Thursday, March 31, 2011

Pot Meets Kettle: Mitt Romney Is Attacking President Obama On Job Creation


So Mitt Romney comes out of hiding once again to talk about jobs. Never mind the rest of the political world is talking foreign entanglements and energy policy.

Writing in USA Today, Romney attacks the President on jobs, and throws out a few focus group tested talking points.

Now granted jobs are a big issue, with true unemployment stuck in the mid-teens, but is Mitt Romney really the "go to guy" on job creation? Mitt's record in both business and as Governor of Massachusetts says not just no, but HELL NO!

Back in mid-February of this year Mitt came out rambling incoherently about jobs and ObamaCare, seemingly oblivious to the fact that he, not Obama, is the father of socialized medicine in America. At the time, we reminded everyone that in February of 2010, Mitt tried the same thing with no success.

Hmm, February, groundhogs ....

Mitt's problem with this, and most issues, is credibility. Oh he talks a good game, but when in a position to play, he's a miserable failure, not a competent Executive.

The Republican contender was the governor of Massachusetts from January 2003 to January 2007. And during that time, according to the U.S. Labor Department, the state ranked 47th in the entire country in jobs growth. Fourth from last.

The only ones that did worse? Ohio, Michigan and Louisiana. In other words, two rustbelt states and another that lost its biggest city to a hurricane.

The Massachusetts jobs growth over that period, a pitiful 0.9%, badly lagged other high-skill, high-wage, knowledge economy states like New York (2.7%), California (4.7%) and North Carolina (7.6%).

The national average: More than 5%.

This was after four years. So far Obama has been in office for just one year. How was Romney’s performance by his first anniversary?

Fiftieth out of fifty.

That’s right. In Romney’s first year in charge, Massachusetts ranked dead last in America in jobs growth.

Fiftieth out of fifty in job creation, and Romney has the temerity to call Obama out. It would be comical if it wasn't so tragic!

Read more about Romney's real record on job creation here.

Oh I know, Mitt's a "businessman" and did well running Bain Capital. Well, yeah, HE did. The employees of the companies his "churn and burn" outfit bought and sold? Not so much.

You can read how Bain Capital destroyed jobs here.

There are a lot of people who think Mitt Romney is up to the task of being President. The problem with that is his record says the exact opposite.

Lack of quality jobs is a major issue in this country, but Romney has already proven that he doesn't have the slightest clue how to remedy the problem. He had four years as Governor of his state to show America what he was made of. He failed miserably.

Mitt Romney calling President Obama out on job creation is the ultimate "pot calling the kettle black" moment!


We need real leadership in this country. Someone with a PROVEN record of successful leadership. Someone who has managed budgets, created huge surpluses, and actually created jobs. Romney is not our guy.

Caveat emptor

Why Taxing The Hell Out Of The Rich Won't Get It Done



Is America really broke? Michael Moore (and others) tells us that there are oceans of cash being hoarded by the wealthy. But Iowahawk (iowahawk.typepad.com) did a little addition, and armed with these statistics Bill and the 'Hawk blow a hole in the "hoarding" lie big enough to fit a documentary filmmaker through.

Bill Whittle teamed up with writer, and hot rodder extraordinaire, David Burge [Iowahawk] to explain why the left's quaint little idea of taxing the hell out of the rich, in order to fix our budget woes, is a fool's errand.

Burge is a national treasure, and his website is a must read! Check his Iowahawk blog here.

Sarah Palin Not all That Pleased With Obama's Insane Energy Policy [And Neither Are We!]


By Gary P Jackson

Energy is the lifeblood of any economy. No energy, no economy. Barack Obama's energy policies, whether by design or sheer ignorance, will end up with America having less energy available, and Americans paying a heck of a lot more for it.

One of the reasons we support Sarah Palin so strongly is her expertise in the energy field. Her hands on experience is invaluable.

As Whitney Pitcher pointed out earlier, when President Obama gave his big energy speech, he couldn't resist taking a shot at Sarah and her "Drill baby, drill" philosophy.

After hearing Obama's uninspiring drivel, Sarah had a few choice words: [emphasis mine]

FLASHBACK: What We Were Saying One Year Ago About Obama’s Failed Energy Policy

It’s unbelievable (literally) the rhetoric coming from President Obama today. This is coming from he who is manipulating the U.S. energy supply. President Obama is once again giving lip service to a "new energy proposal"; but let’s remember the last time he trotted out a "new energy proposal" – nearly a year ago to the day. The main difference is today we have $4 a gallon gas in some places in the country. This is no accident. This administration is not a passive observer to the trends that have inflated oil prices to dangerous levels. His war on domestic oil and gas exploration and production has caused us pain at the pump, endangered our already sluggish economic recovery, and threatened our national security.

Through a process of what candidate Obama once called "gradual adjustment," American consumers have seen prices at the pump rise 67 percent since he took office. Meanwhile, the vast undeveloped reserves that could help to keep prices at the pump affordable remain locked up because of President Obama’s deliberate unwillingness to drill here and drill now. We’re subsidizing offshore drilling in Brazil and purchasing energy from them, instead of drilling ourselves and keeping those dollars circulating in our own economy to generate jobs here. The President said today, "There are no quick fixes." He’s been in office for nearly three years now, and he’s about to launch his $1 billion re-election campaign. When can we expect any "fixes" from him? How high does the price of energy have to go?

So, here’s a little flashback to what I wrote on March 31, 2010, at National Review Online’s The Corner:

Many Americans fear that President Obama’s new energy proposal is once again "all talk and no real action," this time in an effort to shore up fading support for the Democrats’ job-killing cap-and-trade (a.k.a. cap-and-tax) proposals. Behind the rhetoric lie new drilling bans and leasing delays; soon to follow are burdensome new environmental regulations. Instead of "drill, baby, drill," the more you look into this the more you realize it’s "stall, baby, stall."

Today the president said he’ll "consider potential areas for development in the mid and south Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, while studying and protecting sensitive areas in the Arctic." As the former governor of one of America’s largest energy-producing states, a state oil and gas commissioner, and chair of the nation’s Interstate Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, I’ve seen plenty of such studies. What we need is action — action that results in the job growth and revenue that a robust drilling policy could provide. And let’s not forget that while Interior Department bureaucrats continue to hold up actual offshore drilling from taking place, Russia is moving full steam ahead on Arctic drilling, and China, Russia, and Venezuela are buying leases off the coast of Cuba.

As an Alaskan, I’m especially disheartened by the new ban on drilling in parts of the 49th state and the cancellation of lease sales in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. These areas contain rich oil and gas reserves whose development is key to our country’s energy security. As I told Secretary Salazar last April, "Arctic exploration and development is a slow, demanding process. Delays or major restrictions in accessing these resources for environmentally responsible development are not in the national interest or the interests of the State of Alaska."


Since I wrote the above, we have even more evidence of the President’s anti-drilling agenda. We have the moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico as well as the de-facto moratorium in the Arctic. We have his 2012 budget that proposes to eliminate several vital oil and natural gas production tax incentives. We have his anti-drilling regulatory policies that have stymied responsible development. And the list goes on. The President says that we can’t "drill" our way out of the problem. But we can’t drive our cars on solar shingles either.

We have to live in the real world where we must continue to develop the conventional resources that we actually use right now to fuel our economy as we continue to look for a renewable source of energy. If we are looking for an affordable, environmentally friendly, and abundant domestic source of energy, why not turn to our own domestic supply of natural gas? Whether we use it to power natural-gas cars or to run natural-gas power plants that charge electric cars, natural gas is an ideal "bridge fuel" to a future when more renewable sources are available, affordable, and economically viable on their own. It’s a lot more viable than subsidizing boondoggles like these inefficient electric cars that no one wants.

I’m all for electric cars if you can develop one I can actually use in Alaska, where you can drive hundreds of miles without seeing many people, let alone many electrical sockets. But these electric and hybrid cars are not a quick fix because we still need an energy source to power them. That’s why I like natural gas, but we still have to drill for natural gas, and this administration doesn’t like drilling or apparently the jobs that come with responsible oil and natural gas development. They don't have a coherent energy policy. They have piecemeal ideas for subsidizing impractical pet "green" projects.

I have always been in favor of an "all-of-the-above" approach to energy independence, but "all-of-the-above" means conventional resource development too. It means a coherent, practical, and forward-looking energy policy. I wish the President would understand this. The good news is there is nothing wrong with America’s energy policy that another good old-fashion election can’t solve. 2012 is just around the corner.

~ Sarah Palin

As I wrote last year in an article entitled: Obama Asks: "If We Can Put A Man On The Moon, Why Can’t We Give Up Oil?" Here’s Why It’s Impossible, Obama's blue sky, unicorns and rainbows outlook on "green energy" is right out of Fantasyland.

