but so precise to change the U.S. code.

Stahl: Here's what you tried to get tacked on to this reform bill.

Abramoff: Yeah.

Stahl: "Public law 100-89 is amended by striking section 207 (101 stat. 668, 672)."

Abramoff: Right. Now isn't that obvious what that means? It was perfect. It was perfect.

Stahl: So that's what you tried to get inserted?
Abramoff: Yes.

Stahl: And that was gonna provide for a casino?

Abramoff: Yes.

Stahl: And who on earth is gonna know that?

Abramoff: No one except the chairmen of the committees.

Stahl: Who stuck it in there?

Abramoff: Yes.

Stahl: And that's one of the things you used to do?

Abramoff: Yes.

Stahl: And it was deliberately written like that?

Abramoff: Precisely. Yes.

Stahl: And that's done a lot?

Abramoff: Members don't read the bills.

Abramoff says something that is hard to hear but it's something that needs to be heard by every taxpayer in this country (emphasis):

Stahl: Was buying favors from lawmakers easy?

Abramoff: I think people are under the impression that the corruption only involves somebody handing over a check and getting a favor. And that's not the case. The corruption, the bribery, call it, because ultimately that's what it is. That's what the whole system is.

Stahl: The whole system's bribery?

Abramoff: In my view. I'm talking about giving a gift to somebody who makes a decision on behalf of the public. At the end of the day, that's really what bribery is. But it is done everyday and it is still being done. The truth is there were very few members who I could even name or could think of who didn't at some level participate in that.

The interview ends with with Abramoff giving his view of the current state of the systemic corruption in Washington DC and then lends some advice about what he feels is the best way to curb it (emphasis):

Stahl: Could you do the same thing today? I'm asking you whether you think the system's been cleaned up?

Abramoff: Could do the same thing that I? Yeah. No, the system hasn't been cleaned up at all.

Stahl: At all.

Abramoff: There's an arrogance on the part of lobbyists, and certainly there was on the part of me and my team, that no matter what they come up we, we're smarter than they are and we'll overcome it. We'll just find another way through. That's all.
If you make the choice to serve the public, public service, then serve the public, not yourself. When you're done, go home. Washington's a dangerous place. Don't hang around.

Abramoff believes that the best way to end this drag on our government is to find a way to prohibit members of Congress and their staffers from working on K Street once their terms are over.

The self-policing of Congress hasn't worked. Only at times when it's politically expedient for them to do so, do we hear the hypocrites on one side of the aisle or the other complain about the corruption of the other party. What gets me is that those people like Nancy Pelosi who gained her seat of power by telling the American people that it was time to end the "culture of corruption" when she herself is vastly compromised.

Corruption is not going to go away by simply wishing it would or trusting elected officials in DC to eventually do the right thing. The American people have to take it upon themselves to educate their neighbors and DEMAND that the people we elect to represent us are held accountable once they get to DC. As Abramoff said "If you make the choice to serve the public, public service, then serve the public, not yourself."

It's up to us to make sure that our elected officials do just that. We need to elect people to serve us who have the moral backbone of Governor Palin. People who will not turn a blind-eye to this corruption. People who will serve the public, even if that means being unpopular with their peers.

You can read the entire CBS interview here.

GOP Candidates Endorse Governor Palin

2011-09-12T21:44:00.000-07:00

Some of them endorsed her ideas and words anyway...

For instance, during the GOP debate Monday night in Tampa, Peter Hamby tweeted the following:

Bachmann team sends out press release hitting Perry's "crony capitalism" cc @SarahPalinUSA

After the debate, Michele Bachmann appeared On The Record with Greta Van Sustren, stating the following, as Molly Ball reported:

“This is what the American people don’t want. They don’t want crony capitalism. It infuriates them,” she said, drawing a parallel with Obama’s Solyndra controversy. “It’s no better when Republicans engage in that as well,” she said.

Newt Gingrich also embraced Governor Palin's message of reform and against crony capitalism on Greta's show, saying:

I do want to say by the way, that Governor Palin's speech in Iowa last weekend on crony capitalism and on the problems of both parties, is a very very important speech. I'm going to be tweeting a link to it. I'm also going to be doing some other things with it. I think it was maybe one of the most important speeches she's ever given. And I think it raised a series of very profound questions that all of us, Democrat and Republican, have to wrestle with as citizens. And she did it very well. It's a very very impressive speech.

So impressive that Rick Perry borrowed some of the words from Governor Palin speech in an op-ed he penned for USA Today on Monday. He wrote:

We must have a frank, honest national conversation about fixing Social Security to protect benefits for those at or near retirement while keeping faith with younger generations, who are being asked to pay.

From the governor's speech in Iowa:

The status quo is no longer an option. Entitlement reform is our duty now, and it must be done in a way that honors our commitment to our esteemed elders today, while keeping faith with future generations.

I sincerely doubt that any of these candidates would be talking about crony capitalism before the governor gave that speech in Iowa. Whether she's defining the debate, or helping candidates learn how to talk, Governor Palin is shaping the primary race just by sharing her opinion on the issues that effect this nation. The candidates are certainly following her lead, and I commend them for doing so.

Governor Palin understands that she's having an effect on the race, as she stated on Monday (also on Greta's show):

"I’m getting kind of a kick out of … getting out there, giving a speech, making some statements about things that must be discussed and then the very next day watching some of the candidates get up there and discuss what it was that we just talked about, like the corruption, the crony capitalism, the waste, the fraud – some of those things that are going on right now. It’s like, come on, candidates, it’s about time you started talking about that!"

How to Win the Social Security Debate

2011-09-09T22:57:00.000-07:00

Rick Perry has come under a considerable amount of scrutiny after the debate last Wednesday night for stating that in his view, Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme." Social Security is most certainly broken but veteran politicos, Mitt Romney's campaign, the left, and the media all took Perry to task for his remarks.

As the site GOP12 noted yesterday, Governor Palin 'clarified' Perry's Social Security comments during her Friday interview with Megyn Kelly. They wrote:

On Fox News today, Sarah Palin offered Rick Perry a more gentle way of talking about Social Security.
"What Rick Perry was trying to say, I believe, is that there needs to be reform. Status quo is not acceptable, because these programs are insolvent.

.... So he's saying reform is necessary."
Perry has written that Social Security is a "failure" and "Ponzi Scheme", and returned to those themes in Wednesday night's debate.

If Perry were really just saying "reform is necessary", then pretty much everyone, including Romney, would agree. Palin's suggested rhetoric is much less controversial than Perry's.

Governor Palin has consistently addressed the Social Security debate responsibly by highlighting the fact that the program has to be reformed, while also insisting that we must not hurt those who have paid into the system throughout their adult lives and now depend on it.

Back in December of 2010, Governor Palin addressed the Social Security issue while endorsing the Paul Ryan roadmap. She wrote (emphasis):

On Social Security, as with Medicare, the Roadmap honors our commitments to those who are already receiving benefits by guaranteeing all existing rights to people over the age of 55. Those below that age are offered a choice: They can remain in the traditional government-run system or direct a portion of their payroll taxes to personal accounts, owned by them, managed by the Social Security Administration and guaranteed by the federal government. Under the Roadmap's proposals, they can pass these savings onto their heirs.

And as recently as last Saturday, during her speech at the tea party rally in Indianola, Iowa she said:

The status quo is no longer an option. Entitlement reform is our duty now, and it must be done in a way that honors our commitment to our esteemed elders today, while keeping faith with future generations.

Michele Bachmann also weighed in on the issue yesterday during an interview with Radio Iowa. Katrina Trinko reported:

Without naming competitor Rick Perry (although I did in the questions), Bachmann said federal policymakers have to “keep faith” with current Social Security beneficiaries. ”That’s wrong for any candidate to make senior citizens believe that they should be nervous about something they have come to count on. We need not do that, but I think at the same time we also outline our positive solutions,” Bachmann said. “That’s what I’m trying to do.”

It's very encouraging to see some of the GOP candidates take on the Social Security during the primary season. It ensures that the topic will be an issue during the 2012 general election debate. It is important however, for republicans who wish to see true reform of our nation's entitlement programs, do so in a manner that allows independent thinkers to actually hear our side of the debate. With an issue as sensitive as Social Security, we must not allow the left any leverage to deflect the issue, while painting conservatives as out of touch or heartless to the elderly - who as I stated above, have already paid into the system. We must be clear that reform must take place, or as Governor Palin said in Iowa:

We either do it ourselves or the world’s capital markets are going to shove it down our throats, and we’ll have no choice but to reform our entitlement programs.

Responsible, honest debate is what the American people need if we are to make the reforms that are necessary a reality.

About That Fox News Poll

2011-09-07T09:48:00.000-07:00

There have been many pundits, news writers, and bloggers recently who have cited a specific Fox News poll while giving us the "reasons" that they think Governor Palin should stay out of the 2012 presidential race. Considering that the poll has a Fox News label on it, we as conservatives are supposed to believe that it is entirely credible. There are some problems with that, and "credible" isn't a word I would use in association with the numbers they came up with. Here's why...

The section of the poll that is being touted by the media and by the governor's detractors states:

Should Palin Run?

All in all, most voters -- 74 percent -- think Palin should stay on the sidelines in 2012. Just 20 percent think she should run for president.

The groups most likely to support Palin running are white evangelical Christians (30 percent) and Tea Party members (28 percent). Still, majorities of those groups do not think she should run (62 percent and 66 percent respectively). In addition, 72 percent of conservatives, 71 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of independents think Palin should stay out.

Women (77 percent) are a bit more likely than men (71 percent) to say Palin should sit this one out.

Just among women, Republicans (26 percent) are more likely than independents (24 percent) and Democrats (15 percent) to think Palin should run.

What these people leave out of their reports is perhaps the most interesting fact about the poll altogether. It states (emphasis):

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 911 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from August 29 to August 31. For the total sample, it has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Now, just who is Shaw & Company Research? Alexander Burns from Politico writes:

The Shaw in Shaw & Company is Daron Shaw, a University of Texas political science professor and veteran of several GOP campaigns, whose name has been in the news a bit lately.

That's because Shaw is one of the starring players in Sasha Issenberg's e-book, "Rick Perry and His Eggheads: Inside the Brainiest Political Operation in America," which details a groundbreaking set of experiments that Shaw and three other academics conducted inside Perry's 2006 reelection campaign.

The Perry campaign allowed the so-called eggheads to run tests on "anything [they] could figure out how to randomize, from lawn signs to television ads," Issenberg writes, and they assembled a provocative set of findings on which kinds of campaign tactics really work.

Fast forward five years and Perry is running for president and Shaw is one of the lead pollsters for the most influential cable network, by far, among GOP primary voters.

I've read the 30 page book that Burns is talking about, so don't be distracted by the fact that he writes for Politico. What he wrote is accurate, you can see for yourself here.

Now, Shaw maintains that there wasn't a conflict of interest in doing the poll for Fox because Perry didn't pay him and the other "eggheads" for their services. Even though he and the others were very much a part of Perry's political team, he claims that " we're stupid, we never entered into any business relationship with Perry." The book states that Shaw was "moonlighting" for the Perry campaign. I gather that one would have to go through Perry's campaign disclosure forms to find out for sure. Given the huge numbers for Perry in the poll and the fact that Team Perry is determined to keep Governor Palin out of the race, something isn't right with Fox using Shaw's agency to gather numbers for a conservative audience.

There is also the fact that the Fox poll numbers are very different from a poll that CNN conducted just this last July. Ian noted at the time:

55% of Republican and Republican-leaning independents want Governor Palin to run.

That is a huge difference between the Shaw and Anderson Robbins (Fox poll) numbers. When you see that big of a shift in that short amount of time, you know something isn't right. The fact that Fox used somebody that the Perry people trust and allowed close access to, should send off alarms to more than just the writers at Politico.

Is Rick Perry a Fiscal Conservative?

2011-08-29T21:12:00.000-07:00

According to Roger Simon, any headline that ends with a question mark can always be answered "no."

Over a week ago, the Perry-friendly Redstate published a presumptuous piece titled "Rick Perry, our next President." The author listed a few items that he or she (anonymous author) felt are Rick Perry's strongest selling points. With regards to the way Perry handled the Texas state budget, he or she wrote:

[Perry] Presided over 10 years of balanced budgets, including two times where Texas was faced with serious shorfalls, and despite the usual liberal handwringing and demands to deplete the Texas rainy day fund and raise taxes, Perry and the Republicans in the Texas lege did neither, keeping the spending in check.

The State of Texas (like most states) is required to balance their budget. They have a balanced budget amendment, so technically it would have been unconstitutional for Perry not to have balanced the Texas state books. But just how did Perry "despite the usual liberal handwringing" keep "the spending in check?" According to a report from CNN Money (emphasis):

Texas Gov. Rick Perry likes to tell Washington to stop meddling in state affairs. He vocally opposed the Obama administration's 2009 stimulus program to spur the economy and assist cash-strapped states.

Perry also likes to trumpet that his state balanced its budget in 2009, while keeping billions in its rainy day fund.

But he couldn't have done that without a lot of help from ... guess where? Washington.

Turns out Texas was the state that depended the most on those very stimulus funds to plug nearly 97% of its shortfall for fiscal 2010, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Texas, which crafts a budget every two years, was facing a $6.6 billion shortfall for its 2010-2011 fiscal years. It plugged nearly all of that deficit with $6.4 billion in Recovery Act money, allowing it to leave its $9.1 billion rainy day fund untouched.

"Stimulus was very helpful in getting them through the last few years," said Brian Sigritz, director of state fiscal studies for the National Association of State Budget Officers, said of Texas.

Even as Perry requested the Recovery Act money, he railed against it. On the very same day he asked for the funds, he set up a petition titled "No Government Bailouts."

Perry used the same money he spoke out against from Obama's stimulus package to close his state's deficit in 2010. And just how is that "keeping the spending in check?"

During the last budget signed by Governor Perry, he didn't have the option to utilize stimulus funds to close the deficit. Instead he used accounting gimmicks, very similar to the ones we've become so accustomed to seeing coming out of Washington. Reason reported:

According to a report by ABC News, Perry's budget also closed a big part of its budget gap by delaying a $2.3 billion education payment a single day. Thanks to that one-day delay, the payment will fall into the next budget year, and therefore will not technically affect the current year's budget.

From the ABC report:

Gov. Rick Perry signed a budget that was balanced only through accounting maneuvers, rewriting school funding laws, ignoring a growing population and delaying payments on bills coming due in 2013. It accomplishes, however, what the Republican majority wanted most: It did not raise taxes, took little from the Rainy Day Fund and shifted any future deficits onto the next Legislature....

Much of the overall savings came through cuts to university and state agency budgets, but the bulk of it came from accounting sleight-of-hand and putting off the biggest problems until lawmakers come back in 2013. At that point, lawmakers will be bound by the balanced budget law to tap the Rainy Day Fund to cover any existing deficit and House rules will require fewer votes to do it....

But all the deferred bills and payments will come due eventually, and the Republican victory in not tapping the $6.5 billion Rainy Day Fund is for this year only. Conservative lawmakers readily admit that one of the first things they'll do when they come back in 2013 is tap that resource.

Perry's handling of the budget appears to be all smoke and mirrors. He didn't take bold steps like Governor Palin did when she reduced Alaska's liabilities and SAVED surplus money instead of letting lawmakers spend it. As Whitney reported:

Governor Palin was a frugal budgeter as the Governor of Alaska. During her tenure, she cut spending 9.5% while also vetoing nearly half a billion dollars in spending. She did this during strong economic times. It should be noted that in addition to the traditional budget and capital budget that states are responsible for implementing, state governors are also responsible for managing their state debts and liabilities. These are often tied to bonds (both state and municipal) and state worker pensions [...] Compared to all other candidates and potential candidates, Governor Palin increased the debt at a much slower rate and reduced total liabilities at a much higher rate than any of her fellow governors.

Governor Palin was and is a fiscal conservative. She went to great lengths to get Alaska's financial house in order, while Perry used a national handouts and gimmicks to balance his state's budget. By doing these things, Perry didn't solve any problems, or address why his state has budgetary shortfalls in the first place. He simply kicked the can down the road, leaving these issues for others to contend with at a later date.

It appears Perry has also created some problems with the overall Texas debt. According to PolitiFact, he doubled it (emphasis):

"Debt has almost doubled in Austin under Gov. Perry," White said. "They think you will not notice this!"

Game on. Is White right?...

Perry is one of four members on the Bond Review Board, which ultimately approves most state debt transactions. And over the years, we found, he was a leading advocate for expanding state debts to pay for transportation projects and to combat cancer.

It turns out that transportation is responsible for most of the added debt load under Perry, increasing from basically nothing in 2000 to $11.8 billion outstanding as of Aug. 31 2009. That's because before 2001, the Texas Department of Transportation lacked the authority to borrow money to pay for road projects. Voters gave it that power in 2001 when they approved a constitutional amendment that Perry supported.

Addressing transportation in his 2001 state of the state speech, Perry said, "I would like for both chambers to pass a bonding program to jump-start construction across our state."

In 2007, voters also passed a constitutional amendment to create and fund the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas with $3 billion in bonds over 10 years, starting in January 2010. Perry had championed the cause with cyclist and cancer survivor Lance Armstrong and others.

Where does that leave us?

It's clear the amount of state debt has more than doubled since Perry became governor.

Perhaps the thing that stuck with me the most after looking through these aspects of Perry's record is the difference between his words and his actions. On the very same day that he "railed" against government bailouts, he also took $6.4 billion federal tax-dollars to balance his own budget shortfall. Perry talks a good game about fiscal responsibility, but when you sit down and read through his actual record, it doesn't exactly match his rhetoric. If Rick Perry says one thing and does another on state level, what makes us think he wouldn't do it nationally?

The Glaring Differences Between Palin & Perry

2011-08-17T23:04:00.000-07:00

After his announcement last weekend, Rick Perry's record has come under considerable scrutiny from the media and the blogs. One of the most notable items of discussion has been about an executive order that Perry signed, mandating young girls to receive the HPV vaccine known as Gardasil. It was so controversial that the Texas State Legislature stepped in and repealed the law just weeks after Perry had pushed it through.

Tuesday evening, Michelle Malkin published a very detailed column about Perry's Gardasil mandate. She wrote:

In February 2007, Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed a shocking executive order forcing every sixth-grade girl to submit to a three-jab regimen of the Gardasil vaccine. He also forced state health officials to make the vaccine available “free” to girls ages 9 to 18. The drug, promoted by manufacturer Merck as an effective shield against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV) and genital warts, as well as cervical cancer, had only been approved by the Food and Drug Administration eight months prior to Perry’s edict.
Gardasil’s wear-off time and long-term side effects have yet to be determined. “Serious questions” remain about its “overall effectiveness,” according to the Journal of the American Medical Association. Even the chair of the federal panel that recommended Gardasil for children opposes mandating it as a condition of school enrollment. Young girls and boys are simply not at an increased risk of contracting HPV in the classroom the way they are at risk of contracting measles or other school-age communicable diseases.

Perry defenders pointed to a bogus “opt-out” provision in his mandate “to protect the right of parents to be the final authority on their children’s health care.” But requiring parents to seek the government’s permission to keep an untested drug out of their kids’ veins is a plain usurpation of their authority. Translation: Ask your bureaucratic overlord to determine if a Gardasil waiver is right for you.

Libertarians and social conservatives alike slammed Perry’s reckless disregard for parental rights and individual liberty. The Republican-dominated legislature also balked. In May 2007, both chambers passed bills overturning the governor’s unilaterally imposed health order.
Fast-forward five years. After announcing his 2012 presidential bid this weekend, Perry now admits he “didn’t do my research well enough” on the Gardasil vaccine before stuffing his bad medicine down Texans’ throats. On Monday, he added: “That particular issue is one that I readily stand up and say I made a mistake on. I listened to the legislature … and I agreed with their decision.”

Perry downplayed his underhanded maneuver as an aberrational “error,” and then — gobsmackingly — he spun the debacle as a display of his great character: “One of the things I do pride myself on, I listen. When the electorate says, ‘Hey, that’s not what we want to do,’ we backed up, took a look at what we did.”

Are these non-apology apologies enough to quell the concerns of voters looking for a presidential candidate who will provide a clear, unmistakable contrast to Barack Obama? Not by a long shot.

There is a ton of information in Malkin's piece and she went to great lengths to link all of her research. I strongly recommend reading the entire column if you have not so already.

While Rick Perry's executive order to mandate vaccines for children is raising eyebrows in the Republican party, I think it would serve us to take a look at what Governor Palin has said on the record about a state government taking such action.

Located within the mountain of emails that were released months ago from Governor Palin's time in office, is a small quote from her that sums up her philosophy about the government's role in such matters. She wrote this in response to an email from her staff in 2008 about chicken-pox immunization regulations:

"I would not propose govt mandating anything like shots for our kids."

I never questioned for a moment whether or not Governor Palin would have done something akin to what Perry did in Texas with Gardasil. That's the luxury of being a Palin supporter. We know her philosophy and we know she's remained steady in her belief of limited government. We also know that she never governed for the benefit of any cronies.

The more I read about Rick Perry, the more I see in him what Governor Palin fought so hard against in Alaska. The Gardasil issue is just one instance in many that it appears Rick Perry put the interests of his financial backers above those of his constituents.

Timothy Carney wrote an eye-opening article for the Washington Examiner called "The cowboy corporatist rides to the rescue." In it, he details some of the other recipients of Perry's 'assistance' after donating money to his political operation. Carney writes:

In his next State of the State address, Perry pushed the Legislature to create the Texas Enterprise Fund, giving the governor, lieutenant governor and House speaker the power to hand out multimillion-dollar grants to businesses seeking to relocate to or expand within the state. Two years later, Perry and the Legislature created another subsidy bank, called the Texas Emerging Technology Fund, using taxpayer money to invest in high-tech companies. Perry made government a venture capital fund.