For one thing, after decades of spending billions to subsidize various "renewable" energy projects, we are actually using less, not more, of these sources of energy. In other words, they only exist because we waste billions of hard earned taxpayer dollars to keep them on life support. From the article:

In 1949 nearly 91% of America’s total primary energy came from coal, oil, and natural gas. The balance came from renewables, with hydropower being a dominant contributor. By 2008 the market share for coal, oil and natural gas, along with nuclear, had grown to 92.5% of total primary energy in the U.S. with the remainder coming from renewables.

Given the raging hype over renewable energy sources, those numbers, which are readily available from the Energy Information Administration, are remarkable. Over the past six decades tens of billions of dollars have been spent on renewable and alternative energy schemes such as wind energy, solar energy, corn and other biofuels, and electric cars. All have aimed at cutting our hydrocarbon use. And yet only nuclear power, which went from zero to about 8.5% of the U.S. primary energy over that time frame, has managed to steal significant market share from coal, oil and natural gas.

In other words, despite these huge investments, renewables’ share of the energy market has been shrinking. What’s happening? While conspiracy theorists may want to believe that Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Nuclear are stifling the growth of renewables, the simple truth is that coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear can satisfy the Four Imperatives: power density, energy density, cost and scale.

The Four Imperatives provide a simplified way to analyze the physics and math that rule our energy and its delivery, the latter better known as power. Before going further we must differentiate between energy and power. If you recall your high school physics, the definitions are straightforward: Energy is the ability to do work; power is the rate at which work gets done. Put another way, energy is an amount; power is a rate. And rates are more telling than amounts.

Read more here.

Like Sarah Palin, I'm one of those "all of the above" people, when it comes to energy. I like the idea of finding alternative energy, as long as it works, is cost effective, and doesn't need a government subsidy to exist. With that said, there are very few of these things that meet that criteria .... yet.

In the mean time, back in 2008 The Kiplinger Letter published a report detailing just exactly how much oil we have: [emphasis mine]

The U.S. is sitting on the world's largest, untapped oil reserves

-- reservoirs which energy experts know exist, but which have not yet been tapped and may not be attainable with current technology. In fact, such untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand -- at today's levels -- for auto, truck, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.

Read more here.

Bear in mind, that was written in 2008. Since then, estimates of our recoverable oil have been revised upward by a considerable amount. Whitney Pitcher covered this for us earlier: [emphasis mine]

As Governor Palin mentioned in her tweet, Alaska has billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. The Natural Petroleum Reserve in Alaska alone is estimated to have 53 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Arctic is estimated to have 90 billion barrels of oil and 1. 67 quadrillion (1,670 trillion) cubic feet of natural gas. For some perspective, that is 1,670,000,000,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas.

Those kinds of numbers make even Obama’s deficit numbers seem small! She also mentioned that other states have large amounts of resources as well. For example, the Green River formation in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah is estimated to have 1.5 trillion barrels of oil–6 times as much as Saudi Arabia. There are 3-4.3 billion barrels of oil in the Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana. Those a just a few examples of the abundance of God-given resources.

Read more here.

I've written a lot about the potential of natural gas as a motor fuel. This is the cleanest burning fuel there is. There's a reason why we can cook with it in our homes with no ill effects. The technology needed to run an internal combustion engine on natural gas is mature.

Compressed natural gas, as well propane, has been powering cars, trucks, buses, farm equipment, and more, for nearly a century. Rather than invest billions of taxpayer dollars on pie-in-the-sky ideas, we could start working towards a natural gas powered fleet immediately. Many other nations already have a good number of their cars running on CNG.

In fact, the timing has never been better. With modern computerized engine management, variable valve timing, and pressurized direct fuel injection, today's engines are ideally suited for the conversion. Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors already offer CNG powered vehicles. It would take little investment to offer even more CNG powered models.

And for those who may be worried about the availability, the automakers have this covered as well, making duel fuel vehicles than can run on either CNG or gasoline. Hundreds of thousands of these vehicles are in state and municipal fleets right now.

Although they are expensive, you can even purchase a compressor unit that can be installed in your home garage. If your home has natural gas service, these units can compress that gas and fill up your car, saving you a trip to the station. Again, they expensive [around $5000] now, but as with every new technology, as more people buy it, the price goes down.

Oh, and with minimal investment, any existing store that sells gasoline, and has natural gas service, can install a CNG fueling station.

The bottom line is with little effort, we could have a truly "green" fleet, and we could do it using OUR resources, not anyone else's. We could be truly energy independent. Oh, and natural gas is less expensive than gasoline.

In her post, Sarah talks about electric cars. These things are still glorified golf carts. For those that don't follow automotive history, in the early 1900s, through the 1920s, there were several automakers that built electric cars. These were popular with the ladies of the day, because one didn't have to hand crank them like a Model T Ford, nor did one have to deal with refueling and other concerns. These cars were quite plush, offering many amenities ladies of the day appreciated. Some of these cars are still around today and still in fine working order.

Sadly, after spending untold billions of dollars, today's electric cars are not much of an improvement over electric cars that were built over 100 years ago.

The Detroit Electric, one of the most popular of the day, actually went further on a charge than a Chevy Volt will! Of course, top speed was a tad less back then, so one can say the old and new are about equal when you factor in that difference.

It's insane, and insanely expensive. The Volt, a barely usable automobile, costs more than some luxury cars. Oh, you get a big government rebate check when you buy one, but we are broke, and that's just more money we are borrowing from the Chi-coms.

Now the tree huggers think they are accomplishing something by being "green," but the fact is, the electricity needed to recharge the batteries in these things comes from coal powered plants in most cases. If "green" is the true objective, then this is a huge failure at every level.

Oh, and no one wants these things either. General Motors has a long history of building niche vehicles that no one wants. The Volt is no exception. According to AutoBlog, the industry news site, there were only 281 Chevy Volts sold in February 2011. They also report GM buried this embarrassment in their sales report.

Nissan offers an all electric vehicle, the Leaf. Only 67 of those left the dealer's lot for a new home last month.

Billions were wasted on these things. In GM's case, those billions were taxpayer dollars. This is why the government has no business picking winners and losers. They screw it up every time. The free market would have killed these mistakes off long ago.

It would be one thing if the United States had no natural resources, and was forced to try radical, unproven ideas, and recycle century old technology that was iffy then and iffy-er now. That, however, is not the case.

Fact is we are setting on the world's largest stockpile of energy. We have centuries worth of oil, natural gas, and coal. There is no reason why we shouldn't be developing these resources. We could be totally energy independent in short order, if we had the leadership to make it so.

Once that goal was met, we could then turn our efforts toward looking at alternatives that actually make sense and won't need a government check to survive.

Sarah Palin is the one showing the leadership we need. Our nation's future depends on it's energy security. Energy independence is the key. It will not only make the nation secure, and less effected by world events, it will create jobs. Good paying jobs.

President Obama's agenda is one designed to cripple America and redistribute wealth to other nations. While Sarah Palin is out there saying "Drill baby, drill" Obama is meeting with the Brazilian president and offering them money and assistance so that some day, in his words, we can be "Brazil's best customer." What kind of nonsense is that? It's certainly not Winning The Future!

Obama has failed America in every way conceivable. It's time to start working towards putting a competent leader in the White House. One who understands what this nation needs to get us back on track.

Run Sarah, run, so we can Drill baby, drill!

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Sarah Palin Set's The Media Straight On Alaska's Film Production Tax Credit


For Sarah Palin, setting the corrupt media straight is a full time job. The latest lie has to do with tax credits the producers of Sarah Palin's Alaska received. Sarah issued this statement: [emphasis mine]

Goodness, cleaning up the sloppiness of reporters could be a full time job. In response to The Daily Caller's online inquiry, I gave them a statement that the writer buried on his story’s second page (which most people won’t even notice – I didn’t even notice it) after he spent the first page completely spinning a situation to give the impression that Alaska’s film production tax credit legislation was somehow solely my idea hatched up to benefit the Palins years before I was ever involved in a documentary series on TLC/Discovery Channel. Here’s setting the record straight: As Governor, I signed into law a popular bipartisan bill that was crafted and passed by others and has resulted in numerous Alaska-based productions that are airing today. The only alternative to signing the legislature’s work product would have been for me to veto their legislation, which would have been useless. Besides all that, their legislation worked.