Muckrakers at the Los Angeles Times and the Austin American Statesman have shown a strong correlation between Perry's biggest campaign contributors and the money handled by these funds and Perry's other public-private partnership. Almost half of Perry's "mega-donors," according to the Times, have received profitable favors from the Texas government. Poultry magnate Joe Sanderson, for instance, gave Perry's campaign $165,000 and received $500,000 from the Texas Enterprise Fund to open a facility in Waco, the Times reports.

The Austin paper documents the unsavory case of $80,000 Perry donor David Nance winning a $4.5 million grant from the Texas Emerging Technology Fund. A regional board had denied the grant to Nance's Convergen LifeSciences, but Perry intervened and ushered the grant through.

And just as President Obama uses renewable energy as an excuse for steering taxpayer money to big business, Perry also loves green corporate welfare. Perry was a featured speaker at the national wind lobby's 2008 conference, where he touted his 2005 law requiring Texans to purchase wind and solar energy -- all in the name of "job creation" and business growth. If you force people to buy a product, of course the businesses selling that product will grow.

How the conservative establishment plans on selling this guy as a bridge between the Tea Party and the GOP establishment, through the duration of the primary campaign is beyond me. Rick Perry's views on the role of government and corporate welfare fly in the face of Tea Party values. Padding one's political piggy bank with the money of people and entities who expect a much larger return on their "investment" is an abuse of the system. The idea that taxpayers go into debt paying out large sums to these "investors" to keep elected officials in their seats of power, is not the sort of behavior you will find any Tea Party activist supporting.

Governor Palin's history of service stands in direct contrast to most politicians, including Rick Perry's. She went against the grain of the deep-rooted corruption in Alaska, and even in her own party. She was independent enough to call out those who were abusing the system, and taking a strong stand against them. The only "interests" that Governor Palin focused on, were those of her constituents. That includes respecting their personal liberty by not "mandating anything like shots" for their children.

Getting the Facts Straight on Quin Hillyer's and Politico's Stories

2011-08-16T09:44:00.000-07:00

Quinn Hillyer at the American Spectator wrote a piece yesterday that's getting a lot of attention regarding a phone conversation between Governor Palin and Daily Caller writer Alex Pappas which took place on Friday when Governor Palin was at the Iowa State Fair. Hillyer states as a matter of fact that Governor Palin purposely called over a Politico writer to take notes while she "berated" Pappas for writing a misleading article about comments she made concerning Mitt Romney. There's only one problem with that: Governor Palin never called any reporter to listen to her conversation.

Today, Robert Stacy McCain spoke with Iowa O4P coordinator Michelle McCormick, who was with Governor Palin at the time at her side. McCormick provides a much different version of these events than those that are being repeated all over the internet by bloggers and columnists. RS McCain writes:

...I have spoken to people familiar with the situation who are aghast at how the Daily Caller’s Alex Pappas, Politico and the Spectator‘s Quin Hillyer have misinterpreted the incident. One of the people to whom I spoke was Michelle McCormick of Iowa for Palin, who was with the governor at the time she called Pappas to dispute a headline (which, it turns out, was from Fox Nation, not from the Daily Caller) suggesting that Palin had endorsed Mitt Romney...

What is false about the developing media version of the Palin-Pappas narrative, according to McCormick and others, is three things:

Governor Palin did not personally dial up Pappas’s number. She asked around among her aides if anyone knew how to get in touch with Pappas. One member of her advance team, Jason Recher, had Pappas’s number, called him and then handed the phone to the governor.
Governor Palin did not summon a Politico reporter to listen in on the call. Palin was in the middle of a gigantic crowd of people at the Iowa State Fair, and her half of the conservation may have been overheard by others. There was no way, amid the press of the throng, that anyone outside that swarm could have been summoned at all, and the idea that Palin would be doing favors for a Politico reporter is ridiculous.
Governor Palin wasn’t screaming angrily at Pappas. Again, Palin was in the middle of a crowd, which was quite noisy, and if her voice was loud, it was because she was trying to make herself heard amid the hubub.

I reached out to Michelle McCormick myself to confirm Robert Stacy McCain's report. She sent me the following:

I was with Gov. Palin in the afternoon while she walked around the fair grounds at the Iowa State Fair. I was also near her when she spoke with Alex Pappas of the Daily Caller. Politico wrote:

while at the State Fair, according to POLITICO's Kasie Hunt - [Palin] audibly called up a Daily Caller reporter to complain about a headline she felt suggested she was open to supporting Mitt Romney

That is not true. Gov. Palin did not "call up" the DC reporter. A phone was handed to her by an aid, and she took it from him to speak with Pappas. Additionally, this statement by Quin Hillyer is false:

What was even more absurd is that she and her team deliberately played it up by inviting one reporter over just to hear her berate another reporter.

Gov. Palin did not "invite" any reporter over to listen in on her conversation. The phone was handed to her by an aid and she proceeded to speak with Pappas. Frankly, it was impossible for a reporter to be invited anywhere near Gov Palin because the crowd cluster around her was so thick. Unless the Politico reporter was already next to Gov Palin, there is no way she could have made her way through the crowd to Gov. Palin's side.

Gov. Palin also did not "berate" the other reporter as Hillyer would have you believe. Here is what she said as transcribed by Politico:

So you’re saying that I said that I support Mitt Romney?" she said to the reporter. "And what’s your headline? You need to be clear, otherwise people really lose faith in the state of journalists today and that is, I said ‘ABO’—anybody but Obama. And I would support the candidate who surfaces to take on Barack Obama. But no, your headline leads readers to believe that I’m supporting Mitt Romney at this time in this process, and no that’s not accurate.

Gov. Palin's tone was not nasty and she was not yelling into the phone. She spoke at a volume that one would speak at if she were outside with a large and noisy crowd nearby. Like at a state fair.

Gov. Palin was incredibly gracious to the massive crowd that came out to see her. She never broke a sweat, never got flustered and never complained. She genuinely enjoyed meeting all those folks, and after all that she conducted a live interview with Sean Hannity in front an even larger crowd.

Any person who had doubts about her ability to campaign hard and extensively in Iowa or anywhere would have been disabused of them after Friday.

Robert Stacy McCain also notes:

After the conversation was over, and Palin realized that the misleading headline wasn’t Pappas’s fault, she asked one of her aides to contact Pappas and apologize for the mistake.

As I wrote above, this story from Hillyer is being repeated all over the internet, but Mr. Hillyer's version of events is inaccurate. I hope all of the people who people who rushed to report this now update and/or correct their stories. It's bad enough that the leftist media consistently make things up about Governor Palin, they don't need any help from conservatives.

Governor Palin Never "Sold Out" to Anyone

2011-08-15T23:27:00.000-07:00

The San Francisco Chronicle shot a some footage at the Iowa State Fair last Friday that has been making the online rounds this week. The video shows a woman who claims to be from Alaska, heckling Todd Palin by calling Governor Palin a "sellout" for resigning from office.

This line of attack is common with the governor's foes for many reasons. For one, it's much easier to spin the fact that she stepped down from her post than it is to explain the complicated circumstances that led up to her decision. It certainly takes less time. Second, Governor Palin's political enemies don't have anything else. The governor has been fully vetted in public view over the past three years, and there isn't anything else for them to latch on to. The left-wing press even sued to have all of her emails released to them, only to come out with nothing but message after message of a good public servant doing her job, and doing it well.

I wrote a piece back in December of 2010 called "Why Governor Palin Resigned." I gave an overview of the section in Going Rogue where the governor wrote about her decision to step down. In the book, the governor writes about the avalanche of politically motivated frivolous lawsuits that were taking their toll of the state. They were bogging down her administration, costing Alaska time and resources in fight that appeared to have no end unless she did something drastic. As you can tell by Todd's reaction in the clip, the lawsuits were also taking a financial toll on the Palin family. Her decision to pass the ball to her Lt. Governor weighed heavily on her for sure. But there is no doubt that it boiled-down to doing the right thing for the State of Alaska, and the right thing for her family.

The woman in this clip claims that the governor "sold out." I would ask her, who exactly did the governor "sellout" to? It certainly wasn't the powers that be in the northeast, who control the federal government and the airways. Nobody in the political class, or media class, own the governor. She has never "sold out" her character to advance her political career. She has never turned away from her reform-minded independent nature to become something she is not, but typical politicians are. Sarah Palin is not typical politician because she is not for sale.

Did she make some money after her resignation? Yes she did, so what! We're Americans, we're supposed to be capitalists, remember? Governor Palin earned every dollar she made, so why begrudge another person for honest success. She made the best for her family after being handed a very bad situation. Plus, it's not as if all Governor Palin has done since she left office, is make money. She has been on the front-lines fighting against the "transformation of America." She played a key role in the takeover of the House in 2010, and she brings light to issues that many in D.C. would rather she not. She has one of the most powerful voices in the realm of politics today, whether Fox News will admit it or not.

Most C4P regulars know exactly why Governor Palin stepped down, but I'm sure most Americans don't fully understand it. That's why when stuff like this pops up, or a future campaign opponent levels this attack against the governor, we will continue to respond and set the record straight. I don't believe the woman in the clip cares whether or not Governor Palin resigned. I think she wanted to take a free shot and found Todd Palin standing in the line of fire. People like her don't care why the governor made the decision she made. They have simply found an easy talking point to trash the governor with, and they won't stop until more Americans understand the truth.

"The same people who had wanted nothing more than to throw me out of office were suddenly outraged that I was obliging." - Sarah Palin

Obama's Approval Rating Hits a Record Low 39%

2011-08-14T22:56:00.000-07:00

President Obama has been flirting with low poll numbers since, well since shortly after he was inaugurated in 2009. Sunday, he hit an all-time low with his approval rating sinking into the thirties. This just before he kicks off a bus tour of his very own through Iowa, at the taxpayers expense.

The L.A. Times reports:

President Obama's summer woes have dragged his approval rating to an all-time low, sinking below 40% for the first time in Gallup's daily tracking poll.

New data posted Sunday shows that 39% of Americans approve of Obama's job performance, while 54% disapprove. Both are the worst numbers of his presidency.

Obama's approval rating has hovered in the 40% range for much of 2011, peaking at 53% in the weeks following the death of Osama bin Laden.

But Americans' view of his job performance continued to tick downward as the debt-ceiling debate heated up. By the time he signed legislation averting a federal default, he was mired in the low-40% range...

Obama is set to launch something of a counter-offensive on Monday with a three-day bus tour of the Midwest, a trip that includes two stops in Iowa. The White House denied that the itinerary was politically motivated, however.

Sarah Palin is Right to Call Out the Lamestream Media

2011-08-09T22:08:00.000-07:00

Chris Cillizza published an article on Tuesday titled "Why Michele Bachmann is no Sarah Palin, part 2" (part 1 indicates that Bachmann's use of DC-based, GOP insiders for her campaign as a plus, I kid you not). While I agree with the title of the piece, I certainly disagree with Cillizza as to why Bachmann is no Palin, a topic I have written about before. He starts off:

The controversy over a photo of Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann that appears on the cover of Newsweek magazine this week has drawn comment from people all over the political world.

Except for one: Bachmann herself...

That (relative) silence affirms a simple but important truth of this campaign: Michele Bachmann is no Sarah Palin...

Palin, the former governor of Alaska, has spent the last several years pursuing an aggressive strategy aimed at villainizing the lamestream, er, mainstream media — insisting that they regularly print inaccuracies about her and her family

Her no-grievance-left-unanswered approach has won her kudos among her supporters but has left voters outside of the base confused as to what issues she truly cares about besides the alleged bias of the media.

Here he suggests that Governor Palin responds to ALL instances of media bias. That simply isn't true! If Governor Palin responded to every garbage-filled, biased article from the press, she literally would have no time for anything else in her life. And that includes eating and sleeping.

Then Cillizza writes that Palin's "approach... has left voters outside of the base confused as to what issues she truly cares about besides the alleged bias of the media." Honestly, only self-absorbed members of the media are "confused" on that matter. Americans in the know understand that Governor Palin cares deeply for this country's state of affairs. They have read her insight on issues such as the nation's downgraded credit rating, raising the debt ceiling, the deficit, the Obama administration's distribution of missile defense secrets, the war in Afghanistan, borrowing money from foreign lenders, respecting our allies, health care, energy development, fiscal prudence, the list goes on and on. For Cillizza to not acknowledge any of that, is in itself, another example of media bias. But then again, his whole article is.

He continues:

Bachmann’s refusal to engage in an extended back and forth over the Newsweek cover coupled with her approach to stories raising questions about her ability to cope with migraine headaches suggests she is taking a very different tack.

During the migraine episode and now with the Newsweek flap, Bachmann is hewing rigidly to her economic/jobs message — knowing that the vast majority of people who will vote for her in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina have the economy and not much else on their minds right now.

That's why, as I just wrote (complete with links) that Governor Palin has focused most of her recent statements on the economy. Everybody is concerned about our economic conditions, because everybody feels the effects of the reckless fiscal policies of the current administration.

That said... didn't Bachmann's staff get in a little trouble for pushing around Brian Ross from ABC for asking a question about those migraine headaches? Seems they were taking a "no-grievance-left-unanswered approach" if you ask me.

Cillizza ends by writing:

What Bachmann grasps that Palin either didn’t/doesn’t (or chose not to) is that by commenting on these questions of media bias only leads to more and more stories. It’s like pouring a can of lighter fluid on a small fire...

The broader strategic calculation Bachmann appears to have made is that she needs to expand beyond her political base rather than simply deepen her supporters’ connection to her in order to be something more than a sideshow in the nomination fight.

It’s the right one.

Is it? I don't think so...

He writes that "by commenting on these questions of media bias only leads to more and more stories. It’s like pouring a can of lighter fluid on a small fire." But in the beginning of his piece he wrote that the Newsweek cover of Bachmann had "drawn comment from people all over the political world." So, no, ignoring constant attacks, hit-pieces, etc. does nothing to make them go away. Bachmann has ignored the "Queen of Rage" Newsweek article, yet it was still talked about on every news channel, and on every political news site. Are there "inaccuracies" in the Newsweek article? Probably, but really I don't know because I never heard Bachmann's take. It should also be noted that the women's group "NOW" spoke out against the Newsweek cover photo

Something Governor Palin wrote to the freshman members of Congress came to mind as I was reading Cilizza's piece. She wrote:

When the Left in the media pat you on the back, quickly reassess where you are and readjust, for the liberals’ praise is a warning bell you must heed.

This applies to 3rd term congressional members as well. You see, the liberal press will praise any conservative who permits their attacks. When they are not in the process of attacking them of course, and only when they are using their lack of response to attack another conservative.

I have worked in a media environment for well over a decade. I watched all eight years as the press annihilated George W. Bush's reputation and he never fought back. In all honesty, I lost a certain amount of respect for Bush for not standing up to the corrupt media. He allowed them to define him and the issues his administration were coping with. Which, whether Bachmann knows it or not, she is allowing them to define her as well. The Bachmann camp may think it makes her look "presidential" or some such nonsense, but the damage is already being done.

Now is not the time for pushovers. Now is also not the time to sit back and act like we have an objective media in this country. Americans have a right to know when the media is lying, being lazy, or just plain left-wing ideologues. There is nothing wrong with Governor Palin defending herself, she should! After all, as you may recall from the beginning of this piece, she doesn't have all those respect-worthy GOP insiders going to bat for her. Governor Palin does just fine without them.

After Palin's Tenure, AK's Credit Rating Raised to Aaa

2011-08-06T10:15:00.000-07:00

As Nicole reported last night, S&P has downgraded the nation's credit rating from AAA to AA+ for the first time in history. While the left desperately tries to convince the country that this is because Obama & Co. haven't taxed us enough, S&P made clear why they made the decision they made:

The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics.

More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

While the country suffers under the current leadership, and the economy continues it's downward spiral; it should be noted that quite the opposite happened in Alaska after a Palin administration. In November of 2010, Moody's, another one of the three big rating agencies raised Alaska's rating from Aa1 to Aaa:

Alaska had its bond rating raised to the highest investment grade by Moody’s Investors Service after the oil-rich state amassed financial reserves of $14 billion.
Moody’s raised Alaska one level to Aaa from Aa1 before a $200 million bond sale by the state, which currently has about $475 million of general-obligation debt outstanding. Alaska joins 14 other states, including Texas and Maryland that have a top rating from Moody’s.

“We believe the magnitude of reserves, along with conservative financial management, will lead to enduring fiscal strength under all plausible scenarios over the next five to 10 years,” Moody’s said in a news release today.

While it's true that this upgrade happened during a Parnell administration, confidence in Alaska from this major credit agency didn't happen overnight.

Governor Palin served Alaska during a time when oil prices were high, but she put into place measures that allowed the states financial reserves to grow, instead of being grossly mismanaged by undisciplined bureaucrats. She also reduced Alaska's liabilities by 34.6%, as was addressed yesterday. Her forward focused fiscal prudence, in addition to the fact that she addressed Alaska's financial liabilities, likely gave Moody's the needed assurance of the state's fiscal seriousness to increase Alaska's credit rating.Could we expect the current federal leadership to address liabilities to show rating agencies that America is serious about our fiscal health? Is there any question that the United States government would squander large revenues under the current leadership?

Just imagine if this country opened up energy production, while simultaneously taking bold steps, - such as Governor Palin did in Alaska - to get it's fiscal house in order. As you can see, it produces exactly the opposite outcome of what we are currently facing today. In the words of Governor Palin, "2012 can't come soon enough."

Check out this short clip from the CATO Institute on what it means to have our nation's credit rating downgraded, in simple terms:

WaPo's Facts Perform a Disappearing Act

2011-08-03T20:27:00.000-07:00

Rachel Weiner, a writer for the Washington Post's The Fix, posted a very disingenuous piece on Wednesday claiming that Governor Palin had somehow 'disappeared' from the debt debate. To suggest such a thing indicates that Weiner hasn't been paying much attention to what the governor has had (on many occasions) to say bout the matter. Which in the WaPo's writer's case, might benefit her in more ways than one.

Weiner writes:

During Washington’s long-running debt debate, one name you didn’t hear very often was that of Sarah Palin.

Googling the words "Palin Debt Ceiling" gives you a pretty good indication how out-of touch with reality that first sentence is. The search yields many results, all which could have aided Weiner's research efforts had she chose to engage in such a task. She goes on:

But then, just as the debate lurched to a final close on the day the country threatened to default, the 2008 vice presidential candidate suddenly reemerged on the political scene.

On Tuesday’s Fox News’ “Hannity,” Palin seemed to take it very personally when Democrats compared tea-party House Republicans to “terrorists” in referring to their tactics in the debt fight.

“I'm not just going to roll over with a sticker plastered on my forehead that says, hit me baby one more time, call me a terrorist again, call me a racist,” she told Hannity.

“And I'm going stand up for those fiscally conservative patriotic independent Americans who want the best for this country.”

Palin also criticized former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, a potential rival in the 2012 presidential race, saying he “waited until it was a done deal that we would increase the debt ceiling” before coming out against the compromise.

Those kind of headline-grabbing comments raise questions about Palin’s future plans. But the former Alaska governor has a tendency to insert herself into debates with a splash and retreat just as quickly as she appeared, going dark for weeks at a time. Given recent history, it won’t be long before Palin disappears again.

Don't they wish...

And yes, Weiner is suggesting that Governor Palin hadn't weighed in on the debt debate until Tuesday's interview with Sean Hannity... Somehow Rachel missed that whole episode when some in the establishment wing of the Republican party got somewhat wee wee'd up over a certain statement she posted on Facebook. Maybe she also missed these interviews the governor gave to Greta Van Sustren here and here, and this one on Fox Business here.

She continues:

As other 2012 presidential candidates ramp up their campaigns heading into next week’s Ames straw poll and this fall’s debates, Palin is barely a presence in Iowa or any other primary state. She has shot down reports that the high-profile bus tour that took her to New Hampshire in June is over, but two months later it has yet to restart.

The end of that tour was her last major media blitz. On June 2nd, wrapping up her trip, Palin criticized Romney in New Hampshire. She appeared on “Hannity” on June 3rd and on “Fox News Sunday” on June 5th. A few days later she was on the cover of Newsweek saying she could beat President Obama.

Wait a minute, she wrote that the governor did interviews on June 3rd & 5th and that a "few days later she was on the cover of Newsweek saying she could beat President Obama." A few days? The Newsweek article that Weiner links to was posted on July 10th, which is nowhere near a "few days" after June 5th. That's more than month! That is some horrible reporting.

Here's more:

Then Palin disappeared — even as archives of her emails from her time as Alaska governor were released and pored over by the media. On June 28th, she went to Pella, Iowa, for the premiere of “The Undefeated,” a movie about her governorship, but said little. At no point did she get back into the political debate.

Oh really? Not only did Weiner not read the date of that Newsweek article, she didn't read any of the content either. From the Newsweek article:

"I believe that I can win a national election," Sarah Palin declared one recent evening, sitting in the private dining room of a hotel in rural Iowa. The occasion for her visit to quintessential small-town America was a gathering of the faithful that would have instantaneously erupted into a fervent campaign rally had she but given the word. Instead, it had been another day on the non–campaign trail, this one capped by a sweet victory: she had just attended the premiere of a glowingly positive documentary about her titled The Undefeated.

Talk of winning a national election would certainly indicate being part of "the political debate."

It continues:

On Twitter, Palin promoted her daughter Bristol’s book and little else. Her other comments on the debt ceiling were via a couple vague Facebook notes.

Did she or did she not read the Facebook notes? Those were Governor Palin's statements regarding the debt ceiling, which indicates that she is engaged in the current debate. Weiner tries to downplay them but there was nothing "vague" about what Governor Palin was saying. Just ask Laura Ingraham.

Then Weiner implies that the governor didn't weigh in on the debate via Twitter by writing "Palin promoted her daughter Bristol’s book and little else." In reality, Governor Palin had tweeted the following:

@BarackObama wants us to contact Congress. Great idea! Tell them to rein in our dangerously unsustainable debt to protect our credit rating.