This bill was not some secret big government agenda. These Alaskan legislators just wanted Alaska to be able to compete with the many other states that offer similar incentives. As I noted in my statement (which was curiously buried by The Daily Caller – whose editor-in-chief was recently called on the carpet for publicly using a degrading term to describe women), I can’t speak for the film tax credit programs in other states, but the program in Alaska has been effective. The bipartisan legislation I signed into law in 2008 was borne out of elected lawmakers’ frustration with the fact that shows and films about Alaska were mostly filmed elsewhere. They wanted to incentivize production companies to film in Alaska instead of Canada, Washington state, or Maine. Their bill worked, and as the legislation’s supporters will testify, the state’s economy enjoys the benefits of having this production money circulating right here at home. It was so successful that state lawmakers now want to renew the film production tax credits for another ten years.

Keep in mind that we don’t have a state income tax, state sales tax, or state property tax in Alaska. Our state government is predominately funded by oil and gas revenue. Essentially we are using revenue generated from the development of Alaska’s natural resources in order to diversify our economy and create jobs beyond just resource development. Not only does this help promote a new film industry in Alaska, it obviously also has the added benefit of encouraging our tourism industry. These shows and films about Alaska act as perfect tourist advertisements for our state. People come here to experience what they see on the shows filmed here. The dramatic increase in Alaska-based television shows and films are testament to the fact that this legislation worked, and it’s exciting to see our state showcased and appreciated. There has been more film productions here than ever before, and the economic benefit of filming here exceeds the tax credit.

And another point missed by this reporter: apparently The Daily Caller’s conspiracy theory must be that I did all of this not even to benefit myself but Mark Burnett Productions. As I tried to explain to the writer at The Daily Caller, if you believe in this bizarre scenario then why not ask the sponsors, drafters, and supporters of this legislation that would boost job creation if they crafted this bill years ago in order to benefit Sarah Palin.

Any suggestion that I somehow did something wrong by signing this legislation is ridiculous. The accusation hinges on the notion that I signed the legislation into law knowing that it would personally benefit me. That’s totally absurd. It wasn’t even my bill, and obviously I had no intention of benefiting from it when I signed it into law in 2008 because I had no idea I would be involved in a documentary series years later. If you’re going to accuse me of benefiting from legislation I signed into law, why stop there?

Go ahead and accuse me of "benefiting" from the legislation my administration actually did craft – like for example, our oil and gas evaluation legislation (ACES).

You could say I "benefited" from it in the sense that due to ACES the state where I live (Alaska) now enjoys a $12 billion surplus. In fact, you could say that as an Alaskan, I benefited from all of the legislation I championed or signed as governor – just as every Alaskan benefited.

As I also tried to tell the reporter, it’s also a false accusation to suggest that signing this bipartisan bill somehow goes against my position on the proper role of government. I’ve said many times that government can play an appropriate role in incentivizing business, creating infrastructure, and leveling the playing field to foster competition so the market picks winners and losers, instead of bureaucrats burdening businesses and picking winners and losers.

Again, I can’t speak for what other states do, but Alaska’s film production tax credit program was an effective way to incentivize a new industry that would diversify our economy. It worked.

The lawmakers’ successful legislation fit Alaska’s economy, as our economy is quite unique from other states’ due to our oil and gas revenue. Perhaps it would behoove people to learn much more about the 49th state’s young economy before making broad accusations about the efficacy of business programs. People who live in ivory towers don’t understand the real world where governors and lawmakers actually have to fight to attract business and jobs to their states.

One final thought: having to set the record straight on my Facebook page yet again is further proof that the media can’t be trusted even to print a statement in a manner that people can read.

- Sarah Palin

You know the detractors of Sarah Palin are getting desperate when this is all they have left to bang her over the head with.

Anyone who watches TLC, the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, and National Geographic knows the tax credits that were created during Sarah's time as Governor are working like a charm. You have shows like The Deadliest Catch on Discovery, Ice Road truckers and Axe Men on the History Channel, and Alaska State Troopers on National Geographic, just to name a few. These shows, and others, have brought the magnificent state of Alaska into the world's living room. No doubt it's helped the local economies, as production crews spend money, and helped the state's tourism business.

Before this was done, many shows about Alaska were filmed elsewhere. As Sarah points out, Canada and Washington have been used as stand-ins for Alaska. Most famously, the 1990's hit television show Northern Exposure, which starred Janine Turner and Rob Morrow. The Golden Globe winning series was set in the fictional town Cicely, Alaska, but was actually filmed in Roslyn, Washington.

Many cities and states have film commissions that offer tax incentives to production companies. There is a lot of filming in and around Austin, Texas, for example. There is a vibrant film industry in the city because of the credits offers.

Hollywood was built on it. New York City has a film commission. And lest you think this isn't necessary, one needs to remember that a lot of TV shows, especially those set in eastern cities, have been filmed in Canada, where it's cheaper to film, and the government not only offers tax credits, but often cash incentives as well. Which brings us to the next point, tax credits [or tax exemptions, if you will] are not monies paid out, but simply tax monies not collected.

These incentives work. They attract filmmakers to Alaska. [or wherever they are offered] In turn, these filmmakers, their cast and crew, spend money in the local economy. And of course, in the case of the sort of shows coming out of Alaska, most definitely attract tourists.

The small tax credit the production company that created Sarah Palin's Alaska received is chump change considering the advertising benefit the state's tourism bureau received.

In world of sports marketing there is a firm called Joyce Julius & Associates. Their focus is analyzing the number of "impressions" someone watching an event gets of a sponsor's product. This is especially effective in NASCAR and NHRA Drag Racing.

JJ&A looks at how many times a viewer is exposed to the sponsor's product, and even grades the quality of the exposure. Time on the air, placement of the sponsor's logo, and other criteria is used. JJ&A will then write detailed reports for the sponsors, who use these reports to evaluate whether or not they are getting their money's worth from their marketing partnership with any given team.

When you look at the nine episodes of Sarah Palin's Alaska, and add up the total high quality impressions of Alaska's natural beauty the viewer was treated to, I'd say the state of Alaska come out way ahead. The same can't be said for Tucker Carlson and his rag, The Daily Caller.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Sarah Palin: Barack Obama's Post American Theory of Intervention



I think it was a profoundly disappointing speech because it proved that the Obama doctrine is still full of chaos and questions…Why in the world would our military might be used according to the UN and Arab League’s desires and NATO’s leadership in this skirmish or this war or whatever it is that Obama calls it?

~ Sarah Palin

On Monday night Sarah Palin went On The Record with Greta Van Susteren to talk about Barack Obama's incoherent speech on Libya. Sarah takes the speech apart piece by piece.

Friday, March 25, 2011

Sarah Palin Talks With Headlines Today's Koel Purie Rinchet



After the much publicized Q&A session with Aroon Purie, CEO of India Today Group, Sarah Palin shares her views on India, speaking exclusively to Koel Purie Rinchet on the show On the Couch with Koel, on the Headlines Today news channel.

By Gary P Jackson

While in India, Sarah Palin sat down with Headline Today's Koel Purie Rinchet for an interview. Not a lot of politics, but Purie asks some interesting personal questions and Sarah gives equally interesting answers. Sarah says the thing that really fascinates her about India is it's diversity. A fun interview. Enjoy.

Bristol Palin Tells Kirstie Alley To Hang Tough



Haters are gonna hate. That's the message Bristol Palin has for actress Kirstie Alley who is appearing on this season's Dancing With The Stars:

Kirstie Alley, you danced beautifully, and the haters will hate no matter what. Plus, when others criticize your weight, you just might end up going all the way to the end of Dancing With The Stars! (It's happened before.)

This kid is a class act.

I know we can all be guilty of it from time to time, but what does it say about us that many take a fun and entertaining show, and turn it into a hate fest? Many put more effort into ridiculing the performers than just enjoying a little bit of entertainment.

I've always enjoyed Kirstie's acting, and hope she does well on DWTS.

Sarah Palin: No One Ever Won A Game Only Playing Defense



Sarah Palin has issued a statement condemning the corrupt, blood libel media:

Lamestream Media: Reload or White Flag?

"Let’s keep pivoting around media bias, and not get distracted with the vulgar personal shots. Call out lies and set the record straight, but always keep the ball moving. No one ever won a game only playing defense."

Upon my return from an outstanding and productive trip to India and Israel, I’ve been inundated with requests to respond to petty comments made in the media the past few days, including one little fella’s comment which decent people would find degrading. (I won’t bother responding to it though, because it was made by he who reminds me of an annoying little mosquito found zipped up in your tent; he can’t do any harm, but buzzes around annoyingly until it’s time to give him the proverbial slap.)

I’ve given this a lot of thought, and I’d like to share my thoughts on the never-ending issue of media bias.

When it comes to responding to the media, the standard warning is: Don’t pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel because calling out the media and holding them accountable is a risky endeavor. Too often the first instinct is to ignore blatant media bias, crudeness, and outright lies, and just hope the media instigator will grow up and provide fairer coverage if you bite your tongue and not challenge the false reporting of an openly hostile press. But I’ve never bought into that. That’s waving the white flag. I just can’t do it because I have too much respect for the importance of a free press as a cornerstone of our democracy, and I have great respect for the men and women in uniform who sacrifice so much to defend that First Amendment right. Media, with freedom comes responsibility.

Friends, too often conservatives or Republicans in general come across as having the fighting instinct of sheep. I don’t. I was raised to believe that you don’t retreat when you’re on solid ground; so even though it often seems like I’m armed with just a few stones and a sling against a media giant, I’ll use those small resources to do what I can to set the record straight. The truth is always worth fighting for. Doing so isn’t whining or "playing the victim card"; it’s defending the truth in fairness to those who seek accurate information. I’ll keep attempting to correct misinformation and falsehoods about myself and my record, and I will certainly never shy from defending others who are unfairly attacked. This is in the name of justice.

But two decades in politics have taught me that when it comes to picking battles, often it’s best to ignore the truly petty, ugly personal media shots because engaging in a counter argument with disreputable, intolerant people doesn’t vindicate me; it merely gives those people the attention they seek. It wastes my time and it distracts from what we should focus on.

We must always remember the big picture. The media has always been biased. Conservatives – and especially conservative women – have always been held to a different standard and attacked. This is nothing new. Lincoln was mocked and ridiculed. Reagan was called an amiable dunce, a dangerous warmonger, a rightwing fanatic, and the insult list goes on and on. (But somehow Reagan still managed to win two major electoral landslides, and this was in the days before the internet and talk radio when all he had were three biased network news channels spinning reports on him. If he could do so much with so little and still be such an optimistic and positive leader, then surely we can succeed with the new media tools at our disposal.)

Let’s just acknowledge that commonsense conservatives must be stronger and work that much harder because of the obvious bias. And let’s be encouraged with a sense of poetic justice by knowing that the "mainstream" media isn’t mainstream anymore. That’s why I call it "lamestream," and the LSM is becoming quite irrelevant, as it is no longer the sole gatekeeper of information.

Let’s keep pivoting around media bias, and not get distracted with the vulgar personal shots. Even with limited time we can try to call out lies and set the record straight, but always keep the ball moving. No one ever won a game only playing defense.

I’ll keep correcting false reporting, and I’ll defend others to the hilt; but I won’t spend any more precious, limited time responding to personal, vulgar, sexist venom spewed my way.

Today, our country is faced with seemingly overwhelming challenges. We have an unsustainable and immoral $14 trillion debt problem which, combined with a self-inflicted energy crisis, could bring America to her knees. The President of the United States is manipulating an energy supply by refusing to develop our U.S. energy resources. Shouldn’t that be the media’s focus today? Wouldn’t you like more information on the deficit that for last month alone was the highest in our history at $223 billion? That single month’s deficit was more than the entire deficit for the year 2007!

We still have a 16% real unemployment rate. We had 2.9 million home foreclosures last year alone, with this year predicted to be even worse. Americans who are struggling to make ends meet are now hit by rising food and energy prices – exacerbated by the Fed’s decision to drop that $600 billion money bomb known as QE2 on us. Gas has already hit $4 per gallon in some areas. And let’s not forget that our men and women in uniform are deployed far from home today. From Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, to who-knows-where tomorrow under a clouded, confused Obama Doctrine, our armed forces are in harm’s way, defending our interests and protecting our freedoms.

Now these are the real concerns to Americans. These are times when real leadership is needed. We must never be distracted from these real concerns.

Petty comments from the small-minded are used to distract. Stay focused, America. Don’t wave any white flag. Simply put, let’s spend our precious time on causes that are worthy.

- Sarah Palin

This is some strong medicine! It's interesting that she talks about the way Reagan was treated by the media [and the Republican Party] in the lead up to the 1980 elections. We often talk about how the coming 2012 presidential election, and the way the left, the media, and the Republican elites attack Sarah, reminds of the 1980 elections. With Obama playing the part of Jimmy Carter, it's like deja vu all over again!

The left, the media, and the GOP country clubbers pulled out all stops to defeat Ronald Reagan. He represented a threat to their very existence. For it's part, after Reagan won the nomination, and had George H.W. Bush forced on him as his Vice President, the establishment STILL wanted to defeat him, and ran John Anderson as a third party candidate! That's how desperate the establishment wanted to protect it's stranglehold on the Republican Party.

This same full court press is being used against Sarah Palin today. As bad as the blood libel media is, the elites in the Republican Party are the most vile, and most hateful towards Sarah. The establishment started attacking Sarah way back in 2008 when she was first announced as John McCain's running mate. The GOP elites have nothing but contempt for true Conservatives anyhow, but with Sarah Palin they have even more contempt than usual.

Sarah Palin represents a serious threat to the GOP establishment. They know what she did in Alaska, and how she took on the corrupt Republican Party up there. They know she had no problem whatsoever sending her fellow Republicans to prison. The establishment knows that Sarah Palin will shake things up in Washington just as she did in Alaska. She will change the way things are done!

The media attacks on Sarah are becoming less effective. Once you accuse someone of mass murder, and they get past that, there is nothing you can do to really hurt them. Much like the GOP, all the media has left is to call her "stupid" or recycle four year old, and long refuted talking points.

Ronald Reagan was called the "Teflon President." This was because bad news never stuck to him. The media themselves gave him that name. What they didn't realize, is through all of their attacks and lies, they made him so. They so turned off the public with their juvenile attacks, the American people, who saw a great leader turning the nation around, just tuned them out.

Fewer Americans trust the media today than at any time in memory. As people learn more about Sarah Palin's actual record, actual accomplishments, and actual abilities, and compare them to the caricature the media has created of her, the less credibility the media has. The same goes for the Republican establishment. Both have been so vile, and so wrong in their attacks, as the truth becomes known by more and more people, these attacks serve to inoculate Sarah. Provide her protection from further baseless attacks. These attacks have lost all effectiveness.

Sarah Palin is a fighter. The left and the GOP aren't used to fighters. As she rightly points out, most Republicans have the fighting instincts of sheep! They are the most go-along, get-along bunch of squishes alive. This is why the nation is in the shape it is in today. It's not for nothing that Sarah used basketball terminology in her first paragraph. She is a championship winning basketball player and helped take her underdog high school team to a big victory over the perennial champion. For those that don't know the story, Sarah played this game on a yet undiagnosed broken foot, and scored the game winning shots. This symbolizes the never-say-die attitude that Sarah has carried throughout her entire life.

Though she's still playing it close to the vest, we see this strong statement, and the references to Reagan, as yet another sign she is getting ready to announce her candidacy for President. She's letting her enemies know they don't stand a chance.








Good News! Political "Insiders" Think You Are Too Stupid To Understand The Issues


From National Journal:

When it comes to policy, the political class doesn’t have a lot of faith in the public’s IQ. In the latest National Journal Political Insiders Poll, a solid majority of political operatives—59 percent—said the public didn’t "know enough about the issues facing Washington to form wise opinions about what should be done." There was a sharp partisan difference between the two parties: By more than a 2-to-1 margin, Democratic Insiders believed the public didn’t "know enough," while a slight majority of Republicans thought they did.

One reason for the skeptical attitudes of the Democrats and the relatively sanguine view of Republicans is that they reflect the outcome of the midterm elections. "The guys who just got turfed out know that the public doesn’t know enough to make these decisions and the guys who got brought in know that it does," observed University of Wisconsin political scientist Byron Shafer. "There is a heavy shadow of the 2010 elections in these numbers."

[ ... ]

But some Democratic operatives are not so sure. "Though we claim to represent ‘the people’ we are much more likely to doubt their ability to understand public policy," said one party operative who requested anonymity to speak candidly. "Republicans don’t represent the people’s interests, but have more confidence in them."

To a point. Veteran GOP pollster Fred Steeper agreed that the high percentage of Democratic Insiders who said the public doesn’t know enough to form wise opinions was a manifestation of their disappointing 2010 election results. But he noted that there was also a large share of Republican Insiders—47 percent—who didn’t think the public knew enough to form wise opinions. "They’re right to be skeptical that 2010 meant people will be supporting the whole conservative agenda in 2011," said Steeper.

Read more here.

It must be pointed out the Republican elites think slightly better of us peons than the democrats do, as 52 percent of the GOP insiders think the electorate is well informed and has a grasp of the issues. On the other hand, a mere 28 percent of the democrats polled think you are smart enough to understand the glorious communist utopia they wish to usher in. A full 71 percent think you're a moron!

This is an interesting poll, if only because it leaves no doubt whatsoever what our "betters" think of us.

Now with that said, from personal experience I can say Conservatives that I know, and interact with online, are highly involved and know the issues well. They tend to read up on the issues, and research them fully. Many of them are, in fact, schooling some elected officials.