@BarackObama wants us to support a "balanced deficit solution." Great idea! How about a balanced budget amendment?

@BarackObama you're wrong, threatening to throw seniors under the bus because you refuse to prioritize govt spending.Time to #womanup & lead

After stating at the beginning of her article that Governor Palin had "reemerged" on August 2nd to talk with Sean Hannity, Weiner curiously writes this paragraph towards the end of her piece:

Then, Palin reemerged. On July 26th, she was on Greta van Susteren’s show. Two days later, she posted a Facebook comment that included a threat to House Republicans at the end: “P.S. Everyone I talk to still believes in contested primaries.”

So she did see at least one of the interviews with Greta, and she indicates that she's read the Facebook note that caused some in the establishment wing of the GOP to get upset. But her whole article is centered around the notion that Governor Palin had been entirely absent from the debate. So which is it?

This maddening article continues:

Yes, Palin explicitly positioned herself as an observer of the debt debate, saying that “out here in proverbial politico flyover country, we little folk are watching the debt ceiling debate with great interest and concern.”

Hey Rachel, Governor Palin stated she was watching the debate WHILE she was weighing in on it. Your whole point moot.

Weiner ends the article by writing:

“Doggone it, I want these candidates who are in there,” Palin said of Romney yesterday. “I want them to not be sitting back.” Her sporadic involvement in the political debate suggest that she won’t be one of those candidates. If she does, it would still shake up the race in a major way — but she would be forced to follow her own advice.

She has been following her own advice, despite Rachel Weiner's messy attempt to make Governor Palin look like a hypocrite. Unlike Romney, Governor Palin has been giving her opinion about the debt debate since it became an issue in the realm of politics. Well before the debate had wall-to-wall coverage on the 24-hour news cycles, she spoke about the matter. She's also remained consistent throughout the debate in her position. Something else Romney would have a hard time doing, on any issue.

From start to finish, the whole piece is designed to create a perception that the meat of the article doesn't back up. Weiner gives the impression that she's following some sort of time-line in her reporting, leading her to make this conclusion. But that time-line doesn't match reality and it doesn't even match her own story. Pay attention to detail when reading anything the Washington Post publishes considering their "facts" are nothing more than empty props.

AK Dispatch's Super Solid Anonymous Source Starts a Not So Solid Rumor

2011-07-28T20:08:00.000-07:00

The Alaska Dispatch published a rather ridiculous piece this afternoon titled "Is Mama Grizzly thinking about reviving 'Sarah Palin's Alaska'?" The "source" the AK Dispatch uses as the basis for the article is an anonymous rumor, yet it was described to me by Amanda Coyne as "solid." Like Ian, I am fond of Amanda Coyne for various reasons; however, I don't understand exactly how you can characterize as "solid" an anonymous source for whom "the details remain unknown." In fact, the piece lacks any real details at all, so it certainly doesn't pass the smell test with me. They wrote:

The former Alaska governor is rumored to be talking to the cable network TLC about reviving "Sarah Palin's Alaska," the reality show about Palin and her family as they romp through the 49th state.

A source tells Alaska Dispatch there have been some discussions, though the details remain unknown. "Sarah Palin's Alaska" aired last year. It did relatively well for a reality TV show. It also benefited from $1.2 million in state film tax credits, the result of a bill Palin signed into law while governor.

In December, PopEater reported that "Sarah Palin's Alaska" was such a hit that the network was "doing everything it can" to convince the former Alaska governor to sign on for a second season. That prompted a tweet from Palin mouthpiece Rebecca Mansour: "Rule of thumb: anything 'PopEater' reports about Sarah Palin is completely made up -- as in fabricated out of thin air."

Seven months later, Palin has bigger decisions on her mind: Should she run for president? She's indicated that she'll make up her mind sometime in August or September. Scott Conroy at RealClearPolitics, who’s getting all the Palin scoops these days, reported she will be the keynote speaker at a tea party rally in Iowa on Sept. 3., indicating, as Conroy put it, “that her sights are still set on a presidential run.”

Keep in mind that this "report" flies in the face of everything else we've been hearing lately. It doesn't mesh with what credible reporters like Scott Conroy have been saying.

I find it hilarious that they added that part about 'PopEater' yet went on to file a report in the same vein. Keep it up Dispatch and I may just have to write a piece containing all of the scurrilous rumors I've heard about Craig Medred. And trust me, nobody wants that.

NY Times: Palin’s Well-Timed Reminder to Freshmen

2011-07-28T18:48:00.000-07:00

Did Governor Palin's well-timed Facebook post influence this afternoon's events on Capitol Hill? New York Times writer Michael Shear posted an article today pondering the matter. He wrote:

Sarah Palin has impeccable timing.

The former Republican vice presidential nominee took to her Facebook page Thursday afternoon to warn freshman Republicans in the House that they just might face primary opposition if they cave in to demands by their party to raise the debt ceiling.

“All my best to you, GOP Freshmen, from up here in the Last Frontier. Sincerely, Sarah Palin,” she wrote. “P.S. Everyone I talk to still believes in contested primaries.”

Just two hours later, House Speaker John A. Boehner was forced to postpone the vote on his proposal to increase the debt ceiling at the last minute, apparently facing a revolt among some of those very members.

The House delayed the vote on Mr. Boehner’s bill, moved onto the business of naming post offices, and eventually went into recess.

There is no proof that Ms. Palin’s online missive was even read by any of the wavering Republicans or played any role in helping to stir up the sheep in Mr. Boehner’s flock.

But the former Alaska governor is very good at capturing media attention when she wants it. And refusing to go along with what the establishment — especially the Republican establishment — wants is one of the ways she does it.

I do take issue with Mr. Shear's slight insinuation there, that the governor was looking for media attention. As was obvious from the Scott Conroy interview with CBS from earlier today, the "conventional wisdom" in Washington DC is that Governor Palin does things strictly FOR media attention. Just how ignorant is DC "conventional wisdom" anyway? Do these people not realize that Governor Palin could pick up the phone at any given time and call any reporter of her choosing to get some "attention" if that is what she wanted? No, Sarah Palin doesn't do things so people will feed her ego. That's a trait usually reserved for the non-hobbits who currently reside in the nation's capitol.

Beyond that, it is interesting the how things panned out today. GOP House leaders had been telling the media that their bill was as good as passed, then all of the sudden, it wasn't. Shortly after she republished her letter to the freshmen congress-members from last November, things in the House shifted. Her statement was a reminder about principles and it was a timely reminder, indeed.

The Extremism of Roger Cohen

2011-07-25T20:56:00.000-07:00

New York Times columnist Roger Cohen engaged in the depraved practice of using the tragic violent deaths of others to gain political advantage over those with whom he disagrees. On Monday, he wrote the following in association with the recent massacre in Norway:

We’ve seen the movie. When Jared Loughner shot Representative Gabrielle Giffords this year in Tuscon, Arizona — after Sarah Palin placed rifle sights over Giffords’ constituency and Giffords herself predicted that “there are consequences to that” — the right went into overdrive to portray Loughner as a schizophrenic loner whose crazed universe owed nothing to those fanning hatred under the slogan of “Take America Back.” (That non-specific taking-back would of course be from Muslims and the likes of the liberal and Jewish Giffords.)

Now, I tend to consider a person who says and does extreme things, while also viewing the planet through a distorted lens of reality, as extreme. This latest column by the Cohen qualifies under both counts.

Tammy Bruce responded to Cohen on her site by writing:

And just as with Tucson, the Left put its target (again) on American conservatives and Governor Sarah Palin. This horrific and ghoulish use of mass murder to score political points is moved today by a Roger Cohen column in the New York Times. Through this column, which gives this obscene meme the NYT Seal of Approval, Cohen blames the Oslo attacks on American conservatives, Palin and Republicans in general, but also repeats the lie that Tucson shooter Loughner was the product of all non-liberal concerns.

Clay Waters from NewsBusters also points out some key items of information while addressing Cohen's article:

"Take America Back" is a slogan of ethnic hatred? Somebody better tell Democrat Howard Dean, who spouted the slogan during his 2004 campaign for the Democratic nomination.

There’s no evidence that the mentally disturbed Loughner even saw Palin’s graphic, much less was inspired by it to violence. Whatever politics or views he had seemed a mish-mash of leftist anarchism and atheism -- not exactly Palin's demographic. Is Cohen truly not aware that this is standard issue political rhetoric done by both sides during American political campaigns? A similar target graphic was issued by the Democratic Leadership Council in 2004. And does Cohen realize the word “campaign” is itself a term borrowed from war?

Roger Cohen should also know by now that it wasn't the "right" going "into overdrive to portray Loughner as a schizophrenic loner," he actually was and is. Those are called "facts," Mr. Cohen! If you don't believe me, go here and watch Jared Loughner film himself walking around his college campus muttering insanity, before his shooting spree last January.

It is becoming all too common practice these days for the ultra-left members of the Democrat party and their press agents (international or otherwise) to paint conservatives as "extreme." From Harry Reid applying the term to those who seek a balanced budget, to Roger Cohen who tries to pin the blame of a deranged killer on Governor Palin, their tactics are designed to tear down opponents instead of having to debate them.

The left didn't learn anything from Tucson. In their minds, the ends justify the means and if that involves blaming innocent people for playing a role in the deaths of other innocent people, well then so be it. And if they feel they have to sink to this level in an effort to advance their political cause, then just maybe their cause has become too extreme to sell to the public through a rational dialog. You often hear President Obama say "let's have an honest debate." The left should consider Obama's words and remember that an honest debate begins by not falsely accusing your opponent of inciting murder.

(H/T Karen & Whitney)

Bill Maher is a National Disgrace

2011-07-18T15:13:00.000-07:00

Last Friday, Bill Maher did what he has to do to get attention and that is to cross the line of basic human decency. Lacking any actual talent or ability to convince people that a massive centralized government and perpetual race-baiting are the answers, Maher's stock-in-trade is to insult people who are better than him. He obviously lacks the mental fortitude (as does his audience) to make an intellectual argument backing up his beliefs. No, instead he sinks to the gutter to trash children (some small and one disabled) to tear down the other side. During his last show on HBO he said:

Now, I’m not saying that sexism doesn’t exist and isn’t real. And we can’t, but we can’t throw around the word “sexist” just to stop people like me from pointing out that Michele Bachmann, now running second for the Republican presidential nomination, isn’t a dangerous nincompoop. And when I point out that Sarah Palin is a vainglorious braggart, a liar, a whiner, a professional victim, a scold, a know-it-all, a chiseler, a bully who sells patriotism like a pimp, and the leader of a strange family of inbred weirdos straight out of “The Hills Have Eyes,” that’s not sexist. I’m saying it because it’s true, not because it’s true of a woman.

John Nolte, took Maher to task for his comments, but he also took the "eunuchs" of the Republican establishment to task for once again, remaining silent in the face of the most despicable attacks against Governor Palin and her family. John wrote:

But from everything I’ve seen — including most of the paragraph quoted above aimed at Governor Palin herself — all of those comments were directed at adults perfectly capable of defending themselves. No one will argue that any and all of those comments were in poor taste, even for a HBO program proud of such things, but the real line that was crossed Friday night was Maher’s astonishingly obscene attack on Sarah Palin’s family — which obviously includes her children.

For all intents and purposes, on national cable television, Bill Maher called a Down Syndrome child an “inbred weirdos straight out of ‘The Hills Have Eyes’”.

This is beyond the beyond and yet we’re hearing nothing about it — even from our side.

You’d probably hear more from our side if someone had launched a similar attack on Barack Obama’s family.

In “The Undefeated,” Andrew Breitbart famously and perfectly labels a Republican establishment — that has for years refused to defend Palin against the most vile attacks, as “eunuchs.” This refusal is mainly due to the fact that they want her destroyed. They’re all well aware of what she did to Alaska’s corrupt, fat, and lazy good ole’ boys’ club and for that reason a “President Palin” terrifies them (and should).

But what’s most troubling is how too many on our side mostly ignore these constant attacks on Governor Palin’s family — especially her children.

This isn’t just unchivalrous, it’s an act of depraved indifference.

I couldn't agree more. You can read John Nolte's entire piece here.

In fairness, since the time Nolte published his article on Big Hollywood, the new Fox show called "The Five" (with two panelists I would consider "establishment," albeit of the non-official variety) also addressed Maher's comments. Frances Martel noted:

Greg Gutfeld opened the floor on the matter with a scathing monologue attempting to figure out what Maher was up to with his comments. “I’m sure that slur is a lurid explanation for a family with a disabled child,” he noted, though argued that Maher would never admit it– as he has similarly done with other comments. If Maher contends that his opinion’s aren’t sexist, he asked, “are they just hate?” Gutfeld left that question unanswered, but went further to examine Maher’s character. “So what do you make of a guy who says wrong things and then runs scampering from them?” he asked.His initial answer was “a coward,” but he passed that label on to his audience for listening to his say what he said without protest– in fact, with applause. For them he had his harshest words: “After all, his awful statements fester unchallenged in an echo chamber, and effusive slophouse of flapping, approval-seeking seals. So let’s keep him there, just to remind us that they still exist.”

This entire episode is absolutely shameful. From Bill Maher, to his vile guest, to his screeching audience, to the silence of women's groups and most of GOP establishment, it was an utter disgrace.The fact that this country rewards people like Bill Maher with fame and fortune should give us all pause.

Governor Palin has taken abuse of this kind for a long time now. The left has indicated that anything goes when taking shots at her and/or her beautiful family. The left will attack her children and get paid handsomely for their efforts. Enough is enough... I don't generally push boycotts, but if you're paying to have HBO in your house every month, you're also paying for Maher's car and rewarding him for being a scumbag. Just keep that in mind.

Update: Jedediah Bila and Andrea Tantaros appeared on Hannity's show to discuss Maher's comments.

Media Brews Phony ‘Undefeated’ Narrative on Opening Day

2011-07-15T13:39:00.000-07:00

There's been a lot of news today about the phony narrative started by a Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic regarding the opening of The Undefeated in Orange County. John Nolte covered this sham over at Big Hollywood, he writes:

One writer. One article. One screening. Apparently, what we used to consider anecdotal now equals news. And as a result you have a genuine media narrative being brewed with headlines intentionally written to create the perception that the “The Undefeated” is DOA — in the Republican stronghold of Orange Country, no less.

Translation: It’s over, Palinistas! Please form a single-file line to the right where all your hopes and dreams will be stripped and burned.

Except…

If you read the fine print…

“The Atlantic” writer is reporting on his experience at a midnight screening … on a Thursday night.

No.

Really.

Read the story again and you’ll see that the emptiness of a midnight screening on a work night is not only worthy of 950+ words and a wildly misleading headline, but also all these subsequent MSM stories filled with similar headlines.

And you can bet there will be more stories to come.

This is how the corrupt MSM works.

This is how they create phony narratives out of nothingness in order to attack and undermine their ideological enemies.

Dan Riehl also quite bluntly covered this story, noting that the theater didn't advertise the 12:45 AM showing. In fact, Conor Friedersdorf seems to be the only person on the planet who knew about it. Riehl writes:

Here are the appropriate theater listings via The Undefeated site. Keep in mind, The Undefeated only opens today, July 15th. The new Harry Potter movie is showing on a few screens at the pertinent multi-plex, including multiple showings at midnight and later. Down below are the show times listed for The Undefeated. I called a contact linked to promoting The Undefeated, they didn't even advertise the 12:45 AM showing, saying, basically the theater was probably just keeping all screens open only because of the Harry Potter opening, so it likely ran given the release date. But, who cares?

Well, Conor with one N, of course, along with some clown from the Hill - who also looks like he might one day be caught wearing a trench coat in a movie theater ala Pee Wee Herman, btw.

BUY TICKETS - 10:15am, 1:10pm, 4:05pm, 7:00pm, 9:55pm, 12:45am

Given Sarah Palin's advocacy of common sense Conservatism, is it really surprising that an un-advertised throw away screening at 12:45 am in a multi-screen theater with multiple opening night screenings of the new Harry Potter movie might not be their preferred showing? Duh!

So, this numb-nuts Friedersdorf, while visiting his grandparents, heads out at 12:45 AM on, technically speaking, an un-advertised first extremely early morning showing of The Undefeated to write a hit piece on it. And he does that while the nation is trillions in debt leading to the on going monumental debates and events playing out in DC, of which he can't manage a single thought. What's amazing is that the Atlantic would even take Conor with one N seriously. They must have been truly desperate to find a false flag conservative and alleged pundit.

Also of note, C4P has been receiving ground reports of solid attendance at the theaters around the country. That says a lot considering it's still the middle of a workday.

Does Michele Bachmann 'Walk the Talk?'

2011-07-04T12:48:00.000-07:00

It's common these days to hear media talking heads refer to Michele Bachmann as the "Tea Party favorite" in the upcoming 2012 GOP primary race. Unlike Governor Palin who has always stated that the Tea Party doesn't need one specific leader, Bachmann has tried to cast herself into such a role. She created a "Tea Party Caucus" in congress, and gave the "Tea Party response" following Obama's State of the Union Address last January.

The Tea Party is comprised mainly of independent minded, small government activists who are sick and tired of the way Washington is operating. These are people who are fed up with DC insiders cutting deals with officials at the expense of this country's future. A bloated, centralized system of government with too many payout, has spawned the biggest grassroots movement in recent history. A person who professes to speak for such a group of patriots at the highest level, had better "walk the talk."

While Bachmann may talk a good game, her actions are leaving many with questions that she has yet to adequately answer. Steve Bannon discussed one of these questions during a recent interview with PV Radio that Ian posted on Friday, concerning her family receiving large sums in Medicaid payments for their clinics.

(Partial transcript excerpt, emphasis mine)

"And I think quite frankly, she's got to learn to answer questions. Like Chris Wallace asked a very straightforward question, she had every opportunity to explain this. And she gave quite frankly, an unacceptable answer. The answer was very misleading. And that's just not going to wash, particularly if you want to hold the banner of the Tea Party, you've got to almost be a purist. That means, if you believe in limited government, then you've really got to believe in limited government. You can't talk about limited government and take the benefits from the large state."

Despite being an unlicensed "therapist" practicing a controversial form of counseling, Marcus Bachmann received more than $137,000 in Medicaid payments for his clinics in Minnesota. According to Michael Isikoff:

Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., has forcefully denounced the Medicaid program for swelling the "welfare rolls."

The amount is a much higher than the previously reported sum of $24,000 that she answered for during that interview with Chris Wallace. Isikoff writes:

The previously unreported payments are on top of the $24,000 in federal and state funds that Bachmann & Associates, the clinic founded by Marcus Bachmann, a clinical therapist, received in recent years under a state grant to train its employees, state records show. The figures were provided to NBC News in response to a Freedom of Information request.

The $161,000 in payments from the Minnesota Department of Human Services to her husband's clinic appear to contradict some of Michelle Bachmann's public accounts this week when she was first asked about the extent to which her family has benefited from government aid. Contacted this afternoon, Alice Stewart, a spokeswoman for Bachmann, said the congresswoman was doing campaign events and was not immediately available for comment.

Questions about the Bachmann family's receipt of government funds arose this week after a Los Angeles Times story reported that a family farm in which Michelle Bachmann is a partner had received nearly $260,000 in federal farm subsidies.

When asked by anchor Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" about the story's assertion that her husband's counseling clinic had also gotten federal and state funds, Bachmann replied that it was "one-time training money that came from the federal government. And it certainly didn't help our clinic."

At another point, she said, "My husband and I did not get the money," adding that it was "mental health training money that went to the employees."

But state records show that Bachmann & Associates has been collecting payments under the Minnesota's Medicaid program every year for the past six years. Karen Smigielski, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Human Services, said the state's Medicaid program is funded "about 50-50" with federal and state monies. The funds to Bachmann & Associates are for the treatment of low-income mentally ill patients and are based on a "fee for service" basis, meaning the clinic was reimbursed by Medicaid for the services it provided.

By stating that the payments were a "one-time" payment, Michele Bachmann was dishonest with the audience. She was clearly trying to downplay the issue, perhaps knowing that it hurts her credibility with that large group of grassroots conservatives across the country that she seeks support from.

Medicaid payments to her husbands business isn't the only issue the congresswoman is going to face tough questions about. Michele Bachmann waves the Gadsden flag and calls herself an "outsider," yet she hired many DC "insiders" to run her campaign. She came under some heat for hiring Ed Rollins, but most of those criticisms died down when her people had stated that Bachmann forced Rollins to apologize to Palin's staff. I never heard one way or the other whether Rollins actually apologized, or if those where just more empty words from Team Bachmann. Perhaps someone in the press will look into that one day.

Steve Bannon was right when he spoke about holding the banner of the Tea Party. The people within the movement won't allow politicians to use their cause to simply advance themselves. They are aware and educated activists who are not easily fooled. When an elected official stands with them and speaks their language, they had better back it up with their actions.

Andy Barr's Strange Definition of "Fans"

2011-06-29T22:55:00.000-07:00

First of all, I would like to boldly state that I take offense when people refer to Palin supporters as "fans." The notion that we are "fans" infers that we are not serious in what we do. It also infers that Governor Palin is not serious, as if she is just some celebrity with a fan-club. Nonsense. We are serious activists with a serious cause. Governor Palin is a serious leader, during a serious time. Don't let them diminish any of our efforts by downplaying our motives.

That said, Andy Barr wrote a piece recently for Politico titled "Palin fans tire of 2012 question." The title itself insinuates that supporters or "fans" (because that's what the leftist media calls us) of Governor Palin are tiring of the governor, and are running to Andy Barr to go on record about it. Rubbish.

As you look through the list of people he cites as alleged "fans," you will notice that they all have something in common. Every one of them are current or former GOP officials. Since when has Sarah Palin had a large number of "fans" within the Republic establishment, on any level? Um, try never.