It also seems that the average democrat voter is either oblivious to the issues, or has most of the facts wrong, but I think this is more of a function of who they choose to get their information from, than their IQ. Garbage in, garbage out, as they say.

Back to our Ruling Class, and specifically the 47 percent of the Republican Party members who think we don't "get it." These are the same people who stood by and supported "progressive" Republicans [and so-called "compassionate conservatives"] as they took us down the road to ruin. These are the people who have served as facilitators while democrats pushed their socialist agenda on us all. These are the spineless go-along, get-along, reach-across-the aisle, "useful idiots" that allowed it all to happen. Not only did these little elites fail to fight the left, in most cases they eagerly joined them!

These are the same people who continually tell us people like Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, and other liberal democrats pretending to be Republicans are the answer to all of our woes. The same people who tell us that Sarah Palin is unelectable, and Conservatives like Jim DeMint, Michelle Bachmann, and Rand Paul, to name just a few, are dangerous and extreme!

All hail the mighty squish!

These are the same "thought leaders" that said Ronald Reagan was a loser too. This is the sort that thought running Gerald Ford, who lost to Carter in 1976, instead of Ronald Reagan, was a swell idea in 1980!

Point is, when these "thought leaders" tell you what to think, who to vote for, and so on, know many hold you in contempt, and almost all of them are wrong on the issues more than they are right.

Better to continue to inform yourself to the issues and use your own head than be swayed by the political elite.

The National Journal Political Insiders Poll is a regular survey of political operatives, strategists, campaign consultants and lobbyists in both parties. Below are the names of the Insiders who surveyed. Some you'll know, some you won't.

Democratic Political Insiders:

Jill Alper, John Anzalone, Brad Bannon, Dave Beattie, Andy Bechhoefer, Cornell Belcher, Matt Bennett, Mitchell W. Berger, Mike Berman, Stephanie Bosh, Paul Brathwaite, Donna Brazile, Mark Brewer, Ed Bruley, George Bruno, Deb Callahan, Bonnie Campbell, Bill Carrick, Guy Cecil, Martin J. Chavez, Tony Coelho, Larry Cohen, Jerry Crawford, Brendan Daly, Jeff Danielson, Peter Daou, Howard Dean, Scott DeFife, Jim Demers, Tad Devine, David Di Martino, Debbie Dingell, Monica Dixon, Patrick Dorton, Pat Dujakovich, Anita Dunn, Jeff Eller, Steve Elmendorf, Carter Eskew, Eric Eve, Vic Fazio, Peter Fenn, Scott Ferson, Jim Fleischmann, Tina Flournoy, Don Foley, Jeffrey Forbes, Don Fowler, Vincent Frillici, Gina Glantz, Niles Godes, John Michael Gonzalez, Joe Grandmaison, Anna Greenberg, Stan Greenberg, Pat Griffin, Larry Grisolano, Michael Gronstal, Lisa Grove, Marcia Hale, Jill Hanauer, Dick Harpootlian, Paul Harstad, Laura Hartigan, Doug Hattaway, Mike Henry, Karen Hicks, Leo Hindery Jr., Harold Ickes, Marcus Jadotte, John Jameson, Steve Jarding, Jonathon Jones, Jim Jordan, Gale Kaufman, Lisa Kountoupes, Kam Kuwata, Celinda Lake, David Lang, Penny Lee, Chris Lehane, Jeff Link, Bill Lynch, Bob Maloney, Steve Marchand, Jim Margolis, Paul Maslin, Keith Mason, Susan McCue, Gerald McEntee, Tom McMahon, Phil McNamara, David Medina, Michael Meehan, Mark Mellman, John Merrigan, Steve Murphy, Janet Napolitano, David Nassar, Marcia Nichols, John Norris, Tom Ochs, Tom O’Donnell, Scott Parven, Jeffrey Peck, Debora Pignatelli, Tony Podesta, Jack Quinn, Larry Rasky, Mame Reiley, Steve Ricchetti, Will Robinson, Steve Rosenthal, David Rudd, John Ryan, Michael Sargeant, Stephanie Schriock, Wendy Sherman, Terry Shumaker, Sean Sinclair, Phil Singer, Erik Smith, Doug Sosnik, Greg Speed, Darry Sragow, Ken Strasma, Katrina Swett Sarah, Swisher, Doug Thornell, Jeffrey Trammell, Ed Turlington, Rick Wiener, James Williams, JoDee Winterhof, Brian Wolff, Jon Youngdahl, and Jim Zogby.

GOP Political Insiders:

Dan Allen, Stan Anderson, Gary Andres, Saulius (Saul) Anuzis, Rich Ashooh, Whit Ayres, Brett Bader, Mitch Bainwol, Gary Bauer, David Beckwith, Paul Bennecke, Clark Benson, Wayne Berman, Brian Bieron, Charlie Black, Kirk Blalock, Carmine Boal, Jeff Boeyink, Ron Bonjean, Jeff Buley, Luke Byars, Nick Calio, Al Cardenas, Danny Carroll, Ron Christie, Jim Cicconi, Rob Collins, Cesar Conda, Jake Corman, Scott Cottington, Greg Crist, Diane Crookham-Johnson, Fergus Cullen, Tom Davis, Mike Dennehy, Ken Duberstein, Steve Duprey, Debi Durham, Sara Fagen, Frank Fahrenkopf, John Feehery, Don Fierce, Mindy Finn, Mindy Fletcher, Carl Forti, Alex Gage, Bruce A. Gates, Sam Geduldig, Adam Geller, Benjamin Ginsberg, David Girard-diCarlo, Bill Greener, Jonathan Grella, Lanny Griffith, Janet Mullins Grissom, Doug Gross, Todd Harris, Steve Hart, Christopher Healy, Ralph Hellmann, Chris Henick, Terry Holt, David Iannelli, Barry Jackson, Clark Judge, David Keating, David Kensinger, Bruce Keough, Bob Kjellander, Ed Kutler, Chris LaCivita, Jim Lake, George S. LeMieux, Steve Lombardo, Kevin Madden, Joel Maiola, Gary Maloney, David Marin, Mary Matalin, Dan Mattoon, Brian McCormack, Mark McKinnon, Kyle McSlarrow, Ken Mehlman, Jim Merrill, Lisa Camooso Miller, Tim Morrison, Mike Murphy, Phil Musser, Ron Nehring, Terry Nelson, Neil Newhouse, David Norcross, Ziad Ojakli, Jack Oliver, Todd Olsen, Connie Partoyan, Dana Perino, Billy Piper, Van B. Poole, Tom Rath, Scott Reed, David Rehr, Tom Reynolds, Steve Roberts, Jason Roe, David Roederer, Dan Schnur, Russ Schriefer, Rich Schwarm, Brent Seaborn, Rick Shelby, Andrew Shore, Kevin Shuvalov, Don Sipple, Ken Spain, Fred Steeper, Bob Stevenson, Eric Tanenblatt, Richard Temple, Heath Thompson, Jay Timmons, Warren Tompkins, Ted Van Der Meid, Dirk van Dongen, Jan van Lohuizen, Stewart Verdery, Dick Wadhams, John Weaver, Lezlee Westine, Tom Wilson, Dave Winston, Ginny Wolfe, and Fred Wszolek.






Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Christian Science Monitor: If Obama Can Bomb Libya, President Palin Can Bomb Iran Without Congress' OK


Your basic liberal rant from Robert Naiman over at the Christian Science Monitor. Obviously, Naiman is worried about Obama's unauthorized attacks on Libya, and even more worried that if this is allowed to stand, President Palin will bomb the hell out of Iran once she takes office. Actually this is a legitimate point:

To put it crudely: As a matter of logic, if President Obama can bomb Libya without congressional authorization, then a future President Palin could bomb Iran without congressional authorization. If, God forbid, we ever get to that fork in the road, you can bet your bottom dollar that the advocates of bombing Iran will invoke congressional silence now as justification for their claims of unilateral presidential authority to bomb anywhere, anytime.

Again, this is a good point. The President must go to Congress before involving the United States in a shooting war.

It just tickles me that every time one of these sort of articles comes out, they always pre-suppose a "President Palin" not someone else. Not sure what that means, but the left always tells you who they fear the most!

Read the rest of the article here.

Sarah Palin Talks Policy In Naples, Florida In Front Of A Sold-Out Crowd


Sarah Palin spoke to a sold out crowd today in Naples, Florida. From the News-Press:

She had lunch in New Delhi on Saturday and dinner in Jerusalem on Monday. And on Wednesday, she was in Naples, bringing her conservative message to a gathering of about 1,000 at the Ritz-Carlton.

The one-time vice presidential candidate and self-described Mama Grizzly from Alaska talked about her visit last week to India and Israel, recounted how her daughter wound up on "Dancing With the Stars" last year and gushed over the fine residents of Naples.

But mostly, she hammered away at President Barack Obama, especially his administration's economic and foreign policies.

It sounded a whole lot like a campaign speech for the 2012 presidential race, which Palin said was not the case — at this point.

"Tonight," she said before delivering her speech at the Naples Distinguished Speakers Series Town Hall event, "I will call it like I see it. I will be blunt and candid."

She didn't disappoint.

"The occupants of the White House do not have the concerns of Israel in their best interest," Palin said 48 hours after having dinner with Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister.

And then she got rolling around the globe ... Iran, Libya, Brazil, China.

Obama's recent trip to South America had her riled up over America's current energy policy.

"We have tens of billions of barrels of oil warehoused underground in Alaska," Palin said. "But the president goes to Brazil. It's gone from ‘Drill, Baby, Drill' to ‘Drill, Brazil, Drill.’"

Regarding Iran, she said the White House had a chance to make an impact there earlier this year during a student uprising, but passed.

She said the United States’ policy on Libya is inconsistent, and that she's concerned that China is building a vast arsenal of sophisticated submarines and aircraft.

Palin said the right foreign policy ought to be, "If you're in it, win it. If there's doubt, get out."

Palin said the nation's debt of more than a trillion dollars is the country's biggest threat.

"The president's budget was a political document," she said.

About a Democratic political slogan "Winning The Future," Palin energized the crowd.

"That is too easy ... the acronym WTF," she said, and the audience loved it.

Her speech was full of Palin-isms. From the Democrats’ "jack wagon ideas" to "only dead fish go with the flow."

The audience was made to order for Palin as Collier County is one of the most conservative areas in Florida.

Dick Jay, a retired football coach from Des Moines, Iowa, and an avid Republican, liked what he heard.

"I came to hear what she had to say," the 30-year Naples resident said. But Jay said he isn't sure who might make the best Republican candidate in 2012.

Might Palin be one of the contenders?

"We're all pretty much saying the same thing right now," Palin said. "I am thinking about it ... praying about it."

She said her experience in the 2008 campaign was tough on her family, and any decision will come with them in mind.

"Family is paramount," Palin said.

"One thing is for sure. I will stay engaged."

NaplesNews.com adds:

The question on everyone’s mind loomed throughout Sarah Palin’s hour-long appearance in North Naples on Wednesday: Will Floridians see more of the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate in 2012?

The answer was simple: You betcha.

"I’m thinking about it and praying about it," Palin said when asked whether she’d run for president in 2012. "(But) whether I’m a candidate or not … I’m going to stay engaged."

Palin spoke to a sold-out audience Wednesday as part of the Naples Town Hall Distinguished Speakers Series at the Ritz Carlton Naples Beach Resort. Her speech focused on issues facing the United States as the country enters what is expected to be a heated election season.

"America faces real threats, and to face these threats we need unapologetic leadership," she said. "(People say) there’s a lack of leadership, but that’s nothing another election can’t turn around. My faith is not in big government. It’s in the people. And the people will turn it around."

Palin’s appearance was her first U.S. appearance after a whirlwind trip to India – where she was the keynote speaker for the India Today Conclave – and Israel last week. While in Israel, Palin said she met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and spoke to him about her commitment to the country.

"So many Americans stand with them," Palin said of Israel. "It is in the interest of freedom, peace and security that I say we must stand with them."

While Palin spoke briefly about her trip abroad, she focused primarily on domestic affairs and the current state of the economy. She promised to keep things real as she spoke about the issues that faced Americans.

"I call it like I see it," she said. "If the press is here, we’ll deal with the press later. But I’ll be blunt and candid with you."

The country, Palin said, is in the midst of "a dangerous and unsustainable federal debt" crisis that needs to be corrected before any change can occur. Palin said the country would be in serious trouble if it loses its AAA bond rating, and as debt grows she said she was concerned the country wouldn’t be able to dig itself out.

"Politicians are patting themselves on the back for cutting $6 billion when borrowing $400 billion to keep the country afloat," she said. "We’re not heading toward the iceberg, we’ve hit the iceberg."

Palin criticized President Barack Obama for his position on the federal debt, said he "just doesn’t care" and called his proposed 2012 budget—themed ‘winning the future’—a "political document." She went on to say that after submitting a budget to Congress, the president "went AWOL on spending."

"Under the guise of winning the future, which I call WTF, we’re spending more money," she said. "We’re not getting the economic truth out of the White House. ...If this is winning the future, then what is the future?"

Palin praised Florida Gov. Rick Scott for saying "no thanks on excess" when he turned down federal dollars for high speed rail in Florida.

Palin’s concerns weren’t just about the economy. She spoke out against the president’s energy plan, particularly the fact that the "president and (his party) continue to lock up offshore drilling" in the United States. Instead, she said, the administration is supporting drilling overseas.

"The ‘Drill, baby, drill’ mantra has turned into ‘Drill, Brazil, drill,’" she said. "In Alaska, Louisiana, Wyoming, the Dakotas — there are so many other places I’d like to see the president rooting for than another country."

Policy and a potential presidential run weren’t the only matters on Palin’s agenda Tuesday. She also gave those in attendance a peek into her personal life with stories about her husband, Todd, and oldest daughter, Bristol.

Bonita Springs resident Terry Major said she thought the event was interesting, particularly as a way to compare Palin to her portrayal in the media. Major said she enjoyed the lecture and was pleased to see the real Palin.

"I was impressed," she said.

Later Wednesday evening, Sarah went On The Record with Greta for a lengthy interview. {report to follow]

Mitt Romney: I Will Never Be President Of The United States, Nor Will I Be A Serious Candidate For The Office


National Review Online, having burned through every establishment hack trying to excite the American people with their favorite RINO, is back to their old standby, Mitt Romney. Little did they know by giving Mitt a couple of paragraphs he could call his own, they were allowing the man to declare his seriousness as a political candidate a thing of the past:

If I Were President: Obamacare, One Year In

By Mitt Romney

If I were president, on Day One I would issue an executive order paving the way for Obamacare waivers to all 50 states. The executive order would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services and all relevant federal officials to return the maximum possible authority to the states to innovate and design health-care solutions that work best for them.

As I have stated time and again, a one-size-fits-all national plan that raises taxes is simply not the answer. Under our federalist system, the states are "laboratories of democracy." They should be free to experiment. By the way, what works in one state may not be the answer for another. Of course, the ultimate goal is to repeal Obamacare and replace it with free-market reforms that promote competition and lower health-care costs. But since an outright repeal would take time, an executive order is the first step in returning power to the states.

I'll admit. I had to read this several times because I'm reading it and thinking how can one single person pack so much fail in so little space. I mean seriously. This is not the sort of plan one would expect from a supposed "educated man." It's damned sure not a plan one would expect from someone who believes in the Constitution.

First, let's look at Romney's plan to just give all of the state wavers, by Executive fiat. For one thing, Executive orders aren't worth the paper they are written on, as any law Congress makes would supersede them. This is simply no way to govern.

While Romney is gleefully issuing wavers by Executive Order, ObamaCare is still the law of the land, assuming the United States Supreme Court hasn't stricken the bill down as unconstitutional before January 20, 2013.

And here-in lies the problem. As long as ObamaCare is still law, parts of it are being implemented. Romney could give a waver to every man, woman, child, dog and cat in the country, and ObamaCare, the law, will just keep on keepin' on, until it is either repealed or declared unconstitutional and void. Billions of dollars will be spent while Romney plays "executive."

There is only one way to make sure ObamaCare doesn't destroy the best health care system in the world, and drag down our already ailing economy with it: Kill it. Put it out of our misery!

As we move on, Romney is still using this tired old talking point:

Under our federalist system, the states are "laboratories of democracy."

Now this is true enough, but it doesn't mean states should embrace destructive ideas and socialist plans. At least not if they expect to succeed! And by every measure humanly possible, RomneyCare is a complete and total disaster. It's bankrupting the state and has screwed up their health care system beyond salvation.

Romney goes on to say that repealing ObamaCare is the "ultimate goal" and he wants to "replace it with free-market reforms that promote competition and lower health-care costs." That's all well and good, but if that's Romney's REAL position, why didn't he do that as Governor of Massachusetts, instead of instituting a socialist form of health care, one that would serve as the blueprint for ObamaCare!

One is left wondering if Romney even understands the meaning of the words he wrote.

Mitt could have looked to the Lone Star State. Texas took on health care reform well before Romney was elected Governor. Instead of cooking up a European style socialized system, Texas made reforms to the insurance industry, and more importantly, addressed tort reform. Texas used to be a haven for ambulance chasing lawyers. The worst in the nation. With lawsuit reform, the Texas health care system has thrived, with thousands of doctors relocating to the state.