Barr writes (emphasis):

And the frustration is starting to build: key early state players are tiring of trying to read the tea leaves about whether she’s in or out. They’ve reached the point where they just want to know the answer.

“Trying to figure out Sarah Palin reminds me of the ancient practice of extispicy, divination by examining entrails for meaning,” said former New Hampshire GOP chairman Fergus Cullen.

“I’ve become convinced that there is no grand strategy behind Palin’s activity,” Cullen added. “There is no rhyme. There is no reason. The only common theme to her schedule of activities, statements and appearances is her seemingly unending ability to attract media coverage."

Now, there is nothing to say that a former GOP official couldn't be a supporter of Governor Palin. I'm sure she would appreciate the support, and I know her real supporters would as well. However, in Mr. Cullen's case, he appears to be a pretty big "fan" of somebody else. Back in May of this year, Cullen wrote a piece for the New Hampshire based Union Leader called "Why I’m giving Mitt Romney the benefit of the doubt." In it, he writes:

Conservatives rightfully celebrated the defeat of Hillarycare in 1994, but then they failed to move market-based alternatives to big-government healthcare. Meanwhile, people had the audacity to keep getting hurt and sick. Others worried about affordable coverage and staying insured. Swelling costs threatened federal, state, and local budgets. The issue didn’t heal itself. It metastasized politically while most Republicans did little.

An exception was Mitt Romney, who tried to address the public’s desire to bring predictability to insurance, cover the uninsured, lower costs, and protect taxpayers. We can, and should, debate aspects of his approach and whether it’s worked, but Romney deserves more credit and less criticism than he’s getting for addressing an enormously complicated issue, and the benefit of the doubt for trying when others would not. Governors and Presidents are elected to lead. Romney did.

It’s not enough for Republicans to say they want to repeal Obamacare. It’s not enough for Romney’s opponents to shoot at the Massachusetts model. Candidates need positive plans to replace Obamacare with something better, that relies on market forces instead of government, that expand coverage and lower costs.

Does he sound like a Sarah Palin supporter to you? Me neither.

Nice try Andy, but you are going to have to coordinate your story better with the headline writers at Politico to get a bogus meme like this to stick. At the very least, next time pick a Romney "fan" who hasn't been so public with their support.

We Palin supporters aren't 'tiring' and we aren't running to reporters to talk about our feeeeelings. We know what we're doing, and if Governor Palin wants to drive the press mad for awhile making them wait on her decision, it's fine by me.

Some British Filmmaker Wastes a Bunch of Money Making an Anti-Palin Movie

2011-06-27T00:50:00.001-07:00

A left-wing British filmmaker named Nick Broomfield (yeah, I've never heard of him either), has thrown good money after bad by putting together another anti-Palin project, this time in movie form. It's nothing new considering that bashing Sarah Palin (no matter how dishonest) is something of a favorite past-time for the left. They keep trying to justify their hatred and fear, only to come up short every time. There is no doubt in my mind that they won't stop trying however.

During this go around, Mr. Broomfield takes his camera to Alaska to interview people who were allegedly "close" to Governor Palin, and 'promises to deliver the goods by FINALLY revealing the "truth" about Sarah Palin'... Like we haven't heard that one before. To tell you the truth, if I were a PDS afflicted lefty, I would be feeling rather jaded by now with all the empty promises of this woman's demise, via one hit-piece after the other. It hasn't happened yet, and it isn't going to happen now.

The list of people Broomfield interviewed has not been fully disclosed yet. However, I did read an article in the LA Times a couple of weeks ago that claims he spoke to Chuck and Sally Heath. If that is true, Broomfield no doubt approached them under false pretenses. Why would they agree to be interviewed for a hatchet-job movie against their own daughter? They wouldn't. So, that's a pretty good indication that Mr. Broomfield lied to them in some fashion, and used their good nature to hurt Governor Palin... Which makes Nick Broomfield quite a loathsome character indeed.

The Daily Mail reported Sunday, that Mr. Broomfield also interviewed Lyda Green and John Bitney for his film. Those would obviously be people that Broomfield didn't have to lie about his intentions to. I'm sure they gladly played along for the cameras. In fact, let's take a little trip down memory lane to refresh everybody's memories as to just how non-credible both of these people are. Let's start off with Lyda Green.

From a piece I wrote back in January:

Do you remember the name Lyda Green? For those of you who don’t know, Lyda Green was the Republican State Senate President in Alaska during much of Palin’s term as governor. Shortly after McCain picked the governor to join the national Republican ticket in 2008, Green took a public swipe at Governor Palin by saying:
“She’s not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president? Look at what she’s done to this state. What would she do to the nation?”

Left-wing media publications lapped this quote up. The fact that Lyda Green was the Alaska State Senate President, a Republican, and from Wasilla no less, was all they needed to pounce on this story as a ringing indictment against Governor Palin. There was one little problem with that however. You see, Lyda Green was an old political foe of Governor Palin’s, with ties to the Veco scandal, and the “Corrupt Bastards Club.” In response to Green’s swipe, Greg Pollowitz at National Review Online wrote:
Doesn’t the far left understand that conservatives — the base of the Republican party — do not care what Alaska Republicans think of her? Alaska Republicans symbolize everything that we think is wrong with the Republican party.

For a good example of the type of stunts Lyda Green pulled on Governor Palin, Dennis Zaki (of all people) wrote a piece for the Alaska Report in January of 2008 called, “Lyda Green refuses to support Alaska’s troops.” He wrote:
Alaska Senate president Lyda Green is trying to block governor Sarah Palin from seeing her son graduate basic training Thursday at Fort Benning, Georgia.

Palin sent a letter December 18th asking lawmakers to schedule a joint session of the House and Senate to hear the speech at 6 pm on the first night of the legislative session so Palin could make a 9 pm flight that night to Seattle.

The 6 pm timeslot would allow Palin to catch a flight she had paid for and booked in advance.

Green claims that the traditional time is 7 pm and it should stay that way.

Senate Majority spokesman Green’s lapdog Jeff Turner claimed the reason the speech can’t be at 6 p.m. because the storms over the weekend interfered with many of the flights into Juneau and senators would be coming into town throughout the day Tuesday. Yet, a check with Alaska Airlines showed over 150 available seats Monday, and 125 seats available today from Anchorage. That’s not counting legislators already booked on flights. Turner’s claim is obviously a smokescreen.

A mother supporting her child at boot camp is as real as it gets.

Green has some explaining to do to her constituents in Wasilla with family members in the military.

And support our troops

You can read the full piece here and also catch a vintage report by Adam Brickley as he live-blogged Governor Palin's speech at that joint session of the legislature in 2008.

Moving on to John Bitney, Dan Riehl exposed this former aide to Governor Palin, and former campaign manager to Lisa Murkowski in August of 2010, just as the governor did in Going Rogue. He wrote:

In a surprising, and for some, hilarious bit of irony concerning the Alaska GOP primary, it seems as though if Senator Lisa Murkowski had read and paid attention to Sarah Palin's Going Rogue, she may not have found herself now fighting for her political life.
Roll Call looks back to try to pinpoint why Murkowski is in this mess, but they use an awful lot of anonymous sources to do so. The theories advanced by various unnamed "Alaska insiders" include John Bitney, Murkowski's campaign manager, being "in over his head" and an underwhelming performance by two general consultants Murkowski hired.
News reports, as well as my own sources, suggest it was Bitney's incompetence that may have been the single most significant factor in Murkowski potentially blowing the race. While Palin didn't use his name in the book, only his title, out of courtesy, as I understand it, Bitney was furious at Palin's portrayal of him as an incompetent, often unkempt video game addicted aide who often dropped the ball, leading to many of Palin's early problems as Alaska Governor. Oh, and he seemed to have a real problem keeping his clothing out of his food.
[...]
Hey, Murkowski, who you gonna believe, now - Palin's book, or your own eyes? Or, you know, maybe she tried to warn you, but you opted for GOP establishment cronyism over competence? That doesn't sound like the kind of Senator Alaska needs to me. Some gems regarding Bitney from Going Rogue below, interspersed with more of the story line that hints of a battle royale to come in Alaskan politics, perhaps complicated by the NRSC.
During my 2007 budget powwow, the legislative director should have been at the table with us so that there would be no surprises in the state house come veto time. Occasionally, he would wander in and out, plop down in the chair at the end of the table, nibble cookies, and absently thumb his BlackBerry. Every now and then a tired staffer on a bathroom break would pass behind him, glance down, then mouth over his head, “It’s Brick- Breaker.”
[...]
More below on Murkowski campaign director and former Palin legislative director, John Bitney, who may have once again bitten off more than he can chew. Thank God he has his tie with which to wipe his mouth. Heh!

If these are the people Mr. Broomfield choose to highlight the day before he heads to Los Angeles to "shop" his film, than he's got problems. These aren't objective critics and they were both horrible public servants. Which explains their problems with Palin in the first place. The Greens and the Bitneys of the world are responsible for the current state of our nation's governing bodies. These are the people who are there to serve themselves, and honest reformers like Sarah Palin are their automatic enemies.

As I stated at the beginning, Nick Broomfield wasted his time and money on this project. While I have little doubt that one of Broomfield's fellow traveler's in L.A. will purchase this film and showcase it all over the world at film festivals, America won't buy it. Nobody outside the realm of crazed left-wing ideologues searching for their justification, will buy it. And even few of them would be willing to fork over money to see it given the current state of the economy, thank you Mr. Obama.

The major problem for Mr. Broomfield however, is that his friends in the media already destroyed his prospects to have any relevance. The witch-hunt conducted by the press, which resulted in the release of most of Governor Palin's emails during her tenure, have rendered these sorts of attacks on her useless. The email disclosure proved that Governor Palin wasn't doing anything shady, and only highlighted her great attributes as a leader. If there were anything to uncover, it would have been uncovered there. The "truth" Mr. Broomfield, has already been revealed about Sarah Palin. It's not her fault that those on the left refuse to acknowledge it.

Obama's Dishonorable Gaffe

2011-06-23T23:44:00.000-07:00

I hate to play the "imagine if Sarah Palin had said this" game because quite frankly, she never would. But what the heck...

Imagine if Governor Palin were responsible for the following:

During his remarks to troops at Fort Drum today, the President was reminiscing about the times he has spent with the US Army's 10th Mountain Division, when he got something wrong.

"Throughout my service, first as a senator and then as a presidential candidate and then as a President, I’ve always run into you guys. And for some reason it’s always in some rough spots.

First time I saw 10th Mountain Division, you guys were in southern Iraq. When I went back to visit Afghanistan, you guys were the first ones there. I had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously."

The problem is, Jared Monti was killed in action in Afghanistan, on June 21, 2006. He was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously, September 17, 2009. President Obama handed the framed medal to his parents, Paul and Janet Monti. He and the First Lady comforted them in the Oval Office following the ceremony.

Let me be clear... What Obama did here was more than a gaffe, it was a disgrace. What he did was to forget the grieving parents of Jared Monti, an American Hero. He seems to have compartmentalized his memory of Jared Monti into the 'pander to the military' section of his brain, and forgot the rest. Once again, Obama proves to be an out of touch commander-in-chief, focused only on himself.

As of this time, I have only seen the story on CBN's website, the rest of the media has been totally silent about this gaffe. Although, if you type "Obama Misspeaks" into the search on Yahoo News, you will be able access a story about Paul Revere. Go ahead. It will remind you how desperate the media was to pin some mistake on Governor Palin, even though she didn't make one. The media still continues to suggest that the governor misspoke that day in New Hampshire, even though local historians have backed up her remarks. If, for some reason you needed anymore evidence to prove that the media is totally corrupt, here you go.

Perhaps on the next leg of the governor's bus tour (after jury duty, of course), some journalist can ask Governor Palin who Sal Guinta is. At that point, you would see how a real leader honors America's brave heroes.

Last May, Governor Palin delivered a powerful speech to the Tribute to the Troops benefit, at Colorado Christian University. Speaking on Sgt. Guinta she said:

Let me give you another example of victory, among thousands of examples that we can think of in our military – an example of the heroism over the years. One of Colorado’s newest residents is Staff Sgt. Sal Giunta, and he’s a new resident in Fort Collins. He’s the first living service member from the Afghanistan or Iraq conflicts to receive the Medal of Honor. He was a rifle team leader in Afghanistan; and on October 25, 2007, his unit was ambushed shortly after nightfall. Sgt. Giunta described it: "There were more bullets in the air than stars in the sky. A wall of bullets at everyone at the same time with one crack and then a million cracks… They were close – as close as I’ve ever seen.” But the sergeant kept his cool and relied on his training. He fought off the insurgents and rescued several members of his unit, including an injured soldier who was being carried off by the Taliban. Giunta’s squad leader later praised him saying, "We were outnumbered. You stopped the fight. You stopped them from taking a soldier.”

When he was notified that he was being recommended for the Medal of Honor, Sgt. Giunta was humble. He said, “If I’m a hero, every man that stands around with me, every woman who is in the military, everyone who goes into the unknown is a hero.”

Why do these American heroes go into the unknown? G. K. Chesteron once wrote that “the true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.” They fight because they love America and they love the ideals that America represents. What America stands for is liberty, and justice, and equality, and the empowerment of the individual.

Unlike the current occupant of the White House, Governor Palin has the capacity to think about more than herself. She honors our troops and having had a son serve in Iraq, appreciates the sacrifices their families make. Our troops and their families deserve a president who respects them and understands what they go through for this nation.

As I said in the opening, there is no way Governor Palin would have committed the sort of blunder that President Obama did on Thursday, while speaking to the troops. But if she did, no doubt it would be a top story today.

Debating Governor Palin's Fiscal Record

2011-06-22T22:15:00.000-07:00

An odd thing happened to me on Wednesday... A left-winger tried to debate me on Governor Palin's actual record. Considering this is not the normal sort of behavior I am accustomed to as a Palin supporter (usually things that don't exist are the topic of my debates with the left) it shocked me.

The person who attempted to play gotcha with Governor Palin's record, is an obscure individual on Twitter who goes by the name "Uncle Fetus." At this point, you may be asking yourself why I would bother posting on a debate with an anonymous lefty who only has 15 followers... The reason for that is because he was civil, he wanted to argue substance, and if someone else tries to use his false argument, C4P readers will be equipped to answer them.

He shifted an earlier debate about whether or not Governor Palin is running for president in 2012, to the governor's fiscal record in Alaska. He sent me the following two tweets:

Here

Under Palin, AK Total State Debt increased from $8.3 billion in FY2005-06 to $9.3 billion in FY 2009-10. http://www.revenue.state.ak.us/treasury/programs/programs/other/debt/index.aspx

And here

For FY2005-06, Total State Supported debt was $972.9million, in FY2009-10 it rose to $1.349billion. http://www.revenue.state.ak.us/treasury/programs/programs/other/debt/index.aspx

Now, I am very familiar with Governor Palin's record, but I'm also the sort of person who you put a bunch on numbers in front of, and my eyes glaze over. Math was never my best subject. So, in order to answer Uncle Fetus' claims thoroughly, I thought I would message Whitney, who is more familiar with Governor Palin's record than roughly 99.9% of the planet. She's also pretty good with numbers. Whitney sent me the following in response (emphasis):

First off, he's looking at the wrong set of data for Murkowski's final year and Palin's final year. He's a year off. Murkowski's final FY is actually FY2006-2007 with his budget passed in the summer of 2006. In addition to a budget, some of the other policies that might affect the debt would be in place from the Murkowski administration to some degree for that year's debt info. This information is found here in the following year's report: http://www.dor.alaska.gov/treasury/programs/documentviewer/viewer.aspx?428f where it says "as of June 30, 2007, the ____debt is". While Governor Palin was in office then, it was Murkowski's budgeting term that ended in June 2007. With this, the debt then was $9.2 billion with state supported at $1.085+ billion. Governor Palin's final year was the FY20092010 budget passed in the summer of 2009. These numbers show a state debt of $9.0 billion and a state supported debt of $1.256 billion in the report from the following year: http://www.dor.alaska.gov/treasury/programs/documentviewer/viewer.aspx?811f. The overall debt was reduced by $200 million.

Fiscal year things are confusing, then there is a delay between the Fiscal Year and the reporting with this stuff. I had to look at it a few times to make sure I understood right. There may be some influence from Palin's policies (though not budget) in Murkowski's final year, and the same kind of thing for Palin/Parnell. However, the debt numbers are from each person's final fiscal year in office.

Yes, the state supported debt went up from the Murkowski to Palin administration, but it seems that they include pensions, which are always a mess. Governor Palin reformed pensions and used the surplus to help pay it down. Gov. Palin' s second to last year (the number's he is showing), the state supported debt is $1.349 billion--higher than in her final year. She reduced it as her tenure went on.

Regarding the surplus vs. debt thing, I think they can have a revenue surplus, but the aspect of debt also deals with pensions and bonds. It would be outside of an operating or capital budget. Also, this info seems to include municipal debt, which would be at the local level, largely outside of the influence of a governor.

It was a nice try by Uncle Fetus, but he failed to make a valid point at then end of the day. Sarah Palin was a responsible governor, a proven reformer, and she has spoken many times about respecting taxpayer dollars considering where they come from.

This might also be a good time to point out that the left's most famous politician, Barack Obama, has "plunged" this nation into frightening debt. So much so, that congress is in the middle of debating whether or not to raise the $14.3 trillion debt-ceiling at this time. While it's great that some on the the left want to argue substance, it may be wise for them to steer clear of fiscal policy debates.

(All credit to Whitney Pitcher)

Author of Palin Hit-Piece Claims to Speak for All Conservative Women

2011-06-18T10:15:00.000-07:00

Once again, Governor Palin is taking on some friendly fire from a conservative commentator. I did not add quotation marks to the word "conservative" because I have no doubt that this latest attack was delivered by an actual conservative. I don't believe there is a difference in ideology between said commentator and the governor, but rather, this person is just uninformed.

I'm talking about Lisa Fritsch, who posted this long piece over at American Thinker. She starts her article by praising Governor Palin for staying relevant over the course of the last three years, but then states that the governor has yet to win over conservative women as part of her support base. Needless to say, I find that to be a ridiculous statement.

Fritsch then goes on to say that conservative women "adore" that:

... Palin is a wife and mother (including of a special needs child); she hunts, fishes, and does things even men cannot do; she plays several sports; and, as if to put the ribbon on top of it all, she is beautiful.

But:

As much as conservative women admire and respect Sarah Palin, Palin's intellect and intellectual stamina stops short at her own base and platform. The brilliance does not translate beyond her (and our own) comfort zone. She lacks the ability to cross over and present herself in the wider social and political strata. Just as love isn't enough to sustain a marriage, Tea Party-speak isn't enough to win the presidency. The depth required of a president and commander in chief is missing.

It is ludicrous and somewhat narcissistic for anyone to speak for an entire group, such as "conservative women." I know plenty of conservative women who support Governor Palin strongly, and I know some who don't. We are not a monolithic bunch. Next time Lisa should try adding the word(s) "some," "a few," or perhaps "I" for a more honest assessment. And yes, we do admire the governor's family, but to say that conservative women "adore" Governor Palin because of her recreational choices and her looks is shallow and just plain wrong. Why would we care what Governor Palin looks like, or use that as a basis by which to judge her at all? And yeah, the hunting is cool, but it isn't the reason we support her.

Then, to say that Governor Palin's "intellect and intellectual stamina stops short at her own base and platform," is a statement only someone who isn't familiar with the governor's record could make. It is a narrow and hallow critique, not rooted in any sort of understanding of how Governor Palin operates as an executive. And based on the feedback, there is no doubt that most who attended the RightOnline screening of The Undefeated last night in Minneapolis would disagree. Lisa Fritsch is a victim of overexposure to LSM narratives, and not someone who has studied Governor Palin in any depth.

Fritsch continues her 'I am all conservative women and we don't think Palin is up to the job,' post by bringing up the Katie Couric interview from 2008 and Sarah Palin's Alaska on TLC as proof. So, if I have this correct, that means anyone who has ever had a bad moment during an interview, or anyone who used their voice to promote the state they love, is disqualified to run for high office... Well, why is Barack Obama sitting in the White House then?

Next, Fritsch states that Governor Palin is being "coddled" by FOX News. There are two problems with this statement. First, while a few people at FOX have been fair with the governor, their DC based political commentators for the most part, have not. Secondly, Governor Palin is currently under contract with FOX News, so to insinuate that she is avoiding doing interviews with other networks for any other reason, is just dishonest. The governor isn't afraid to step outside of FOX to speak with journalists, and anyone who kept tabs on her recent bus tour knows that.

Fritsch then goes on to compare Governor Palin with the 2008 version of Barack Obama. She wrote:

Because Americans have already taken a chance on the outsider who promised that charm and wit could make up for lack of experience in the line of fire and depth and expertise in foreign affairs, the conservative voter is especially turned off to this strategy of going with a candidate who lacks a serious résumé. In the game that is the presidential election, you must not only be the able to show us the how, what, and why, but you must also be able to explain all of them convincingly and without defect.

Lisa, with all due respect, please educate yourself about Governor Palin's "serious résumé" before you waste your time writing the next lengthy Palin hit-piece. It would save you (and me) the trouble, considering your point has no basis in reality. It is insulting to ignore Governor Palin's record of executive leadership and then claim it is the equivalent of a Junior Senator with a short history of voting "present." Again, this section says more about what Lisa Fritsch doesn't know about Governor Palin, than it does about Governor Palin herself.

Fritsch ends her piece by stating that she has "questions" regarding Governor Palin, then adds this insulting line:

These questions lean toward the juvenile context which that Rush caller suggested; they cast Palin as a candidate for high school prom queen, not president of the United States.

Perhaps those questions could be answered by doing some actual research. But instead, Lisa Fritsch would rather rely on played out narratives as the basis from which to judge Governor Palin. This is exactly what I was talking about the day when I wrote how it "drives me nuts" when conservatives fall for bogus media-driven memes. This woman took the effort to write paragraph after paragraph repeating garbage she picked up from the press to discredit and diminish Governor Palin. She never cites any portion of Palin's governing record to make her case, but instead recycles attack lines that were mainly created by the left. All while purporting to speak for every conservative woman, no less.

Well Mrs. Fritsch, you do not speak for me. I know Governor Palin's record and I understand her character well. She is a responsible leader and a proven reformer, unlike Barack Obama or any current GOP candidate for that matter. She stands for commonsense conservative principles, and YES, has the record to prove it... Look it up!

Jeff Goldstein: Losing More Slowly is Now Nearing Lost

2011-06-16T12:02:00.000-07:00

Jeff Goldstein recently wrote a piece regarding the release of Governor Palin's emails, highlighting the now famous message she sent a few days before Trig Paxson Van Palin was born to friends and family. Goldstein then shares his views of the current media culture that is so damaging to our nation, in reaction to said message. He writes:

It is profoundly saddening to me to reflect on what the media — and many on our own side — have tried to do to this woman, who clearly embodies the very principles conservatives and classical liberals claim to embrace and fight for, and who is clearly (in my mind) qualified to lead this country back from the brink of socialist hell, so comfortable and committed is she to constitutional authority, and so battle-tested is she after having had to endure a 3-year pop-cultural attempt to destroy her and her family.

I hope in their most private moments, Kathy Griffin or Andrew Sullivan or Janeane Garafalo or Jen Rubin — and a host of others I can name — feel wash over them the sudden rush of shame and embarrassment they so richly deserve.

And I hope it fucking burns.

The truth is, we have allowed a media culture to form in this country that is rotten to its core. It is petty, spiteful, vindictive, triumphalist, arrogant, profoundly biased, and undoubtedly left-leaning. We have given this media the power to shape our narratives, inform our decisions, and — because there are few if any consequences for doing so — create and destroy individuals with the impunity of a hive minded mob embarking on a wilding.

Helping the media along in such a project — as many “conservatives” do, by accepting as a matter of nature, unchangeable as a hurricane, the premises the media advances — is the kind of intellectual dereliction that has brought us to this point in our nation’s history, where 20% or less of the population controls the reins of political power, as well as the vast majority of our cultural institutions, from the media and the academy, to putative moral authority to champion the environment, the working man, the poor.

Losing more slowly is now nearing lost. And yet still we’re hearing from some on “our” side that we need to find an “electable” candidate that will appeal to “moderates” — someone who doesn’t represent the kind of “extremism” that, in an Orwellian turn, has become synonymous with the very legal conservatism and classical liberalism around which this country was founded, and which provided the template for the most free and prosperous country the world has ever known, with the most free and prosperous people history has ever produced.

I noted this before, but let me note it again: the antidote to Carter was not Howard Baker or George HW Bush. We’re at the brink. And if we can’t articulate the enormous CHASM that separates classical liberal and legal conservative principles from those on witness by the democratic socialists in power — who are actively working to increase government’s size and the people’s dependence on it, intentionally sabotaging energy production and private sector job growth while putting in place the bureaucratic structure to control us through our healthcare decisions and through regulations on the very exhalation that comes from our bodies, or the dust we kick up when we walk — we have lost our country anyway, and it’s damn certain that Mitt Romney and his carbon emission-sensitivity or his ethanol panders isn’t going to do dick structurally to help us get it back. At best he’s a kind of cultural procrastination. And at worst, he comes (courtesy of the press — and likehttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif George Bush did in his two terms) to count as the benchmark of right-wing “extremism,” against which the next leftist candidate positions himself.

The GOP is content being the more frugal, more incremental, of the two big government ruling parties.

I’m not content with that as a choice.

And so I fight on.

I'm with him 100% in that... You can read the entire piece here .

Goldstein hits the nail on the head when writing about the influence the DC establishment media class has on the direction of the country. He is especially poignant when discussing the "conservative" side of that coin, and their role in picking the types of candidates we put up against big government leaders on the left. What good does it do us to give Americans a choice between the type of overbearing statists in the Obama administration, and someone like Mitt Romney, who obviously believes that the solutions to this nations ills can be found with federal intervention? None!

As Goldstein states, politicians like Romney are a type of "cultural procrastination." While they don't force us into a system of more government-less freedom, at quite the pace of a Barack Obama, the end result is the same. And if you look at the current state of the economy, our energy situation, and the size of the federal government, you quickly realize that we are on a path that is unsustainable. We do not have time for these big spenders, their cronies, or their expensive hair-brained "solutions," which more times than not come at the price of our liberties.

I have to be honest with you... It absolutely drives me nuts to watch conservatives fall for media narratives. Don't we, of all people, know better? We cannot trust the media, and that goes for FOX News as well as many "conservative" publications. None of them are worthy of our trust. We have to weigh everything we hear and read. We have to consider the source, and stop giving these tin-can pundits the power to force real reformers out of the debate. There is a reason that people like Governor Palin are shunned by them. She would never accept their big state compromises, and she would never continue us down this path. The status quo has become dangerous, and the only solution is to ignore those who preach it.

My Review of 'The Undefeated'

2011-06-14T21:54:00.000-07:00

I had the honor last weekend to preview Steve Bannon's new documentary "The Undefeated," based primarily on Governor Palin's political life. When Mr. Bannon was asked recently by Kathryn Jean Lopez, why he "was keen on telling her story," he replied:

This woman is one of the most covered individuals in our media-saturated “global village,” yet I felt that she was totally unknown. The real person was hiding in plain sight.

As a C4P contributor, and supporter of Governor Palin's since first learning about her in late 2007, I can say that he is absolutely correct about that. It is why I have used the word "distortion" so often in my writings. The media has covered Governor Palin virtually every day since the presidential election in 2008, yet only now are Americans starting to learn about her actual record. It's a shame that it took so long, and it's amazing how it all came about, but at least the truth is finally up for discussion, in more places than just pro-Palin comment boards.

The film starts off with a shocking display of hatred in various forms, directed towards Governor Palin by the left. It was nothing I hadn't seen before, but I'm sure most Americans are unaware of the actual level of vitriol that Governor Palin and her family have been subjected to. By putting this segment at the very beginning of the movie, Bannon grabs the attention of the viewer, letting them know all about it by giving them a taste.

The movie describes why and how Governor Palin got involved in politics in the first place. It touches on her years in the city council, and goes into great detail about her time as Wasilla Mayor, chair and ethics officer of the of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and Governor of Alaska. They interview many familiar (to C4P readers) faces who worked with Governor Palin, and were a big part of her administration.

During the portion of the film that covers Alaska, viewers get to see Governor Palin's courage and ethical principles on full display. Those who have no knowledge about the governor (other than moronic Tina Fey skits) will get to see the reformer we know. They will learn how she rose to power on her own accord, without being backed by the Alaska GOP establishment, then how she took them on to clean up her state's government. They will learn about her enormous approval ratings, and learn why. The film goes into great detail about her policy accomplishments, and viewers will no doubt have a better understanding of energy, it's relationship to Alaska, and the importance of domestic production after seeing the film.

The movie briefly covers the 2008 presidential campaign, and highlights Governor Palin's significance to the Republican ticket. They touched on the country's economic collapse during that time, and the subsequent loss for McCain-Palin. The more important part of the film follows, as some Americans will learn for the first time what happened to Governor Palin when she returned to Alaska following the election.

Viewers get to see the litany of attacks she faced, the avalanche of frivolous claims, the costs to her family and state, and a legislature more interested in playing partisan games against her than working for the people, after she returned from the campaign trail. People who see this movie will have little doubt that the reason Governor Palin resigned from the governorship was for the sake of Alaska, even if it cost her political career.

The movie goes on to tell the story of Governor Palin and the conservative movement since her resignation. They make the obvious comparison with the Reagan Revolution, and note how the governor has encouraged so many to get involved in the process. Showing her leading the charge in many instances taking on the left, while simultaneously keeping the national GOP on notice.

The movie is two hours long, which is considered lengthy for the subject matter. But I can tell you that it doesn't feel like two hours after you've watched it. Due to the structure and content, the movie holds your attention the entire time. It also has some great original footage most have never witnessed. I appreciated this film to no end, and like Dan Riehl, I even teared up at one point when Andrew Breitbart was speaking.

The Undefeated is a story about a courageous, modern-day political reformer but more importantly, it is a story about a survivor. It is the true story of Governor Palin and what she represents as most Americans have never seen before. I strongly recommend that they do when the film comes out on July 15.

Washington Post Reviews "The Undefeated"

2011-06-09T15:08:00.000-07:00

It certainly says something about the upcoming documentary, The Undefeated, based on Governor Palin's life and record, that a media organization as hostile as the Washington Post is to her, could write a review this fair. In an article published at WaPo today, they wrote:

Produced and directed by conservative filmmaker Steve Bannon, “The Undefeated” was not paid for by Palin, nor did she influence its content in any way, Bannon said at a screening of the film for reporters Thursday morning in the offices of small video production company in Arlington.
You wouldn’t know it from the deeply sympathetic movie, which portrays Palin as a devoted wife and mother — and a hugely successful political leader whose quintessentially Alaskan spirit propelled her to stand up to corporate interests and the political establishment both as mayor of Wasilla and governor of Alaska.
[...]
The movie begins with the story of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, a disaster that Palin’s husband, Todd, described as “heartbreaking” — and that Palin cites in her autobiography, “Going Rogue,” as one of the defining events that propelled her to seek public office.
“I was a young mother-to-be with a blue-collar husband heading up to the slope,” Palin said. “If I ever had a chance to serve my fellow citizens, I would do so, and I’d work for the ordinary hardworking people.”
“The Undefeated” explores Palin’s rise to mayor of Wasilla and credits her with bringing a fiscally conservative philosophy to the job and for opening up the region as a booming bedroom community to Anchorage. It also explores her term as governor, characterizing her as standing up to oil companies over drilling rights, successfully advocating to build a natural gas pipeline from the North Slope and facing down cronyish state lawmakers in the pocket of the energy industry.
The movie includes no direct interviews with Palin, but it does feature the former governor reading short excerpts from “Going Rogue.” Bannon said he met with Palin a few weeks ago in Phoenix, where she told him the movie “blew her away.”
[..]
t also reminds viewers how popular Palin was as an elected leader in Alaska: She won reelection to mayor of Wasilla with more than 70 percent of the vote, and she resoundingly defeated then-governor Frank Murkowski in the Republican primary for governor in 2006. Before she became Sen. John McCain’s running mate in 2008, her approval rating among Alaskans soared above 80 percent.
The movie is clearly structured to push back against the widely held view that Palin lacks the leadership experience or skills to be president. Bannon, the director, even compared Palin’s term as governor to that of former President George W. Bush, concluding: “What she accomplished in Alaska is demonstrably much more impressive than what he accomplished as governor of Texas.” He added: “I wouldn’t have made this film if I didn’t think we needed a leader like her, and I hope she runs for president.”

You can read the article in it's entirety here.

Weiner Flashback and a Lack of Civility

2011-06-07T22:14:00.000-07:00

I'm as sick of hearing about disgraced congressman Anthony Weiner as anybody, but in the midst of it all, I remembered something that happened over a year ago. In March of 2010, Congressman Weiner's office was sent a suspicious package of white powder. While being interviewed about the incident, Rep. Weiner proceeded to throw the blame at Governor Palin. He said:

When Sarah Palin uses gun analogies and gun imagery when she makes her political point, she may believe that she's engaging in metaphor. But there are too many people who have twisted minds who might think that she's being literal. What might seem as an obvious metaphor for some people may seem like an invitation for someone else.

Earlier that day, the pervert who represents New York's 9th district, had given another interview to a CBS affiliate in which he also stated that Governor Palin was "inciting violence" against Democrats. That interview has since been removed from the affiliate's webpage.

Now, months after the left's blood libel against Governor Palin in the wake of the shootings in Tuscon, it's interesting to see how long the left had been trying to marginalize Governor Palin as some sort of extremist. The attacks the governor endured after that horrible day were no accident. The professional left had been waiting for an incident to pin on Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, or both, for some time. Mr. Weiner proves this by quickly blaming Governor Palin in his own case, before any facts were known.

Shortly after the tragedy in Tucson, the left and all who encompass it, declared that a lack of civility and dangerous political rhetoric were somehow the culprit. President Obama flew into the area to hold a campaign-style "memorial service," and pronounced that a new era of political discourse was warranted in our country.

Fast forward to June, 2011...

Proving once again that the left views everything within the context of how it will affect them politically, their calls for "civility" were short lived. On Monday, a "comedian" by the name of Chris Titus was recorded saying the following on the Adam Corolla Show:

“You know what man? I am going to literally — if she gets elected president, I am going to hang out on the grassy knoll all the time, just loaded and ready — because you know what? It’s for my country. It’s for my country. If I got to sacrifice myself, it’s for my country.”

In a piece about Titus' comments posted over at HotAir, Cassy Fiano wrote:

And as you can hear in the video, the audience’s response was to laugh. Apparently, joking about assassination is A-OK as long as it’s someone like Sarah Palin. Yet somehow, it’s the right that supposedly needs lessons in civility. I guess we just don’t understand that it’s perfectly acceptable to murder someone for their political beliefs, so long as the murderer is a liberal and the victim is a conservative. No wonder these morons idolize people like Che Guevara.

[...]

So much for civility in politics.

Indeed.

The hypocrisy and insincerity of the left knows no bounds. Like 99.9% of Conservatives, I didn't believe them when they called for a different discourse. We knew what they were doing the whole time. From a freakish man, who obviously has no trouble telling outrageous lies to your face, like Anthony Weiner - to a talentless, smack spewing scab like Chris Titus, the left's character deficiency is at an epidemic level. The calls for "civility" were bunk, and the insinuation that Governor Palin was promoting anything other than pro-American, commonsense conservatism, was absolute garbage. It may take time for the Chris Tituses and Anthony Weiners of the world to reveal themselves (no pun intended) but eventually, they will.

Kimberley Strassel; Elitist Naysayer de Jour

2011-06-02T20:50:00.000-07:00

Kimberley Strassel wrote a piece on Thursday, for the Wall Street Journal in which she attacked Governor Palin wrongly as being someone who doesn't engage in "serious policy discussion." Before she began her best Charles Krauthammer impersonation, she took a swipe at Palin supporters. She wrote:

Her fans have come to view her as the living antithesis of everything they find offensive—the mainstream media, cultural elites, out-of-touch Washington. She so embodies this role that it is no longer clear whether her backers support her in her own right or support her because they so dislike what she dislikes.

Listen Kim, I've spent over two years, down here in the muck defending an honorable reformer from the most vile, insane, and downright evil attacks from the Republican establishment, left-wing zealots, backstabbers, and crackpots. I, just as any other Palin supporter, don't need your detached opinion about why we support Governor Palin. I've known for quite some time why I support this woman, and it's not because she's some sort of "symbol" for all the things I find "offensive." I could go on to list Governor Palin's attributes and record to better describe why I support her, but that would take another blog post. For now, just know that her courage and principles have everything to do with it.

Strassel goes on to make the kind of uninformed remarks about Governor Palin that we have come to expect from writers of her ilk, such as:

Of all criticisms of Mrs. Palin back then, the most legitimate was that the relative political newcomer lacked knowledge and experience, in particular on foreign policy. A serious candidate, one who was determined to seize the frontrunner mantle in 2012, would've set about using the intervening years to bone up, to demonstrate accomplishments, and to build a brilliant team.

What does Strassel know about Governor Palin's foreign policy team? She knows that nobody she knows is on it. And exactly what kind of foreign policy "accomplishments" should the governor have at this point? Standing with Israel, in Israel near the same time as our current president is selling out their security, should be something to be admired in a prospective candidate. Highlighting our country's relationship with India, and the plight of the people of Haiti, is also important. I'm just not sure what Strassel considers as an "accomplishment," or what other possible GOP candidates have done in this realm to merit her giving them a pass.

Strassel continues:

Mrs. Palin had a perfect perch from which to do this, as governor. She instead chose to quit that job and retreat to (let's be honest) the easier occupation of private citizen. Rather than build a team, she has cast herself as a one-woman-show. Her supporters love this spunk, but the aggressive insularity—Sarah against the "establishment"—has also served to alienate many of the local political leaders and organizers necessary to build a nationwide campaign. That includes fund-raisers.

Yes, let's be honest, shall we...

Obviously, Strassel isn't familiar with the fact that Governor Palin RESIGNED for the good of her state. Otherwise, Strassel would consider that a bogged-down, politically targeted (with no help from the national Republicans, thank you very much) administration would have been better for the governor's future political aspirations. If Governor Palin had just forgotten about Alaska's welfare, and thought about her own, she would be respected by the Beltway establishment. No wonder this country is so messed up!

Strassel goes on to praise Mitt Romney for having a health care "plan" and Newt Gingrich for "getting into specifics." She doesn't get into the specifics about which of Newt's "specifics" were so impressive, however. She then states that Governor Palin "has not outlined many policies of her own."

Why is Kimberley Strassel writing articles about people whom she is unfamiliar with? Governor Palin has taken a position on virtually every major issue since the 2008 election, in detail. Even recently, throughout the "One Nation" bus tour, Governor Palin has been talking policy. All you have to do to find this out is read articles written by people who actually pay attention. Like for instance, Byron York:

One thing many viewers have probably missed in all the horse-race speculation is that Palin is perfectly willing to discuss her positions on key issues, if anyone wants to ask. In fact, in recent days, weeks, and months, we've seen a lot of policy commentary from the former Alaska governor.

[...]

For those interested in her positions on issues, Palin's Facebook page is filled with notes and commentary. Recent entries include titles like "New Afghanistan Development Dangerous to NATO," "Obama's Strange Strategy: Borrow Foreign Money to Give to Foreign Countries," "Barack Obama's Disregard for [Israel's] Security Begs Clarity," "Obama's Failed Energy Policy," and "Removing the Boot from the Throat of American Businesses." They're not think-tank white papers, but they are substantive statements on key issues.

The other GOP candidates really aren't all that specific in their policy statements, I've suffered through them, I know. These guys pander to which ever audience they are in front of at any given time, and they flip-flop all over the map on important issues. None of them have a record of reform, but they have sipped cocktails with all the right foreign policy advisers, lobbyists, and party "leaders." For that alone, they won't be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as the governor, I guess.

Clearly, nothing Governor Palin says or does will be enough for people like Kimberley Strassel, Charles Krauthammer, and Elitist Inc. The question for the future is, how much longer will people listen to baseless arguments from these sheltered columnists?

Andy Barr Gets the "Who" Very Wrong in His Rolling Thunder Coverage

2011-05-29T22:46:00.000-07:00

Andy Barr offered us another fine example of excellence in journalism during his coverage of the Rolling Thunder event on Sunday, in Washington DC. He writes in the first paragraph (emphasis):

Only one advance staffer was on hand to wrangle the fans and reporters hoping to get close to the former vice presidential nominee, who arrived at Sunday’s Rolling Thunder rally on a motorcycle driven by her daughter Willow.

Wait, what? Willow Palin is 16 years old. The woman who drove Governor Palin to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial looks young, but she certainly looks old enough to vote.

I actually know the name of the woman driving and it isn't "Willow Palin." She lives in my city where she does NOT attend High School, but in fact, owns a small business. I'm not going to publish her name here however, due to the fact that she has not released it through any media agency or otherwise in connection with the Rolling Thunder event.

That said, the best part of the Andy Barr piece is that he already posted a correction about who was driving the motorcycle. At the end of the article, he wrote (emphasis):

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story mistakenly indicated that Sarah Palin was driving a motorcycle when she arrived. Willow Palin was.

He really got this obvious, yet basic fact wrong TWICE!

A San Diegan who is not Willow Palin and Governor Palin riding to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial during Rolling Thunder event in Washington DC, 2011.

I'm not going to launch into some tirade by insinuating some sort of bias on Andy Barr's part here. Clearly it wasn't Andy's, nor his editors political leanings at work here. This is actually the same problem I alluded to the other day when I wrote the piece about ABC's horrendous reporting. This is pure laziness and sloppiness on the part of Barr and his editors.

It's bad enough that we as Americans have to deal with the constant diet of bias from the leftist media mills. But when they can't even get the basic who, what, where, when, why, and how of a story correct, it makes you wonder why they exist at all. We're accustomed to reading news and filtering out the bias, just to grab on to a fact or two. As it turns out, that might not be a good idea either.

Sean Hannity Exposes Frank Bailey

2011-05-25T22:57:00.000-07:00

I was initially skeptical when I heard last night that Sean Hannity interviewed Frank Bailey about "his" new book. I wondered why Hannity would give this guy a platform to sell this garbage on his show. After watching the interview, I understand why Sean had him on.

Hannity completely exposes Frank Bailey as the liar that he is. Bailey lied so many times during this interview that I lost count halfway though. Anytime Frank couldn't lie his way out of one of Sean's questions, he was quick to change the subject, even using his own son in one instance. I dare say that Frank Bailey makes Jack Kelly look like Mother Teresa. Yes Frank, I've been watching your interviews on MSNBC and I know your talking points. The corrupt agenda-driven hacks that sit in front of the camera on that network may let you ramble through your prepared remarks unchallenged, but Sean Hannity had something else in mind for his audience... The truth about what you are, and why you betrayed Governor Palin.

This is quite the interview:

Taking a Look at ABC's Sloppy Coverage of Governor Palin's Interviews

2011-05-22T16:44:00.000-07:00

Recently, ABC News has descended into the sort of sloppy journalism usually reserved for the entertainment section of any media institution. That stands to reason considering that they have been assigning an entertainment writer to cover political news.