Of course, our beloved Governor, Rick Perry, isn't one of those Ivy League educated "though leaders" so prized by the Republican elite. He's just a good old boy who went to Texas A&M, served as a Captain in the Air Force, flying C-130s overseas, and went back to cotton farming after serving his country. In other words, the man uses Common Sense to solve problems, not Big Government schemes.

Romney could have looked to Texas, rather than socialist Europe for solutions, but how would that have looked to the rest of the country club set?

Another problem with Romney is one of believability. Let's face it, Romney is well known as a human windsock. The absolute, ultimate, finger-in-the-wind politician. You name the issue, and Romney will have taken both sides at one point or another.

Now one could simply say he's grown and matured, learned. That would be valid in several cases, but on many issues Romney famously flip-flops from one side to the other, depending on the prevailing political winds.

So here's the thing, even though Romney is saying anything he has to in order to seem "electable", will he really stay true to his word? Why should we believe he'll even attempt to stop ObamaCare, let alone actually do it?

Long before ObamaCare was ever signed into law, the America people were rising up by the millions in protest. Leaders, like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Allen West, and many more, stood up and fought against this disaster with everything they had. They laid it all on the line. Took all sorts of heat from the media, and even the hacks in their own party. But they fought anyway.

In the end, it was Palin, Bachmann, and the rest, who inspired the hard working patriots in the Tea Party, resulting in the largest shift in political power in over 100 years, with the 2010 elections. Republicans didn't just win big in the national contests, the state elections saw massive Republican victories as well over 600 democrats were sent packing!

Where was Romney though? We are constantly told by the Ruling Class of the GOP that Romney is the bestest they have to offer. The leader of their pack. Indeed, Romney has name recognition and even a bit of credibility, among some. Romney's voice would have been not only welcomed, but much appreciated. Romney's strong voice in opposition to ObamaCare might have been the one that made the difference. He could have stood strong with Palin, Bachmann and the others, but that's not the way Romney does things.

Had Mitt Romney stood up with the rest of America as we fought to stop ObamaCare from ever becoming law, he might have even been celebrated as a leader. Instead, Mitt decided to sit it out. Obviously Romney has his own demons to deal with, having screwed up his own state, but still, he could have stood up and took his lumps, then helped stop the Obama regime. Alas, Romney is not a leader, and doesn't have the backbone for the real fight.

So again, how is it he will have the backbone as President?

Here's another problem with Romney's credibility. Far from admitting he jumped the shark with RomneyCare, Mitt has been bending over backwards to defend his mess ever since the nation learned what a total disaster it is!

There are thousands of instances like the one Sasha Issenberg describes for the Boston Globe, almost a year ago, to the day:

Romney defends Mass. health care law

AMES, Iowa — Mitt Romney offered an enthusiastic defense last night of the comprehensive health care law he helped create four years ago in Massachusetts ...

"Overall, ours is a model that works,’’ Romney said in response to a question after a speech at Iowa State University. "We solved our problem at the state level. Like it or not, it was a state solution. Why is it that President Obama is stepping in and saying ‘one size fits all’ ’’?

[ .... ]

Yesterday, Romney proudly acknowledged that his bill included a set of new insurance regulations that "President Obama always likes to talk about in his health care plan — the good stuff.’’ Romney trumpeted the achievement of near-universal coverage in Massachusetts, while declining to acknowledge that the mechanism he used to achieve that goal — a requirement that individuals buy private insurance — is the same as the much-criticized mandate of Obama’s plan.

The accounting of "some similarities’’ and "some differences’’ between the two systems was a more delicate comparison than Romney has offered recently, when he wholly rejected the idea that the two had anything significant in common.

"People often compare his plan to the Massachusetts plan,’’ Romney said in an interview last month. "They’re as different as night and day. There are some words that sound the same, but our plan is based on states solving our issues; his is based on a one-size-fits-all plan.’’

In the last week, many health care policy specialists, Democrats celebrating the bill’s passage, and Republicans condemning it have come to another conclusion. The difference between the two systems, they say, is slim.

"Basically, it’s the same thing,’’ said Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist who advised the Romney and Obama administrations on their health insurance programs. A national health overhaul would not have happened if Mitt Romney had not made "the decision in 2005 to go for it. He is in many ways the intellectual father of national health reform.’’

I'd like to hear Mitt describe, in detail exactly how "Overall, ours is a model that works.’’ That would be a performance worthy of an Academy Award, if he could pull it off.

Mitt was still out there taking victory laps for RomneyCare just one month ago:

Mitt Romney is ‘proud’ of Massachusetts health care plan

"Mitt Romney is proud of what he accomplished for Massachusetts in getting everyone covered," Romney's spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom told the Globe's Matt Viser. "What's important now is to return to the states the power to determine their own healthcare solutions by repealing Obamacare. A one-size-fits-all plan for the entire nation just doesn't work."

It's unclear how that talking point will play with GOP primary voters, who may find it tough to distinguish Romney's plan from President Obama's health care proposal given both included individual mandates for coverage. In an attempt to perhaps undermine a rival, the White House has gone out of its way to link Obama's plan to what Romney passed. "We got some good ideas from him," Obama adviser David Axelrod said last month.

The question of whether Romney can distance his plan from Obama's seems potentially crucial to his campaign. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released Thursday found that 84 percent of Republicans polled have an unfavorable view of "Obamacare."

Will someone please explain to me, with a straight face, exactly how Romney has any credibility on this at all.

There's still more troubling issues with Romney. His publisher recently released his book in paperback. This isn't unusual. What is unusual is the revisions Mitt made. Now it's not uncommon for an author to add more content when a book comes out in paperback. Something to add to the story. However, it's most curious that Romney took the occasion to actually edit the content and change positions on key issues, including RommneyCare. That's right, not only does Romney flip flop in person, he flip flops in print as well!

Romney edits Romneycare out of his book

Multiple Choice Mitt strikes again. Romney is putting out a paperback version of his book, No Apology, but has edited out references to the individual mandate contained in health care legislation he brought into law in Massachusetts.

In the original hardcover, Romney tried to carefully distinguish between the Massachusetts law and the national version that was nearing passage as he wrote.

But the Massachusetts model has become Romney's bĂȘte noire among conservatives, who loathe the national reform they call "Obamacare." The rewritten paperback swings much harder, proclaiming that "Obamacare will not work and should be repealed," and "Obamacare is an unconstitutional federal incursion into the rights of states."

Read more here.

Sorry, but Romney trying to play the tough guy, on ObamaCare, or anything else, just isn't an image that's believable.

Something else that is destroying Romney's credibility: Obama thinks of Mitt as a "useful idiot" when he talks about his health care plan. Recently Obama cited Romney's stance on RomneyCare to claim his own "bi-partisanship" and announce a change of course on how he'd like to see ObamaCare shoved down our throats. I mean "implemented" [sorry]

The Obama regime constantly "thanks" Romney for giving them the blueprint for their own program.

In effect, this neutralizes any attack on ObamaCare Romney can make. There are only two people in the United States with a socialist health care system named after them. In a political contest it will be hard for one to attack the other, especially when the challenger, Romney, was the first one to create such a system!

In other words, with Romney as the nominee, it takes ObamaCare off the table as a campaign issue.

President Obama praises Mitt Romney’s health care plan

"I know that many of you have asked for flexibility for your states under this law. In fact, I agree with Mitt Romney, who recently said he's proud of what he accomplished on health care in Massachusetts and supports giving states the power to determine their own health care solutions," Obama said in an address to the National Governors Association today. "He's right. Alabama is not going to have exactly the same needs as Massachusetts or California or North Dakota. We believe in that flexibility."

It's the second time in the past several weeks that the White House has gone out of its way to praise Romney, who is expected to launch a bid for the GOP nomination. In January, Obama adviser David Axelrod said the administration had gotten "some good ideas" from Romney, who has come under fire for the plan, which, like Obama's bill, mandates that individuals must have health insurance.

It's Romney's weak position that allows Obama to single him out, and use him as a shield. It allows Obama his "reach across the aisle" moment.

People in Massachusetts are still very upset with Romney, and articles like this recent piece from Howie Carr in the Boston Herald are all too common, and will be repeated often in 2012:

No Rx for Mitt Romney’s Bay State headache

Mitt keeps trying to explain how it seemed like such a good idea at the time. But Romneycare follows him around like a dark cloud over his head, just the way Chappaquiddick haunted Ted Kennedy’s 1980 presidential campaign. If only those rascally Democrats hadn’t ruined it, Mitt keeps saying, as the crowd uneasily makes its way toward the exits.

No, Mitt says, really, I mean it, seriously, please, come back . . .

As Ralph Waldo Emerson once put it, "The louder he spoke of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."