That entertainment reporter, Sheila Marikar (apparently also a writer for ABC's The Note, which bills itself as being "Washington's Original and Most Influential Tipsheet") has been the designated reporter covering Governor Palin's recent Fox News interviews. Her awful reporting skills became apparent last week, after she wrote a piece on the governor's interviews with Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren. Marikar started her piece (emphasis added):

In a pair of conservative talk show appearances Wednesday night, Sarah Palin defended presidential contender Newt Gingrich's criticism of fellow Republican Paul Ryan's Medicare plan by reiterating her frustration with the “leftist lame-stream media."

Um, no she did not.

What Governor Palin said in regards to Newt Gingrich during those interviews was:

On Hannity:

I do believe that Newt Gingrich is terribly wrong on his assessment of Representative Ryan's plan. It is good fiscally sound and courageous plan. And it's not all just about Medicare, we have to make sure that we are understanding that Ryan's budget is a big difference as opposed to the Obama budget, which of course have has us on the road to bankruptcy.

On Greta:

Well, I think that the media -- that we all have a right to ask Speaker Gingrich, what in the heck did you mean that Paul Ryan's budget plan is radical or social engineering? No, what is radical is not proposing a plan to counter Obama's budget plan that has us on the road to bankruptcy.

[...]

You know what I thought after the whole Newt Gingrich thing in these last 24 hours, Greta, was, "Bless his heart" and every other good ol' boy's heart that's in that political game there in the Beltway. They don't really know any more than the rest of us. Greta, it was Newt Gingrich who told me in January of this year, Sarah Palin needs to slow down and really think through what it is that she has to say. Well, you know, he stumbles, too. We all stumble. We all have our strengths and our weaknesses.

Clearly the governor's statements were not an endorsement of Newt Gingrich's position on Paul Ryan's plan. Or at least whatever Newt's position was the day he stumbled, but I digress...

Keeping up with that sort of journalistic standard, Marikar "reported" on Sunday for ABC (emphasis added):

“Anyone who studies history, studies the old testament, studies geography understands that Israel now is surrounded by enemies at all times,” Palin said on Jeanine Pirro’s “Justice With Judge Jeanine.” “It should be now that America takes a stand in defending our enemies in Israel.”

That's quite the typo you've got there, Sheila.

She later changed it by replacing the word "enemies" with "friends" however, nowhere in the article does it mention that she made any changes from a previous version. Which it should have considering other news outlets, like the Israeli media site Ynet, used ABC as a reference to cover the interview. As of right now, Ynet's article still reads "enemies."

I'm sure the readers on Ynet can read the rest of the article and conclude that Governor Palin did not mean "enemies" but when placed in quotation marks like that, they may conclude that she said it. Worse, perhaps someone will only read that part of the article and conclude that the governor really meant that!

Do you see how sloppy journalism can effect people's perceptions? One poorly designated reporter writes up a couple of articles laden with mischaracterizations and misquotes, other reporters pick up the words and repeat them for readers all of over the world. This is how rumors and false perceptions begin. Although the press deeply resents that Governor Palin refers to them as the lamestream media, they are more than deserving of that title. In fact, they should thank her for being so kind.

The Matter of Bachmann's Record

2011-05-16T19:25:00.000-07:00

Monday, Matt Lewis wrote a piece for The Daily Caller that received a lot of attention concerning Michele Bachmann's record. He covered some territory regarding the congresswoman's background that had until now, gone unnoticed and unreported in most conservative circles. In fact, Lewis begins the last paragraph in his column by saying:

To be sure, most of Bachmann’s potential problems and challenges have been reported in the past, but they are not widely known by grassroots conservatives.

Conservatives appreciate Michele Bachmann because she speaks their language on many issues. However, saying the right things only matters if your words match your actions. Unlike the liberals of 2008, conservatives are far too smart to nominate a potential presidential candidate on rhetoric alone. A politician can say they are against government excess and waste, and preach about reform, but what have they ever done while in office to prove it? What does Michele Bachmann's record say about her, above and beyond the speeches to the base?

Lewis' piece breaks down many aspects of Bachmann's short political history. His piece begins:

When it comes to Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, the Tea Party rhetoric doesn’t always match the record. Should she launch a serious bid for president, Bachmann would likely find herself defending a slew of questionable votes and decisions, including on earmarks, pardons and farm subsidies.

Bachmann’s penchant for earmarks dates back to her days in the Minnesota state Senate. Despite her reputation as a fiscal conservative, from 2001-2006, then-state Senator Bachmann proposed more than $60 million in earmarks, including a $710,000 “Bond For Centerville Local Improvements Around Highway 14″ and a $40,000,000 “Bond for Lino Lakes And Columbus Township Highway Interchanges.”

Bachmann's communication director attempted to paint such action on earmarks as being something voters approved of because they "expect that things like road projects should be done at the state level, where voters can have a say through the selling of bonds.” As Lewis points out, that's a fine argument, but it isn't consistent with other facets of Bachmann's record. For instance:

[S]ince joining the U.S. Congress in 2007, Bachmann has appropriated more than $3.7 million in earmarks. What is more, when Republicans sought an earmark moratorium, Bachmann pushed to exclude transportation projects from the ban.

Aside from earmark spending and federalism vs. statism hypocrisy, there is also the matter of the Bachmann collecting farm subsidies on some family property. Lewis wrote:

Bachmann’s fiscally conservative positions will also need to be squared with the fact that from 1995-2009, the Bachmann Family Farm (still listed as being owned by her deceased father-in-law) collected $259,332 in federal farm subsidies. According to financial disclosures, Bachmann has personally reported income of between $15,001-$50,000 from “Bachmann Family Farm LP. Bachmann & Associates.” (Additionally, the Christian psychology clinic run by Bachmann’s husband, Marcus,
has received nearly $30,000 in state funding since 2007.)

Bachmann's office claims that she is merely a trustee on the farm, and has no operational control over the decisions made regarding it... Okay, if they say so, but her office never mentions the state funding that her husband's clinic receives.

Matt Lewis' column also discussed Bachmann's involvement with a controversial request for a presidential pardon. He writes:

In 2007, Bachmann wrote a letter requesting a presidential pardon for a convicted drug-smuggler and money-launderer named Frank Vennes. Vennes was convicted of money laundering in 1988 and pleaded no contest to a cocaine and weapons charge. Making matters worse, he and his wife donated a total of $27,600 to Bachmann’s 2006 and 2008 election.

Bachmann's camp said in response to Lewis' inquiring on the matter, that the congresswoman "too hastily accepted his [Frank Vennes] claims of redemption." Unfortunately, they did not address the $27,600 in campaign donations from a money-laundering drug-smuggler.

That leads us up to the part where Lewis writes about Bachmann's record in the House of Representatives. While the congresswoman should be credited with the forming of the Tea Party Caucus, I have yet to see her take a leadership position with that group of legislators, within the body of the House itself. Time may tell a different story, but it would certainly help push the stated agenda of the caucus, if the founder spent more time in DC as opposed to Iowa. Nonetheless, Lewis notes the thin list of Bachmann's other legislative accomplishments. He writes:

Bachmann’s effectiveness as a legislator will almost certainly come into question if she begins to gain traction as a candidate. Since becoming a member of the U.S. Congress in 2007, even her fans concede that her legislative career has been relatively unremarkable. During an interview with The Daily Caller, Matt Kibbe, president and CEO of FreedomWorks, called her an “articulate spokesman” for the tea party, but added: “She doesn’t have a long list of legislative accomplishments.”
In fact, during her four years and four months in Congress, Bachmann has sponsored and passed only two bills (one recognizing the 150th anniversary of Minnesota and one honoring public child welfare agencies) and three resolutions. (Note: Her Healthcare Fiscal Accountability Act in the current Congress has 91 co-sponsors and her St. Croix River crossing legislation has bipartisan co-sponsorship and the support of Democratic Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton. She is also talking with Democratic Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar about working together on this issue.)

Senior writer for the Washington Examiner, Philip Klein added:

“[W]hen it comes to choosing a presidential candidate, I think conservatives need to look beyond who they like or agree with the most, and carefully consider who has the experience and record to be good at the job of being president. Some conservatives may argue that passing new legislation is bad, but others believe her failure to pass legislation speaks to her lack of effectiveness in the body."

I think an argument can be made for both, but a good leader within the legislative branch knows how to make a real impact. See "Paul Ryan" for details...

I often hear or read conservatives comparing Michele Bachmann to Governor Palin, but I've never really understood the comparison. Sure, they're both conservatives who happen to be female, but their records are remarkably different. In all honesty, I find it insulting to Governor Palin to be continually compared to a House Member, just beginning their second term. I mean no personal offense to Michele Bachmann, but Governor Palin has a wealth of accomplishments and a real record of reform. The congresswoman doesn't. Bachmann may be a good spokesperson for the conservative movement, but the more the base learns about her actual record, the less likely she is to pick up a GOP nomination. At this point, she would only be helping the wing of the Republican Party that the base doesn't want to see facing off with Obama in 2012. Perhaps Michele Bachmann should take a page out of the Mike Pence book of leadership, by spending her efforts running for Governor. That way, she can get some executive experience and while adding real accomplishments to her record. Things she can bring to the table in a possible future run for the White House.

It is true that actions speak louder than words. Governor Palin's words are great, but her actions are what lead me to support and defend her. This nation is at a critical point in history. We must demand that our leaders have it in them to live up to their rhetoric. We are well past the point of accepting empty campaign slogans and red meat buzz words as a sufficient resume. We need proven, effective leadership, and nothing less.

George Will Makes Predictable Assessment of the 2012 Election on 'This Week'

2011-05-15T15:41:00.000-07:00

Today, on ABC's “This Week with Christiane Amanpour,” George Will made the following, predictable statement regarding the upcoming 2012 election now that Mike Huckabee is out. He said:

“This is the most open scramble on the Republican side since 1940 when Wendell Willkie came out of the woodwork and swept the field. I think — people are complaining this is not off to a brisk start. I think that’s wrong. I think we know with reasonable certainty that standing up there on the West front of the Capitol on Jan. 20, 2013 will be one of three people: Obama, [former Minnesota Gov. Tim] Pawlenty and [Indiana Gov. Mitch] Daniels. I think that’s it.”

It shouldn't surprise anyone that George Will holds the view that only establishment Republicans can beat Barack Obama in the 2012 election. He is after all, about as establishment as they come. This is just another example of the beltway elite seriously misreading the electorate, and more importantly, misreading the Republican base.

The reason the GOP primary race did not got off to a "brisk" start, is because the base is not happy with the current crop of announced candidates. Republicans around the country are not lining up behind any one person they know for certain is running. And I seriously doubt that you will see Conservative activists working too hard for a status quo contender. Times have changed, and the people of this country understand that we need bold, commonsense leadership. Not beltway business-as-usual, George Will approved politicians.

Mark Levin reminds us just how wrong George Will has been before.

(H/T: Doug)

Why is the "Christian Division" of Simon & Schuster Publishing Frank Bailey's Book?

2011-05-10T13:50:00.000-07:00

Frank Bailey, the poster child for malicious disgruntled former employees, has a book coming out soon. Actually, Jeanne Devon (a.k.a. AKMuckracker) has a book coming out soon, Bailey just allowed her to use his former perceived proximity to Governor Palin, and his name to sell the same old tired memes she has blogged about for years. We covered the manuscript here and elsewhere extensively after the it was first leaked online several months ago. To recall the character of Frank Bailey, here is what I posted at Big Government last February:

After reading this manuscript, my only conclusion is that Frank Bailey is a horrible person. A good person, as Frank likes to sell himself as, doesn’t have the capacity to do what he did. Even if Governor Palin was twice the monster he and his leftist allies made her out to be, he still had no right to attempt to have this pile of garbage published. She provided him with a job, which allowed him to provide for his family. At any time, he could have walked away if he felt he worked for someone he could not morally support. Anyone who cannot see this man for what he is, is being willfully ignorant. They are turning a blind-eye to the obvious motives that drove him to betray his former boss.

Frank Bailey's motives in my view, were greed and vengeance. This man of little skill, decided to try and cash-in on the job he no longer had, and was incompetent at when he did have it. He was after all, the only member of the Palin administration who had ever been recommended to receive ethics training by a state investigator. His lack of ethics were his own doing, but this book proves he is incapable of taking responsibility for his actions. Instead, he tries to flip the blame on to Governor Palin and her husband, even though he has no evidence to support his claims. The emails printed in the book (if they're even real) don't say a whole lot. The meat of this trashing is in between the emails, where Jeanne (with her own far-left political motives) practically does nothing more than paste copy from Mudflats.

Without a doubt, this book is designed to destroy the public perception of Governor Palin. It is a book made with the sole purpose of tearing down another individual, and nothing else...

Which is why I was shocked to learn that Howard Books, the "Christian Division" of Simon & Schuster would be publishing it. Howard Books has the following posted in the "About" section of their website:

Founded in 1969 by author and composer Alton Howard, Howard Publishing was among the first Christian publishers to appear in the CBA industry.

Perhaps best known for its gift-book division and bestselling Hugs series (selling over ten million), Howard has other numerous successes to its credit, including New York Times #1 bestseller Mistaken Identity and Rick Warren’s The Purpose of Christmas. In 2006, Howard Publishing was acquired by Simon & Schuster and underwent the subtle name change to Howard Books.

Why on earth would a so-called "Christian" company get involved with this book? What "Christian" message is being sent in an over-sized politically driven hit-piece, designed to destroy?

And just how ludicrous is it that Jeanne Devon is being published as a Christian author? I don't know exactly what her beliefs are, but she has shown nothing but animosity to religious Christians, with everything else she's ever written. She generally refers to them as "whack-jobs," and lists religious blog posts under a tag she calls "whackjobbery." Is this some kind of sick joke?

It's true that Jeanne (and her lefty sidekick Ken Morris) laced the text of the book with Bible verses. In a very deceitful display, the writers try to make Frank Bailey out to be the good guy by making it seem as though he is a man of God, who is only doing this for good and pious reasons. Those verses are nothing more than a blasphemous disguise. To use the sacred text of the faithful as mask and cover in a political lynching is just about the opposite of Christianity. There is nothing Christian about this.

While I have more questions than answers as to why Simon & Schuster chose to market this book in the manner they did, I know one thing for certain... I don't trust that the books published from them are "Christian" books, but I do trust they they are marketing their books to a very large Christian demographic. Is it profit or politics driving them? I don't know but it certainly isn't religion.

Frivolous Lawsuit Filed Against Sarah Palin, AP Fails Reporting Story

2011-04-30T21:34:00.000-07:00

Last Tuesday, a man by the name of Chip Thoma filed a lawsuit against Governor Palin over an alleged "traffic conspiracy." Yes, you read that right... If you're thinking this sounds like some sort of ridiculous frivolous complaint, you would be correct. Mr. Thoma isn't new to Governor Palin, nor is he new to filing frivolous claims against Alaskan Governors. However, you wouldn't know much about this case if you got all of your news from the Associated Press.

Becky Bohrer, the AP writer who covered the story, not only posted her story with an embarrassing grammatical error, but she also omitted key details from her report. She wrote:

An activist is suing Sarah Palin for at least $100,000, claiming she undertook a campaign to "punish, embarrass, discredit and silence" him while she was Alaska's governor.
Palin's attorney, John Tiemessen, called the complaint frivolous and said it was filed "merely for the purpose of harassment."

"The governor's actions and statements regarding this matter are a matter of public record and governed by the long standing doctrine of executive immunity from tort claims," he said in an email late Friday. "Like all of the other harassing complaints against the governor, we anticipate that Mr. Thoma's will be quickly and summarily dismissed."
Thoma's attorney, James McGowan, said Thoma complained about tour bus traffic on the narrow, windy [sic] streets around the governor's mansion. McGowan said Thoma, whom he described as a "Palin fan" at the time, sent tour operators fliers to try to encourage them to change the routes. He said Thoma also helped neighbors create yard signs against what Thoma considered the noise, pollution and congestion caused by the buses.

I think Chip Thoma was as much of a "Palin fan" as I am an Obama supporter. Of course, I'm not sure what Mr. Thoma's voting eligibility status is after his cocaine conviction and receiving numerous DWI's.

This all started back in May of 2009, when Chip Thoma started publicly protesting tourists visiting Juneau and the buses that drove them around the city. He claimed that Governor Palin attracted "voyeurism" due to her "notoriety," in an interview he gave to the Anchorage Daily News shortly after he sent letters to tour bus operators and started placing signs that read "Stop Local Tours" around the area of the governor's mansion. Palin offered to meet with Thoma to see if they could work something out, but he declined the meeting. She then delivered a written statement in which she welcomed the tourists and said she "can't imagine other areas of Alaska looking at having the Governor's house nearby as a degrading irritation that invites voyeurism."

The current complaint from Thoma was filed as an intentional tort, meaning that he believes she caused him some sort of harm by speaking about his efforts to curb tourism to the city. Governor Palin was completely within the bounds of the law, and also her duty to speak publicly about someone who was attacking one the state's largest industry's.

As Palin's attorney stated in the AP article, this case will be throw out, just as the case Chip Thoma filed against former Alaska Governor, Walter Hickel in 1997. The case of Thoma vs. Hickel is a key detail left out of Becky Bohrer's report. Considering the complaint is of the same nature, and directed at the same seat of government, one would think this would be a relevant item to the current story.

Walter Hickel was accused of engaging in a "smear campaign" against Chip Thoma after Thoma began a recall effort against the governor. The Sierra Club joined Mr. Thoma in his effort to get Governor Hickel out of office. When Hickel's office wrote the Sierra Club asking them why would they align themselves with a convicted felon and a serial drunk driver, Thoma cried foul over the disclosure of such information. Everything Hickel's office state in their letter was a matter of public record. And as was the case in 2009, "under Alaska law, public officials in the executive departments of government have either absolute or qualified immunity from tort suits." The court ruled against Thoma in this case stating:

The court holds in Part II that Hickel is entitled to qualified immunity from this suit because Thoma failed to assert a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983, concluding that a 1983 claim does not reach retaliation by speech because imposition of § 1983 liability would have a chilling effect on expression protected by the First Amendment.
The court concludes that imposition of 1983 liability on a public official who “responds in kind” to protected speech critical of the official would not be consistent with the First Amendment:
Making public officials civilly liable for retaliatory speech would, in essence, convert the First Amendment model of an interchange into a one-way street. As we believe this would be fundamentally inconsistent with the values protected by the First Amendment, we conclude that no valid claim of retaliation has been asserted by Thoma.

Not only did Wally Hickel win the verdict, he was also awarded $77,865.50 in attorney's fees. You would think that Chip Thoma would have learned his lesson on tort laws during his experience with Governor Hickel, but it's clear that he did not. He clearly found an attorney who is willing to take his case on against Governor Palin, perhaps someone seeking some "notoriety" of their own.

Americans are sick of these sort of frivolous cases that so abuse our justice system. These things cost taxpayers money and place an unnecessary burden on to the public. We are equally tired of the shoddy reporting from the likes of the Associated Press. When they aren't distorting and spinning facts to fit their world-view, they are disregarding key elements in stories such as this. Whether their lackluster performance at their duties are ideologically driven, or rooted in old-fashion laziness, is hard to say. The silver-lining here is that while we may be fed up with the current state of journalism, we also have other sources for information gathering available to us. Use your search engines wisely.

Rabidly Biased Politico Promotes Anti-Palin Lunatics

2011-04-25T22:14:00.000-07:00

It's one thing to be a run of the mill, left-wing press agency. However, on Monday Politico took their bias to a whole new (yes, rabid) level. On a morning when gas prices were approaching record highs, the EPA blocked drilling in the Arctic, Obama escalated America's role in Libya, and the IMF predicted that the Chinese economy will surpass our own in a few short years, this bastion of journalistic hackery chose instead to promote a group of nuts "on a mission" to destroy Governor Palin, as their top story. As William Jacobson noted:

Under the guise of reporting on the anti-Palin movement, Politico manages to dredge up almost every crank accusation against Palin. The fourth word in the first sentence of the article just happens to be "promiscuous." How nice.

In the course of the article, Politico manages to compare Palin to Charlie Sheen, Lindsay Lohan, Hitler, and Father Coughlin, but only because such people were controversial and celebrities, of course. And Politico did not make the connection itself, it merely quoted someone making the connection, that's how real reporters do it, right?

Politico even refers to Rebecca Mansour, an aide to Palin who helps with SarahPAC, as an "attack dog," with an embeded link in Mansour's name in the Politico article to the viciously anti-Palin Palingates website. This is beyond contemptible even for Politico.

Politico's writer, Ken Vogel sets out in this piece to legitimize crackpot websites like "Palingates" and authors like Joe McGinniss to make them mainstream for his own readers. After interviewing all of these individuals, Vogel indicates that legitimization is actually what these anti-Palin writers wish to accomplish:

A number of forthcoming books promise to delve deeply into — and, they believe, give mainstream credibility to — some of the more salacious Palin rumors and conspiracy theories that have sprouted in the anti-Palin blogosphere and on supermarket tabloid stands but have mostly been rejected by the mainstream media.

Well that settles any question about how "mainstream" Politico even considers itself.

The first person Vogel tries to pass off as a credible critic "on a mission," is the ever present Sherry Whitstine. Now I know Sherry is a fruitcake because I've had the unfortunate experience of having a back-n-forth with her online. This woman if full of anger and is a classic hater in every sense of the word.

Back in March of 2009, the aforementioned Rebecca Mansour wrote a piece noting that she had received an email from Whitstine in which Sherry referred to Governor Palin as "the whore that rides the beast." She wrote:

Today I encountered the most frightening case of Palin Derangement Syndrome (PDS) I've witnessed to date.

[...]

The "whore that rides the beast"? So now Gov. Palin is the "Whore of Babylon"?
If you have Google Toolbar and have it set to suggest search terms as you type, you can type in the words "whore of babylon" and "whore of babylon sarah palin" will pop up as a leading search -- even before "whore of babylon catholic church," and my fellow Catholics have been called the "Whore of Babylon" for centuries before Sarah Palin was ever born. This is the level of insane vicious hatred we're dealing with, friends.

[...]

People who are critical of Gov. Palin have the same First Amendment rights as the rest of us. However, people who behave in this manner of PDS-vileness should not be taken seriously by any news outlet or any other serious-minded person. Their behavior regarding Gov. Palin and her family discredit them from the word "go."

One would tend to think, but here we are two years later looking straight at a news outlet taking Whitstine very seriously, and even promoting her agenda for her.

The next person Vogel highlights as a credible foe, is far-left writer and Trig Truther, Geoffry Dunn. Dunn has been around for a long time and has made numerous claims about Governor Palin that are not true. Dunn used to write for HuffPo where his anti-Palin shtick was welcome, but now must look elsewhere to post due to his loony conspiracy theories. The Huffington Post banned Trig Truther posts from their site, which humorously now makes them much more credible than Politico. Go figure.

Next, Vogel turns to Frank Bailey's upcoming book which was actually written by Jeanne Devon. (Click here to see Jeanne in a mask attending an anti-Palin rally set up by the Democrat party)
I've read the transcript, and I can tell you that Bailey's book is garbage. We covered it extensively here and elsewhere.

What article promoting anti-Palin loons would be complete without a section cut out for Griffin? Griffin, who was fired from his teaching job for his online nuttiness, has a long record of deranged behavior regarding Governor Palin, amongst other things. It's truly mindbogglingly that any journalist would even admit to talking to Griffin, much less cite him as a reference.

Vogel then sets out to promote world reknown stalker, Joe McGinniss' new anti-Palin, Trig Truther book. McGinniss, also known for referring to Palin supporters as the "hounds of hell," has been given credibility by the mainstream press before, only later did they regret it. The man is crazy and giving him more than two seconds of airtime clears away any doubts of that.

Politico has never been a very unbiased source for news, but what they did on Monday will further denigrate their credibility. Giving proven liars, disgruntled losers, stalkers, and suspected psychopaths a platform to promote their agenda driven products, is NOT news. It certainly isn't worthy of a four page spread, splashed across readers screens, front and center at the beginning of a busy news week. The article was shameful, and only proves that those of us who have been preaching to our neighbors to not trust the media, are correct. Would Politico ever highlight and promote people who write books and blog articles about Barack Obama's alleged homosexuality or any other number of strange conspiracies about the President? Heck no, nor should they.

The title of the Vogel piece reads "Mission for anti-Palin movement: Expose her." Considering the article is full of baseless conspiracies and outright lies, the only one 'exposed' here is Politico. The nuts cited in the piece exposed themselves a long time ago.

I could end by asking Politico to be professionals and plea with them to stop their politics of personal destruction in regards to Governor Palin. That would be an empty plea considering so many writers over there are highly motivated to do just that. Perhaps we should just stop reading this garbage. I don't read the National Enquirer, and after what Politico did with this article, I don't see much difference between the two.

Mark Levin weighs in and coins a new name for the political rag - "Pervertico"

The "E! True Hollywood Story" on Sarah Palin Misses the Mark

2011-04-22T11:12:00.000-07:00

The E! entertainment network chose to use Governor Palin as the subject of the Thursday episode of their "True Hollywood Story." Strangely enough, most of the show was based out of Alaska...

The entire purpose of E! doing this show is clearly to push the narrative that Governor Palin is more of a "celebrity" than she is a political figure. I lost count of the number of times the show actually referred to Governor Palin as a "celebrity." Given Hollywood's general political affiliations, it would make sense that they would apply their resources to continue the theme.

Salon.com seems to think that this hurts her with the electorate, even though she had nothing to do with the production of the show. The clips that E! shows of Governor Palin being interviewed are from John Ziegler's 2009 movie titled "Media Malpractice." Unfortunately, viewers who have not seen Ziegler's documentary will have the false impression that Governor Palin agreed to be interviewed by E!. She was not interviewed by them for this show, nor were any of her family members or staff.

Having learned some of the names of the people E! chose to interview for the show prior to it's airing, I was prepared to see a skewed version of Governor Palin's biography, which I did. They opened the show talking about Governor Palin's younger years growing up in Alaska, at which time they got the actual name of the town the Heath family moved to when the governor was just small child, wrong. There were much more than geographical errors in their reporting, but mix-ups that obvious should serve as a warning flag to viewers that what they were watching wasn't very accurate.

One of the first faces to appear being interviewed by E!, was a woman by the name of Anne Kilkenny. Oddly enough, they ran a segment of Kilkenny discussing Governor Palin's religious background. This is odd because Kilkenny is a Wasilla resident most known for filling part of the vacuum created when the McCain campaign fumbled media coverage of the VP selection roll-out in 2008. Kilkenny, an active Democrat, submitted a highly inaccurate, politically motivated email to national news agencies during that time. She is responsible for establishing some of the earliest misnomers and outright lies about Governor Palin, many of which hinting that the governor is some sort of religious extremist. On the E! program, Kilkenny also repeats the meme she helped to create, that Governor Palin wanted to ban books in the Wasilla Library while she was Mayor. Thankfully, E! also interviewed the former Wasilla Deputy Mayor, Judy Patrick who shot down that lie by stating "I can not say that strongly enough, that she did not ask for any books to be banned."

Another face featured throughout the only slightly true Alaska story, was Andy Barr of Politico fame, and someone I affectionately refer to as "Skippy." Barr does his part to downplay the level of corruption Alaskans were dealing with at the time that Governor Palin resigned in protest from the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. This subsequently downplays her actions to bring that corruption to light, and discounts the effect she had in helping clean up the states business.

Barr also brings up the ridiculous Bush Doctrine clip from the Charlie Gibsin interview, during the 2008 presidential campaign. According to Skippy, the Bush Doctrine is specifically "using force before a situation escalates." It's amusing that liberals tried to make a political point with this in 2008, and it still is today. The left are the only people who used that phrase. Republicans as a whole, had no idea what Gibson specifically meant by that question, as he condescendingly peered over his glasses at the governor.

The E! show used some of the journalists they interviewed (including Skippy) to discuss what is known as "Troopergate." Overall the program did a very poor job of covering this topic. Barr said that the ethics commission found that Governor Palin "probably violated ethics rules" in the matter but in all actuality the Alaska Personnel Board cleared Governor Palin of any wrongdoing, and that was never disclosed on this show.

Another topic E! touched on but failed, was Palin's resignation from the governorship. They amusingly interviewed a well known personality in Alaska, named Shannyn Moore to talk about it. For those of you who don't know who Moore is, this would be the equivalent of interviewing Rush Limbaugh to discuss Barack Obama's term as Senator... Moore states that when Governor Palin returned to Alaska from the 2008 campaign, she "came home to absolutely no friends." And by "fiends" Moore means her own friends in Democrat politics. E! never discusses the avalanche of frivolous "ethics" complaints that Moore's friends were filling against the governor, nor do they mention the toll that this was taking on conducting state business.

During the interview, Shannyn Moore tries to imply that Governor Palin was torn between her role as Alaska's Governor, and national politics. In another geographical error for the program, Moore states that Palin was attending "anti-choice rallies" in "Ohio" and "California." But in reality, Governor Palin had only attended one pro-life event in Indiana. Moore and her friends pitched public fits any time Governor Palin did anything, much less leave the state for 36 hours after discussing it with legislators.. They created phony controversies out of nothing, and trashed Palin on a daily basis. One wouldn't get that impression from watching the E! program.

Many people were interviewed over the course of the show. While I am happy that they spoke to a couple of people who defended the governor, I am still astonished by the particular critics they chose to talk to. Granted the show was only an hour long, and I will concede that they cleared up some old rumors about the governor; however, viewers won't come away with very accurate picture about who Sarah Palin is.

As stated above, I think the main reason to produce such a show about Governor Palin is push into the public conscious that she belongs in the world of celebrity, over the world of politics. While it's true that the governor did an eight-part series for TLC, mostly showcasing her state of Alaska, she isn't currently on any non-news related television, nor is she taking part in anything related to Hollywood. Anybody who saw or read her speech from Wisconsin, or keeps up with her on Facebook, knows where Governor Palin's strengths are. This is a woman who has battled corruption, has been the first to take on the current administration on major issues, and has proved her strength by helping many commonsense conservatives get elected last November. She isn't going to be marginalized into some meaningless celebrity status just because the entertainment industry wishes it so.

Wonkette is Paying the Price

2011-04-21T21:24:00.000-07:00

Four days after "writer" Jack Stuef posted his depraved attempt at humor by attacking the Palin family, Wonkette finally removed the disgusting article from their site. While it's a good thing that particular item has been swept from existence, there is really no reason to be too excited about the move. As William Jacobson notes:

First, the point for me was not to get the post taken down, it was to hold Ken Layne, the owner of Wonkette, responsible for a long history of mocking Trig Palin at Wonkette. The most recent post was not even the worst. The other posts mocking Trig Palin, linked in my prior posts, remain active. The writer this time, Jack Stuef, did nothing worse than other Wonkette writers and editors have done repeatedly.

Second, there is no true regret or acknowledgment by Layne. Even in this belated removal, in reaction to advertisers pulling ads from Wonkette, Layne cannot hide his disdain. The actions of Layne are nothing more than a post-conviction apology from someone who is upset only that he got caught.

I couldn't agree more. The only reason Wonkette did this was because so many of their advertisers chose to do the right thing, and yanked their ads off of that site. The writers at Wonkette claim in the note that they left in place of the old piece (which we will not be linking) that they did this because people associated with special needs children asked them to. They wrote:

"[W]e have decided to remove the post as requested by some people who have nothing to do with Sarah Palin, but who do have an interest in the cause of special needs children."

I have no doubt that special needs advocates asked them to remove it, but I highly doubt that they did so because of it. As Jacobson noted, the other vile posts directed at Trig Palin are still available on their site. After reading the responses from their editors over the past couple of days, it's hard to imagine them finally understanding that mocking the disabled is despicable behavior. If they know that, they don't care and they have made that abundantly clear.

Over the course of the last couple of days, a few things have bothered me (aside from wondering if half of my countrymen souls are polluted beyond repair) that I would like to address.

First, a couple of people on our side have approached me about their misgivings over confronting companies who gave Wonkette their advertising dollars. They cite "freedom of speech" as their main (and only) point for disagreeing with those of us who asked these companies to reconsider their ad placement. What these people don't understand is that everything that happened was free speech. From the initial posting of the Stuef piece, to the vocal outrage from the many people they offended, to the advertisers reactions, to the pulling of the piece by Wonkette. Nobody was forced by some bureaucrat or police officer to comply with speech codes.

What kind of country, or world for that matter, do we want to live in? There comes a time when good people have had enough, and elect to express their own free speech rights by voting with their dollars. We didn't go after Wonkette because of their leftist politics. If that were the case, we would have gone after them and so many others a long time ago. They are free to be as left-leaning as they wish to be, that is not the issue. The issue is decency, and respect for the living.

The other thing that has bothered me is that many on the left chose to use this opportunity to attack Governor Palin by saying she uses her precious young boy as a "prop." For some reason, this is a much more acceptable position to hold on the left. It allows them to act as though they are taking the high ground by denouncing Jack Stuef, but at the same time they are slamming the governor for merely holding her own child. William Jacobson also covered this topic in a different post where he wrote:

Isn't this really what it is all about? The folks at Wonkette and their compatriots don't seem to mind photos of the Obama kids, or other children of politicians. They don't even seem to mind photos of the other Palin children.

Trig alone has been singled out as a "Prop." It's only when Sarah Palin treats Trig the way she would any of her other children that they are up in arms.

It is certainly curious the way they react to a mother holding her special needs child. THEY are the ones who are demeaning Trig Palin by saying that. There is something very dehumanizing about referring to an individual as a "prop." The people on the left need to sit back and reflect why it is that they are outraged that this mother would hold her own baby in public. Why do they find it so "offensive?" Jacobson suspects that there is more under the surface. He writes:

There is something about a Down syndrome child in plain view which has exposed the moral and emotional bankruptcy of the left-wing of the Democratic party. And they hate Sarah Palin because deep down, they hate themselves for being who they are.

Ken Layne and Jack Stuef need to do some soul searching, and stop blaming Trig Palin and Sarah Palin for their own emotional shortcomings.

I doubt he's far off on that.

Many companies have pulled their ads from Wonkette's site and now they are paying a heavy price for messing with the wrong kid. To all those who helped and continue to help reach out to the companies advertising on Wonkette, thank you. You all took a stand for the little guy. You decided what kind of world you want to live in. One in which a special little boy can enjoy his young life in a loving family without the general public bullying and badgering him for his differences. To all the companies who chose to do the right thing, you will be getting my business.

To the folks at Wonkette (including their readers) take a break from the hatred for awhile. Look at what you have allowed yourselves to become. Your minds are so filled venom, you can't even tell the difference between right and wrong anymore. This is real basic Golden Rule, "treat others as you would like to be treated" kind of stuff. Snap out of it. We can disagree on politics all day long and still respect each other as human beings, can we not? I guess we'll see.

To the Brainwashed with Polluted Souls

2011-04-20T23:05:00.000-07:00

Its Mind Control, Corruption Of Your Thoughts
Destruction Of Your Soul
Don't Let Them Mold Your Mind, They Want To Control Mankind
Seems Like Their Only Intention Is To Distort This Earth,
And You Trust In Their Deceit, Your Mind Causes Your Defeat,
And So You Become The Invention That Distort This Earth
Propaganda And Lies, Is A Plague In Our Lives
How Much More Victimized, Before We Realize
Its Mind Control, Mind Control

"Class Warfare" Won't Work on Governor Palin

2011-04-17T15:16:00.000-07:00

Something that became patently obvious after President Obama delivered his speech to the nation about the budget last week, was that not only is he now in campaign mode but his message will essentially be centered around what is considered "class warfare." As Congressman Paul Ryan stated after the president's speech:

I’m sincerely disappointed that the president, at a moment when we are putting ideas on the table, to try and engage in a thoughtful dialogue to fix this country’s economic and fiscal problems, decided to pour on the campaign rhetoric, launches re-election and passed partisan broadsides against us and making it that much harder for the two parties to come together with mutual respect of one another to get things done.

With entitlement debates ragging across the country, union involvement, and the left's tendency to pit groups of people against each other for their own gain, it's no surprise that team Obama would take this route. How effective his strategy is depends on who the Republicans pick to represent them in the 2012 election. It's much easier to envision this political (and no doubt media driven) narrative could take hold if the GOP where to nominate a run-of-the-mill, milquetoast establishment Republican. The same cannot be said about Governor Palin, if she does decide to run. But that won't stop them from trying.

In an attempt to use this tactic against Governor Palin, the IAFF Local 311 Firefighters Union put out a ridiculous call to action last week. The union has since removed the text from their original posting, but not before Jim Hoft saved a copy of it. It read:

Saturday, April 16
State Capitol
11 a.m. – 2 p.m.

Leave Station #1 at 11 a.m.
(Call J.R. for more info at 216-****)

Come one, come all, hear the call to . . .DUMP TEA! DUMP PALIN!

Please share widely. The puppets are coming, the puppets are coming! Corporate puppets Sarah Palin and “Americans” for “Prosperity” are rallying at our Wisconsin State Capitol on 4/16.

BRING PUPPETS — sock puppets, hand puppets, marionettes, shadow puppets, finger puppets and muppets!

BRING LIBERTY BELLS — that means cowbells, dinner bells, doorbells, jingle bells, you name it, and let’s ring in Wisconsin’s independence from corporate rule!

Let’s show ‘em how we really feel about big corporations passing the tax burden on to the rest of us!

The notion that Governor Palin is a "corporate puppet" is downright absurd, especially to those who are familiar with her actual record. That union is clearly banking on the fact that their members are ignorant, or at least willing to push lies.

Amanda Coyne, a journalist from Alaska who by no means is known for having a pro Palin bias, pointed out how wrong this is via her Twitter page:

Frankly the "Palin is a corporate puppet" meme is ridiculous. She's a lot of things, but that she's not.

Coyne knows Governor Palin's history and she is aware that reality clashes with what the IAFF Local 311 was selling. The governor took on the oil companies and their relationship with the corrupt members of the GOP, directly in Alaska. There's even a book titled "Sarah takes on Big Oil." Corporate puppets don't generally have books written about them on how they "took on big" anything.

It isn't just Governor Palin that this class warfare angle won't work on, it's also the Tea Party movement as a whole. A typical class warfare strategy paints the left's adversaries as greedy "billionaires" and "millionaires," but the Tea Party consists mainly of working class, patriotic Americans who are also overtaxed and feel over burdened by government intrusion. That's why the left tries to pivot to the phony "racist" meme all too often regarding Tea Party Americans. It's much easier for them to lie and say tea partiers hurled racist slurs at Democrat politicians, than it is to lie and say a middle class patriot is really a selfish bazillionaire who wants to see poor people suffer.

The Tea Party is just as sick of the back room deal making and crony rewarded system, as they are about tax rates that hurt all Americans. This is one reason that Governor Palin's message and record resonates with the Tea Party. As James Pethokoukis noted in his recent article about the governor's speech in Wisconsin:

But as it stands, she arguably represents the purest expression out there of Tea Party passion and free-market populist rejection of Washington’s bipartisan crony capitalism. If she ran, her high-wattage appearance in Madison shows just how dangerous her candidacy would be to a field of solid but stolid opponents.

See, the professional left knows all of this. They may try to sneak a fast one by, as they did with that IAFF announcement, but it doesn't pass the smell test. They can't honestly make this argument against Governor Palin in the open without being called out on it. This is one reason they fear the governor over the Mitt Romney's of the world. She effectively removes a powerful weapon from their arsenal of lies, one of which they depend on to win elections.

The left made fools of themselves last Saturday in more ways than one. But nothing looks more foolish than having one of Barack Obama's (a man with more than his fair share of cronies) "rent a mobs" attempt to distort the character of Governor Palin by painting her as a "corporate puppet." It's obvious who the puppets are in this debate, and it certainly isn't Governor Palin.

Pawlenty Claims to be a "Serious Person" While Likening Governor Palin to Hulk Hogan

2011-04-13T21:46:00.000-07:00

During an interview with CNN earlier this week, Tim Pawlenty took a strange yet arrogant swipe at Governor Palin. Politico reported:

Tim Pawlenty implied Tuesday that there are some less-than-serious presidential hopefuls eyeing the race, with a quip that seemed to lump Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and Donald Trump together with wrestling icon Hulk Hogan.
"You're going to have, you know, Mitt Romney who will start out as the front-runner with the most name-ID and money..." Pawlenty told CNN’s Piers Morgan in handicapping the race. "And on the other end of the continuum, you'll have perhaps Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Donald Trump, or I don't know, maybe Hulk Hogan will get in the race too. Who knows? But I think in between those two things on the continuum, there's a role for a serious person who has tackled these kinds of issues. We live in very serious times and the country's facing a grave challenge. And if we're going to restore America's promise, we're going to have to get back to leadership that is steady, clear and strong."

"Hulk Hogan," T-Paw... Really?

First he overstates Mitt Romney's "front-runner" status, as recent polling indicates that Mitt is losing support. Then he downplays Governor Palin's record by neglecting to acknowledge any of her almost two decades of experience in public service, including the Chief Executive for the State of Alaska.

Then he says, "[b]ut I think in between those two things on the continuum, there's a role for a serious person who has tackled these kinds of issues." Since when is Governor Palin NOT a "serious person?" Spearheading Conservative opposition to the White House on every issue, is indicative of a very serious individual.

Pawlenty ignored the governor's record, then attempted to tout his own by adding that line about getting "back to leadership that is steady, clear and strong." Since there hasn't been much in the news or on the blogs about Pawlenty's record, let's take a look at it, shall we?

Left Coast Rebel is one blogger who has had Pawlenty's number for some time. He recently posted a piece highlighting T-Paw's past position on Cap and Trade and other hot-button issues. He wrote:

Former Minnesota Governor has been caught with his hand in the "hey, look at me, conservative base I'm a global warming skeptic" cookie jar by Think Progress, of all sources. Think Progress has this audio taken from Laura Ingraham's show that highlights his hypocrisy:

Pawlenty's past indiscretions against the limited government movement don't just stop at support of junk science legislation.

I wrote this in 2009, alerting true conservatives and libertarians to the fact that I think Pawlenty is a liberal wolf in pseudo-conservative sheep's clothing:

I believe and know Pawlenty to be in the big-spending GOP camp. He would be a terrible choice. Albeit he would predictably start to strut around his conservative ideals only to govern like another quasi-RINO...

Cato lists plenty of Pawlenty's big-government spending track record. He was a big runner-up for VP under McCain.

Some of the things listed at the Cato Institute that Tim Pawlenty stood by in Minnesota:

* Supports Massachusetts-style health care reform, including a “health care exchange” and an individual mandate.

* Has called for banning all prescription drug advertising, and seeks government imposed price controls for drugs offered through Medicare.

* Proposed a $4000 per child preschool program for low-income children.

* Pushed a statewide smoking ban smoking ban in workplaces, restaurants and bars.

* Imposed some of the most aggressive and expensive renewable energy mandates in the country.

* Was an ardent supporter of the farm bill.

* Received only a “C” ranking on Cato’s 2006 Governor’s Report Card, finishing below such Democrats as Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack and tied with Democratic Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.

You can read the whole piece here.

Pawlenty's history of creating massive government bureaucracy by going along with the Cap and Trade scheme, supporting RomneyCare like insurance mandates, and other over-reaching government programs proves that he lacks the ability to take real leadership with the issues our country currently faces. Those have been the so-called "solutions" of the past that are at the very root of the problem.

Speaking of leadership, where was then Governor Tim Pawlenty during the whole Coleman - Franken debacle? After claiming that there was "credible evidence of fraud," he turned the other cheek and certified the election results anyway.