Romney has had years to do some sort of mea culpa, to come clean, admit he screwed the pooch, and ask for forgiveness. A sincere apology, several years ago, might have helped, instead, Romney has been doubling down. Romney has even called his boondoggle "the ultimate conservative plan" and has encouraged other Governors to adopt it as their own!

I'll give Mitt this, he and his team sure know how to spin disaster!

Now I think we all agree that allowing the several states to be in charge of creating their own destiny, and health care reform, is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended for our Republic. In the Federalist system, each state is a sovereign entity, and the intent is to allow each state to create conditions that work for their citizens.

Romney is right in this case, but the conditions he created as Governor are far from "conservative"! Seriously, the individual mandate, forcing every citizen to buy insurance, is not Conservative in any way, shape, or form.

Now some will bring up mandatory automobile insurance as a counter to that argument, but that dog won't hunt. Driving a car is NOT a right, it's a privilege.

One can choose not to drive a car, and thus not be mandated to buy insurance. The act of driving a car is voluntary, and the required insurance is designed to protect other drivers and property owners, not the insured. [unless they purchase "full coverage", which is not mandatory]

On the other hand, RomneyCare, like ObamaCare requires every citizen to purchase insurance, simply because they are alive, and penalizes anyone who doesn't.

This is NOT a Conservative way of doing things. Conservatives respect individual rights, and the concept of limited government. RomneyCare, like it's spawn, ObamaCare are the exact opposite of these concepts. They are the ultimate Big Government intrusions on our lives.

The elections of 2012 are going to be the defining moment in American history. It's going to be the event that determines whether we stay on our current path, and become nothing more than a failed socialist experiment, or change directions and get back to First Principles, those time honored solutions to problems that made this nation the greatest ever created.

One of the real chances the United States has to right itself lies not in the presidency, but in Congress. There are a lot of democrats up for re-election in the Senate. There is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to fill those seats with principled Conservatives. A strong leader on the Republican ticket for President will have long coattails and bring about this change in Congress.

I mention this because it brings us to the answer Mitt Romney should have given, instead of the one he did in the NRO editorial.

You see, the new Congress will be sworn in weeks before the new President. This means Congress will have plenty of time to draft, and pass legislation repealing ObamaCare in it's entirety. This legislation can be sitting on the new President's desk, ready for their signature on day one.

Romney should understand, that after watching many of their fellow travelers go down in the elections, many of the remaining democrats will be all too happy to vote in favor of repeal, especially those up for re-election in 2014.

All of this will be possible with a strong leader at the top of the ticket. It's telling that Romney can't envision this. Mitt's answer shows he is not a a leader, nor is he a serious candidate for the office of the presidency.

RomneyCare was always going to be Mitt's Waterloo, the bridge too far, this just seals his fate.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

A Chavez Terror Network On America’s Doorstep


Roger Noriega, writing in the Washington Post, has a very disturbing report describing a meeting between Venezuela's brutal dictator Hugo Chavez and radical Islamic terror groups:

On Aug. 22, 2010, at Iran’s suggestion, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez hosted senior leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) in a secret summit at military intelligence headquarters at the Fuerte Tiuna compound in southern Caracas. Among those present were Palestinian Islamic Jihad Secretary General Ramadan Abdullah Mohammad Shallah, who is on the FBI’s list of most-wanted terrorists; Hamas’s "supreme leader," Khaled Meshal; and Hezbollah’s "chief of operations,"

There is much more. Read it here.

This is incredibly troubling, and yet another sign that Chavez is looking to dominate the region, and is strengthening his ties with Islamic terror groups. Iran is a major sponsor of these groups, and as we reported in December, Chavez has allowed the Iranian government to place medium range, nuclear capable ballistic missiles, that have the ability to hit targets in the United States, in Venezuela.

This latest meeting is just another sign that Chavez is ramping up, and getting ready to do something.

Of course, this is nothing new, back in 2009 the Washington Times reported Hezzbollah had teamed up with the Mexican drug cartels. Radical Islamic paraphernalia has been found on our southern border in large amounts.

Hezbollah is using the same southern narcotics routes that Mexican drug kingpins do to smuggle drugs and people into the United States, reaping money to finance its operations and threatening U.S. national security, current and former U.S. law enforcement, defense and counterterrorism officials say.

The Iran-backed Lebanese group has long been involved in narcotics and human trafficking in South America’s tri-border region of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil. Increasingly, however, it is relying on Mexican narcotics syndicates that control access to transit routes into the U.S.

Hezbollah relies on "the same criminal weapons smugglers, document traffickers and transportation experts as the drug cartels," said Michael Braun, who just retired as assistant administrator and chief of operations at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

"They work together," said Mr. Braun. "They rely on the same shadow facilitators. One way or another, they are all connected.

"They’ll leverage those relationships to their benefit, to smuggle contraband and humans into the U.S.; in fact, they already are [smuggling]."

His comments were confirmed by six U.S. officials, including law enforcement, defense and counterterrorism specialists. They spoke on the condition that they not be named because of the sensitivity of the topic.

While Hezbollah appears to view the U.S. primarily as a source of cash
- and there have been no confirmed Hezbollah attacks within the U.S. - the group’s growing ties with Mexican drug cartels are particularly worrisome at a time when a war against and among Mexican narco-traffickers has killed 7,000 people in the past year and is destabilizing Mexico along the U.S. border.

Read more here.

This is a dangerous situation and President Obama is asleep at the wheel, as usual. This should serve as a strong warning that we must secure our nation's borders. This is a matter of national security.

It means we can no longer tolerate "open borders" advocates. Promoting the "open borders" agenda is dangerous. It also means the United States needs to get involved in the bloody war on our nation's southern border, one that has been completely ignored by the Obama regime.

The Mexican drug cartels are slaughtering people daily, and the violence has spread across the border and into our country. These drug cartels use the same violent methods the Islamic terrorists use. Car bombings, beheadings, kidnappings, and random acts of violence to intimidate the Mexican citizens, are their stock-in-trade. It's time to take this threat to the United States seriously.

Closing our borders and helping Mexico wipe these narco-terrorists out should be a top priority. By destroying the drug cartels, we'll also destroy a major partner radical Islamists intend to use to attack the United States.

We also need to keep an eye on Hugo Chavez, and look at imposing sanctions and an embargo on the oppressive nation. We need real leadership here.

Monday, March 21, 2011

IBA Reports On Sarah Palin's Visit To Israel



Video courtesy PalinTV

Official Photos/Video: Sarah Palin Meets Benjamin Netanyahu


JERUSALEM, ISRAEL – MARCH 21: In this handout image provided by the Israeli Government Press Office, Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (2L) and her husband Todd Palin (L) meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (R) and his wife Sara Netanyahu March 21, 2011 in Jerusalem, Israel. Palin began a private visit to Israel yesterday and is planning to tour holy sites. (Photo by Amos Ben Gershom/GPO via Getty Images)






By Gary P Jackson

Official photos and a short video report detailing Sarah Palin and her husband Todd's visit with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife Sara.

Palin, who is known for her uncompromising support for the State of Israel, told Netanyahu and his wife, Sara, that she was received warmly by the Israelis and also told them all about her tour of the country, which included seeing sites in Jerusalem (such as the Kotel) and the Dead Sea. In most places, Palin saw firsthand the atmosphere of the holiday of Purim, and the Netanyahu couple told the potential candidate for President of the United States all about the Book of Esther and the traditions of Purim.

Before leaving, Palin signed the Prime Minister’s residence guestbook and wrote: "Such an amazing country! God bless you. May our connection continue to grow and strengthen."

We are pleased that Sarah Palin is affirming the United States' solidarity with Israel, something our current President can't seem to be bothered with.

H/T:

Sheya ... Photos

The Right Scoop ... Video

Alaska Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Palin Administration



A little unfinished business from Sarah Palin's term as Governor of Alaska. Once again, a court challenge to her policies is stuck down.

The Alaska Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the administration of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in a suit brought against the state by Ben Latham. Latham sued because Palin, while still governor, and then-Attorney General Talis Colberg failed to challenge the constitutionality of 1995 legislation that "modified the jurisdiction of the court of appeals to hear excessive sentence appeals."

Latham's lawsuit was dismissed in superior court and appealed to the Supreme Court. Latham was found guilty in the 1980s of robbing a grocery store and then stealing a car in the getaway. He pleaded no contest but reserved right to appeal. He was sentenced to eight and a half years, with a year and a half suspended. After getting out and being placed on probation, Latham faced another charge of criminal mischief from the state and his probation was revoked on the basis that he'd violated its terms. In 1994, his probation for the first two charges was extended based on a third charge -- and it was that extension that formed the crux of his alleged violation of constitutional rights. COURT DOCUMENT.

H/T: Citizen Palin 4 President