If Governor Palin is such a marginal character, and Pawlenty is such a wonderful leader, why is he trying to replicate everything from her book cover to her policy positions? The budget debate has been raging in DC for weeks now. Governor Palin has made her position clear from day one. When the Republicans and Democrats finally came to agreement last week, Governor Palin was the first potential GOP candidate to speak up, doing so last Saturday on Fox. Pawlenty waited until Wednesday to say anything, which also just so happened to be the same day that the CBO reported it's findings that the cuts within the deal only added up to a mere $353 million, instead of the $38 billion originally reported, much less the $100 billion pledged by Republicans during last election season.

Pawlenty can downplay Governor Palin's record to the press because they will let him. They won't point out her achievements or history of fiscal discipline to challenge the narrative his campaign is trying to create. That's a given. When however, will they start asking Pawlenty questions regarding his own record? From what I've seen, he's been able thus far to give interviews listing his talking points, and offering somewhat empty platitudes to the Conservative base. I realize that the media sees nothing wrong with the big government, nanny-state mentality of the Tim Pawlenty's of the world, but the voters he's reaching out to might take issue with it.

The Strategy of the Media's Bias

2011-04-05T21:40:00.000-07:00

The Associated Press and Politico found it necessary to report Bristol Palin's honest wages to the broad public, via their respective front page. Whether their reporting was honest, is another matter. It's hard to tell considering that Rachel D'Oro (a name longtime C4P readers are familiar with), author of the first MSM piece, used the Trig Truther freaks at "Palingates" as a source. Using terms like "rakes it in" and getting a "payout," these so-called "news" articles are clearly designed to sell a narrative that the media has been pushing about Bristol's mother for a long time. There is nothing wrong with what Bristol did for the foundation she worked for. This "story" belongs nowhere near a front page, much less a news publication. It isn't a story, it's one young woman's life. Running this piece, with vile conspiracy theorists as the source, is disgraceful behavior by an already close to illegitimate press.

Kelsey has more on Bristol here.

For many years I believed that the media had a blanket left-wing bias towards all Conservatives. It has been proven lately that there is more of a strategy at play, in regards to what the media reports and what they don't, versus knee-jerk ideology. Take for instance this story that popped up a few days ago on Mother Jones:

Send a public records request seeking documents from his 12-year stint as Arkansas governor, as Mother Jones did recently, and an eyebrow-raising reply will come back: The records are unavailable, and the computer hard drives that once contained them were erased and physically destroyed by the Huckabee administration as the governor prepared to leave office and launch a presidential bid.

In 2007, during Huckabee's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination, the issue of the eradicated hard drives surfaced briefly, but it was never fully examined, and key questions remain. Why had Huckabee gone to such great lengths to wipe out his own records? What ever happened to a backup collection that was provided to a Huckabee aide?

Huckabee is now considering another presidential run, and if he does enter the race, he would do so as a frontrunner. Which would make the case of the missing records all the more significant. These records would shed light on Huckabee's governorship—and could provide insight into how a President Huckabee might run the country. Meanwhile, observers of Arkansas' political scene—including one of Huckabee's former GOP allies—say the episode is characteristic of a politician who was distrustful and secretive by nature.

A truly fascinating piece of information, especially for a "GOP front-runner," is it not? Yet, there were no corresponding stories from AP and the only thing Politico had on it was a link buried on Ben Smith's blog page. Why didn't the media cover this? Doesn't the public have a right to know what kind of behavior a potential candidate for the presidency took part in? Can you imagine if Governor Palin ever would have done such a thing? I would bet every dollar I have ever made, and ever will make, that that story wouldn't be buried in a link in the blog section. It would be Top Story news, in every media publication, and on every network.

Speaking of 'what ifs'... What if Governor Palin had said this:

Bachmann, who's flirting with a presidential run, was in the early-primary state of Iowa last week for the Rediscover God in America conference. Bachmann was born in Iowa, as she told the crowd. But she couldn't leave it at just being an ordinary Iowan:

"I'm actually even more than just an Iowan," she told her audience. "I'm a seventh-generation Iowan. Our family goes back to the 1850s, to the first pioneers that came to Iowa from Sognfjord, Norway."
[...]
Unfortunately, the story doesn't hold water, as researcher Chris Rodda ably points out at OpEdNews.

"I was watching her speech, and it was when she said that she was a seventh-generation Iowan that I knew something was wrong," Rodda tells City Pages. "She's in her fifties--there's no way there could be seven generations between her and ancestors in the 1850s."
So Rodda, who has a background in genealogical research, decided to do a little digging. Without too much trouble, she found that Bachmann is actually a fourth-generation American, not seventh, as she claimed. And that's just the start.
Bachmann's immigrant ancestors didn't make a pilgrimage straight to the promised land of Iowa. From Quebec, they went to Wisconsin. That's where the 1860 census found them. From there, they moved to the Dakota Territory.

Bachmann claims that her people "kept going, and they persevered" through floods and crippling winters. Well, kind of. After enduring those trials in the unforgiving Dakota Territory, they actually turned tail and retreated to the relative ease and safety of...Iowa.

"Okay," Bachmann apologists may be saying at this point, "but history is hard and stuff! Maybe this was just an honest mistake."

Not a chance, Rodda says.

"The only historical sources where she could have found some of the details of her story--like the 13-week ocean passage--also clearly show that her family went to Wisconsin, not Iowa," Rodda says. "She couldn't have known those things without knowing that the whole premise of her speech was a lie."

You really can't blame Bachmann for that though. Tuesday night on O'Reilly, she stated (4:32 mark) that she just reads whatever is on the teleprompter. She also indicated during the interview that she isn't "afraid" of media attacks on her. After the mainstream media let a whole speech full of pandering distortions, slide on by without mere mention, I wouldn't be afraid if I were Bachmann either. At least, not at this point.

I think my Twitter buddy, Val said it best today:

Liberals & Dems SHOULD fear @SarahPalinUSA in 2012, b/c she is thee ONLY candidate who will NOT have an October surprise!

Clearly that has a lot to do with the strategy being implemented by the media, in this pre-primary season.

Here we have three possible contenders for the GOP nomination in the upcoming presidential election of 2012. While all three claim the mantle of "Conservative," one is treated very differently than the others. The reason for this is something I eluded to in my last blog post. The media and the left will promote and omit news that will help them in the long-run. For Governor Palin, there will be no "October surprise." Every little detail of her life is already out in the open. She would be the most intensely scrutinized candidate in our nation's history. With the other two possible candidates, that is simply not the case.

Let's face it, the other two Republicans here don't have the same name recognition as Governor Palin. Huckabee has been largely unscrutinized for years, and most people outside the world of politics, don't know who Michele Bachmann is. Governor Palin and her family are recognizable faces to rake over the coals.

With Governor Palin, the leftist media is forced to throw everything at her, as soon as they can. They do whatever they can think of to try and damage her in any way possible. With the others, they can afford to wait. This is after all, a strategy with the re-election of Obama in mind. The left, and their partners in the press know what's at stake. They don't want to face Governor Palin in a general election, but the others look like walk in the park in comparison. They will save their bias and garbage reporting for a more strategically significant date. At the right time, they will unload all the information they held from the public on these candidates, given the opportunity. Let's not give it to them.

Why is the Left Promoting Michele Bachmann?

2011-04-02T01:24:00.000-07:00

Suzy Khimm, a writer from the left-wing site Mother Jones, published an article on Friday titled "Bachmann vs. Palin: Who's the Better 2012 Candidate?" The piece presents both Bachmann and Governor Palin as "hard-right Republican firebrands" in the beginning, then heads down a much different path. Khimm writes (emphasis mine):

But though Palin and Bachmann may seem like GOP doppelgangers, there's a lot separating them as well. And the differences have led a growing chorus of Beltway watchers to conclude that Bachmann would actually be the more credible candidate of the two. Having watched the Minnesota congresswoman on the trail for years, Minnesota political operatives on both sides of the aisle warn against simply laughing off Bachmann. "You underestimate Michele Bachmann at your own peril," says Zach Rodvold, the campaign manager for her Democratic opponent in 2010.

Gee, doesn't that line from Zach Rodvold sound familiar? Former opponents of Governor Palin have also sounded such alarms. They aren't alone. In fact, a lot of people have warned rivals not to underestimate the governor, including former presidents. Bill Parker, a well-known Alaska Democrat once said "she came out of nowhere and beat us like a drum."

Khimm's piece goes on to list the reasons why she thinks Bachmann is a better candidate for Conservatives to "rally behind." She states that "Bachmann's an organizer," then she downplays Governor Palin's popularity as solely being "built on the celebrity status and enormous platform she gained as Sen. John McCain's running mate."As a supporter of Governor Palin's BEFORE John McCain picked her to be his running mate in 2008 - based in Southern California of all places - I reject the writer's statement outright.

Governor Palin was a rare voice pushing for better energy policies in this nation, when I first started following her career in 2007. After learning about how she took on the corrupt establishment of her own party, the governor had me organized, if you will. I followed her lead in writing a letter to Harry Reid arguing in favor of opening ANWR. That's natural leadership. Certainly Bachmann's organizational and speaking abilities are commendable, but they shouldn't be hyped in an effort to downplay Governor Palin's long, successful career.

The next item in Khimm's piece states that "Bachmann has a sense of humor." She then, amazingly writes:

In the wake of the Tucson shooting, Palin accused her critics of "blood libel" after she was attacked for putting crosshairs on a 2010 campaign map, igniting yet another media firestorm. Palin's addiction to feuding has made her enemies on both sides of the aisle.

Did you get that? Governor Palin doesn't have a sense of humor because she didn't find it humorous how the left and their lapdogs in the press were accusing her of being an accessory to murder. That was supposed to be a joke, don't you know. Somehow, not only did Governor Palin not get the joke, but it flew over the Tea Party's head too. Considering they were also accused of being accessories to a slaughter. All while, with the exception of a couple of Republican senators, the GOP remained utterly silent. Nobody was laughing.

Khimm's third point as to why Michele Bachmann is better for Conservatives than Palin is that "Bachmann's better at thinking on her feet." To prove her point, the writer proclaims that Governor Palin had "missteps" after being "thrust onto the national stage," then concedes that Bachmann "hasn't been put under the same national magnifying glass." Leaving aside the location of the Battles of Concord and Lexington, Khimm goes on to quote Bachmann's congressional opponent mentioned earlier, Zach Rodvold's campaign manger saying "she sounds knowledgeable, she sticks to her message, and repeats it." If you're trying to prove that somebody is good at thinking on their feet, why would you add a quote that indicates that person is choreographed? That's a less than convincing argument.

Khimm's forth item on the list states that "Bachmann knows how to use the national media." I'm starting to wonder if that's not the other way around... Khimm writes about Governor Palin's relationship with the media, the way you can imagine any left-wing writer would write about the topic. But then, she praises Bachmann for her many appearances on MSNBC. The last time I checked, Michele Bachmann wasn't photoshopped on to a different woman's body, who was wearing a bikini, then had that image used as if it were a regular news graphic on MSNBC. I also don't recall MSNBC pushing conspiracies about Bachmann motivating a massacre. I could waste my entire weekend citing examples of things said and done to Governor Palin on MSNBC, that they have not done to any other public figure.

Then there's the matter of Governor Palin being a Fox New contributor. As with all other Fox contributors, the governor is no doubt restricted by her contract from appearing on other networks. She appeared on CNN, NBC, and others before she signed a contract with Fox. To criticize her for not going on MSNBC is about as fair as criticizing her for not knowing how to surf, considering she grew up in Alaska. There are many reasons why Governor Palin (like most of the country) avoids that MSNBC.

Last but not least, on Khimm's list of Bachmann's conservative attributes is "Bachmann's not a quitter." Because what self-respecting liberal can write a whole article about Governor Palin without writing the word "quitter." Khimm doesn't tell her readers why Governor Palin resigned. Instead she claims the governor gave "the distinct impression that she didn't care for the dirty work of governing." She then tries to connect it by writing that Bachmann never resigned her House seat to pursue higher office. Why would she have? Bachman hasn't been hampered from governing like Governor Palin was by a cluster-storm of frivolous lawsuits (some for doing interviews with the media, by the way). Bachmann hasn't had to deal with a full-court press against her from a national political party. She hasn't had her state's business put on hold, her constituents tax-dollars spent to deal with an onslaught of operative tactics. Apples and oranges, Suzy. Apples and oranges.

The non-stop comparisons between Governor Palin and Michele Bachmann are somewhat irritating, but when columnists start touting a favorite, they becomes suspect. Suzy Khimm isn't alone pushing this agenda, so expect to see more of it. Beware of left-wingers giving advice to Conservatives. Their advice will never be in our best interest.

Perhaps they know something more about Bachmann's electability than they're letting on. If you think about it, we know little about Bachmann's life. The media has not gone after her in the same way they have gone after Governor Palin (and don't get me wrong, I'm not wishing such a fate on anyone; though it will happen eventually to whomever the nominee is when Obama's machine goes after that person). Bachmann's voting record, some of the things she has said, her family, are all relatively untouched in comparison to the governor, and the left knows it. They have managed to throw everything they have at Governor Palin, expose every detail (real or made-up) about of her life, even accuse her of mass murder, and still, the governor stands tall above their feeble efforts to diminish her. They know what a true threat Governor Palin is to their power and their agenda. They don't promote people who have the capacity to damage them in either arena.

Does Jim Geraghty Understand Marketing?

2011-03-29T20:37:00.000-07:00

Jim Geraghty has penned an article criticizing Governor Palin for a law she signed in 2008 that offers tax breaks to film companies who do business in Alaska. Geraghty states that the production company for "Sarah Palin's Alaska" took part in the program and that it might be "problematic" for the governor "on the campaign trail."

He writes:

It isn’t too hard to imagine this becoming problematic for Sarah Palin on the campaign trail, as noted by the Tax Foundation:

In case you missed it, small government crusader and Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin’s TLC reality show “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” received a $1.2 million subsidy from the state of Alaska. The show spent $3.6 million on production in the state, meaning that Alaskan taxpayers covered a third of the cost of the show. The show will apparently not have a second season.

Everything Palin has done has been perfectly legal, but it looks problematic for a crusader for small government to end up collecting a seven-figure paycheck from an endeavor that received a seven-figure subsidy, all set up by a program she signed into law. Of course, Palin set up the subsidy in 2008, and the TLC series wasn’t filmed until the summer of 2010, after Palin resigned as governor.

Which begs the question.... What's the problem?

If Governor Palin signed a law in 2008, and somebody she had a business agreement with took advantage of that law in 2010 (while she was no longer in office), where is the issue? Governor Palin was not in charge of the show's production. Any decision by her was made well before she even considered doing her own show. The decision to take the tax break from the state, was not made by her, but by the production company.

I think Geraghty realizes that there is nothing to say Governor Palin did anything wrong regarding this, so he quickly changed direction in his piece by adding this update:

Alaska may be unique, in that the revenues from petroleum enable it to enjoy no state sales tax and no individual income tax, the lowest individual tax burden in the country. Oil revenues have meant that the state enjoys better budgetary circumstances and lower unemployment than most other states. So a conservative may argue that in an era of a $1.6 trillion annual federal deficits, federal funding for PBS, NPR, the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities may be unaffordable luxuries, while finding no particular problem with the state of Alaska choosing to pay millions to subsidize television programming that they believe promotes the state’s image and attracts tourism dollars.

Still, should governments be in the business of subsidizing television programs? The precise arguments against PBS and NPR – that in today’s much more diversified media environment, almost all of the programming on government-funded radio and television networks could thrive in the private sector without government subsidy – would apply to the Alaska-based shows, no?

My first issue with Geraghty's argument here is that he blurs federally funded programs with state-run programs. While I do take issue with the federal government funding programs that bring little to no return (fiscally speaking) I have no objections with states creating their own programs that they believe could benefit themselves.

Alaskans understand that tourism is an important arm of their overall economy. The cruise industry alone, brings over $1 billion to Alaska's economy annually. The program that Governor Palin signed into law only allocated $100 million, which it has only spent a fraction of up to this point. In my view, these tax incentives offered to the film industry - in a state as beautiful as Alaska - are akin to marketing expenses any business is familiar with.

An AP article from February states:

The real Alaska has finally joined the A-list.

Long a bit player in the entertainment world, the 49th state increasingly is sought out by TV and film producers for its unmatchable lure of spectacular beauty and peril, of wild adventures and dangerous jobs.

And they're actually shooting in the nation's largest and most remote state instead of locations dolled up to portray Alaska, as multiple projects have done.

Alaska's new film production tax credit program has only ramped up the state's evolving Q quotient, attracting several dozen projects since it was launched in 2008.

"People are curious about Alaska. They're curious about Alaskans. They're curious about Alaska jobs," said Alaska Film Office manager Dave Worrell.

Most of the productions are based in TV reality: "Deadliest Catch," "Ice Road Truckers," "Gold Rush Alaska," Alaska State Troopers," "Flying Wild Alaska" and, of course, the recently concluded special eight-part series, "Sarah Palin's Alaska," to
name a few.

There also has been a noticeable uptick in interest from feature filmmakers - where the big money is.

A major production starring Drew Barrymore, "Everybody Loves Whales," and a supernatural thriller starring Jon Voight filmed in Alaska last year, adding to a trickle of feature films over the years with actual footage in Alaska.

So, essentially the Alaska state-run program will go above and beyond just promoting Alaska as a tourist destination. With larger productions taking interest, the program has opened the doors to an entirely new industry.

I think Jim Geraghty has an issue with the government providing tax incentives to the entertainment industry because it's the entertainment industry. Otherwise, I'm sure he would be penning articles decrying energy subsidies in Texas, and tech subsidies in Tennessee, right?

Joe Biden's Staff Lock Journalist in a Closet for Hours

2011-03-26T20:23:00.000-07:00

Some say that Governor Palin has a contentious relationship with the press. She has had to issue statements on occasion, to correct the record concerning false information the media reported. Although journalists have spread countless distortions and contrived non-controversies against the governor, she has never reacted to them in the way the current Vice President did today. The British Daily Mail reported (emphasis mine):

As the unaware $500-a-head invitees dined on caprese crostini with oven-dried mozzarella and basil, rosemary flatbread with grapes honey and gorgonzola cheese, grilled chicken Caesar and garden vegetable wraps, veteran reporter Scott Powers was locked away.
The Orlando Sentinel reporter was ushered into the closet inside wealthy property developer Alan Ginsburg’s Winter Falls mansion, after being told that Joe Biden and Senator Bill Nelson had not yet arrived.
They were due to speak to the audience to raise money for the 2012 elections.
He was told he could only come out when the politicians were ready to give their speeches.

[...]
After 90 minutes he was allowed out to hear Biden and Nelson speak for 35 minutes, before being taken back to the closet for the remainder of the event.
From inside his temporary prison Powers emailed his office from his cell phone: ‘Sounds like a nice party.
[...]
But some guests were shocked by the Vice President’s staff.
One emailed the paper saying: ‘I was in attendance at the Fundraiser and enjoyed a nice lunch.
‘If I had known there was a reporter stuffed in the closet, I would have been compelled to stand up and demand answers.
‘I would also like to know if this is actually legal to treat people like caged animals. I’m disgusted by these actions.’
Florida state law says kidnapping entails ‘forcibly, secretly or by threat confining, abducting or imprisoning another person against her or his will and without lawful authority.’
[...]
The incident is especially embarrassing for the administration because it comes at a time when the White House has been condemning the treatment of journalists trying to report in Libya.
Just ten days ago, President Obama’s spokesman Jay Carney told reporters: ‘journalists should be protected and allowed to do their work.’
The Vice President’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

I certainly hope Mr. Powers recovers from his ordeal covering the Democrat fundraiser.

Tony Lee: Sarah Palin's Potentially Inclusive Message In India

2011-03-23T23:14:00.000-07:00

Human Events writer Tony Lee, posted a very insightful article about the speech Governor Palin delivered in India over the weekend. Lee shares his keen analisys of the message the governor was sending to both Indians and Americans. He writes:

Palin told her audience that she “grew up in a very small town, perhaps like some of you (though half-a-world-away)” that was “far from the avenues of political power.” Palin talked about “Pioneer Peak,” one of the mountains close to her home that is a symbol of the pioneering spirit of the frontier and Alaska, referred to as “the last frontier.”

She then linked the frontier spirit, which loathes centralized bureaucracies, to India’s rise. Palin said that she knew Indians understood this “because in the early 1990′s, due to clear, commonsense, pro free-market reforms, India’s economy took off! You abolished import licenses; cut import duties; removed investment caps & broke the union’s grip on industry.”

Palin said that when government’s grip was lessened, Indians “unleashed the creativity & hard work of the Indian people; you turned away from a system where ‘central government’ sets targets for all sectors of the economy, to a system that lets the market set its own targets.”

It is this theme that I think Palin could employ in a future campaign. She can remind Americans who think only central planners in the government have all the answers to look at America’s immigrants and remind themselves of what makes America exceptional. She can then call on Americans to restore the entrepreneurial spirit that is in the air on the frontier and in the blood of newly arrived immigrants to restore America to greatness.

[...]

As she told the Indian audience, though some people may want to think that America is in decline, “I completely reject this … I completely reject this! it represents wrong-headed thinking by our some friends and wishful thinking by our enemies. America’s demise has been predicted before. It didn’t happen then. It won’t happen now.”

Palin then said that, “when people realize even the briefest glimpse of this freedom & opportunity – even a hint that they can succeed through honest hard work – they run towards it! They embrace the promise of ‘better days ahead!’ They will sacrifice today for a better tomorrow for their children & grandchildren. With individual responsibility, drive & determination, they will work together to carve a life for themselves out of the wilderness! They’ll voluntarily contribute to help their neighbours even those half-a-world-away!”

And this, according to Palin, is the “optimistic and pioneering spirit of America’s frontier. That’s the spirit of India’s progress too.”

It's a great piece, and you can read the whole thing here.