Hugh Hewitt: Seventy percent of Americans know they’ve been conned

Minimum estimate of Saturday’s crowd on the Mall: 300,000 Maximum estimate: One million people.

Meaning of the crowd: An enormous upheaval in the emotions of average Americans is coursing through the country, with a certain significance for November’s elections. It will have a lasting, profound impact on America’s political direction.

Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin provided an occasion to glimpse this undeniable phenomenon. Of course, the interpretations of what the phenomenon is and what its consequences will be will keep the chattering class busy for weeks, if not years.

Some on the left are trying, with increasing desperation, to use old and new media to brand this surge in public participation in politics as sinister, even though it was preceded by a surge from the left of people and energy into President Obama’s campaign.

The new tools of communication and the ease of movement have unleashed a tumultuous era of politics driven by the demand that elites not attempt to speak for, or condescend to, average citizens. They will not quietly or passively be lectured to, or insulted by, the president, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg or any anchor on any network, any columnist in any paper, or any blogger on any Web site.

The people on the Mall and the millions more who watched the gathering with satisfaction rather than fear are quite simply sick of the left, and of its vast sneer toward the traditions, values and, yes, faith of the American middle class.

The American Enterprise Institute’s Arthur Brooks has quite accurately described America as a 70/30 nation, with the 70 percent presently massively underrepresented in the federal government, the Manhattan-Beltway media elite and academia.

The 70 percent is appalled by the placebo economics practiced by the president and the Congress over the past two years, shocked by its profligacy with the wealth of the republic, and sickened by the looting of the next generation’s opportunities.

The 70 percent did not want Obamacare, but it has been thrust upon them.

The 70 percent did not want federal judges to declare “game over” in the complex discussion of what marriage is and means.

The 70 percent want a fence on the border that works, and do not want their concern over unregulated immigration dismissed as nativisim.

The 70 percent are not ashamed of their belief in God, deeply resent being labeled bigots because they view ground zero as land that ought not to be exploited for “messaging” of any sort by any group, and are enraged by the scorn which they encounter everywhere in media except Fox News and talk radio.

The 70 percent believe that the federal government is remote and clueless, and that the Constitution’s principles of enumerated and limited powers and the sovereignty of the states are vibrant, important core values to the republic.

The 70 percent think Iran is in the grip of an evil, theocratic fascism, and that Israel is our true friend and ally deserving of our full-throated support.

We are in the middle of a perilous economic passage to a new competitiveness across the globe. We are watching other countries across the globe respond to the new demands of competitiveness by shrinking the public sector and encouraging private-sector growth. But American education is crippled by bureaucracy and burdened by the inability of a political class to demand reform of the practices and pensions of the public sector. Children have been hostages of this countrywide collapse of common sense for a generation, despite wave after wave of “reform”.

Two years into what had been sold as a new politics and a new approach, the 70 percent are fully aware that they have been conned, suckered, and taken to the cleaners by a hyper-ideological amalgam of leftist public intellectuals, snarling bloggers, career politicians with limited abilities who are often corrupt, and a president wholly inexperienced in the management of complex problems who is in way over his head and prisoner to slogans and schemes that make for great campus debates — but for disaster in the real world.

The people on the Mall were saying much more than “this far and no farther.” They were saying “rewind and restart.” They will hold that thought and that purpose as they peacefully, but with great passion and purpose, insist on real change come Nov. 2.
Read the original article Washington Examiner:

Palin: “Not Going to Close Any Door” on Presidential Bid

Elizabeth Williamson

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin on Sunday suggested that she was open to a run for the presidency in 2012, and said in the meanwhile, she would continue her “fun gig” speaking to “awesome Americans.”

“Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace asked the former Republican governor — who despite her current lack of a formal political job has endorsed 15 candidates and spends her days speaking at Republican and tea party gatherings — what was next.

“I’m going to keep this up.  I’m going to keep out there talking to people, hearing from people, those who desire a less intrusive government,” Palin said.

“It’s a fun gig.  It’s a great thing to get to do, to be across the country with my family, speaking to these awesome Americans who are quite concerned about our country.”

Wallace noted that Palin had said in February that she would consider running for president in 2012, if she decided it was best for the country and her family.

“You know, it really comes down to it not being about me or what I want or what I predict is going to happen,” Palin said. “If the voters of America are in the mood for a kind of unconventional, candid, honest public servant — and it doesn’t necessarily have to be me — but if that’s what they’re in the mood for, they’re going to let that be known and they’re going to help really propel and push that candidate forward.”

“I’m not going to close any door that perhaps would be open,” she said. “But you know, this is not about me. But I do appreciate the platform that I’ve been given.”

Palin resigned from as Alaska’s governor last year after having joined Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) as his running mate in his failed bid for the presidency in 2008.

Read the original article Blogs WSJ

Robin of Berkeley:The Rape of America

Robin of Berkeley.
Let’s start by analyzing the mind of a rapist. 
His goal:  Domination and absolute power, through any means necessary.

His motivation:  punishing another, degrading her, feeling superior and God-like.  Making her feel like an object, nothing, a no-thing.
What else propels him?  Taking what he wants just because he wants it.  Feeling the surge of power, the adrenaline rush, the thrill of stealing a piece of her.
Anything else?  Feeding primitive, twisted impulses; expressing sadistic needs; the savage excitement of subjugating and controlling another.
Those most likely to rape?  Someone who was sexually abused himself; an outsider;  a person robbed of a normal childhood. A man who has carved an identity out of rage and envy and resentment.  Someone who feels entitled to take whatever he wants. What fosters rape?  Parents missing in action.  A culture that thumbs its nose at God.
And a society that minimizes crime, that even heralds certain criminals as heroes.  (Some Black Panthers were rapists, yet they’re revered as idols.)   A culture where punishment is weak, and politicians are moral cowards, fearful of the ACLU. What else?  A media that celebrates debauchery, that entertains through degrading and objectifying.   Popular rap songs and cool hip-hop artists whose words slice and dice women.   Films where anything goes, where hot lesbian sex scenes are as omnipresent as those boneheaded authority figures. And the aftermath of rape?  The destruction of something in the victim that will never return:  a feeling of safety in the world, in her own body.   The nightmare of being treated as an animal; no, worse than this, since animals are now venerated.   And from this nightmare she will never completely awaken.
This, in a nutshell, is how rape works.  But words alone can never capture the enormity, the horror, the soul crushing evil of rape.  And not only females can be victims; men and little boys are violated,  with women, on rare occasions, the perpetuator. The word “rape” has an intriguing history.  It originally denoted the violent seizure of property.   I’m going to use the term in both the historic and modern sense to convey what is happening today. This country is being raped. It’s no coincidence that the race for Presidency began with vile behavior against Hillary Clinton, a high tech wilding of sorts, with her body and sexuality defiled.
But the abuse of Clinton was a walk in the park compared to what has been done to Sarah Palin.  Because she’s a conservative, and an attractive, younger woman, the has been at a fever pitch.   And, just like in a gang rape, people who could have done something about it, didn’t.  In fact, the liberal media and many Democrats have stood around watching, egging on the players.
Can someone explain to me how the Democrats’ complicity is any different than what happened a few months ago at Richmond High School?  There a gang of boys raped and beat a girl, as a crowd not only snickered but filmed the assault.  We also have the economic rapes, the constant shrieks of, “Gimme, gimme.”  Give me what you have because I want it.   Whether it’s the iPod torn from your ear, or a big chunk of your income, or your standard of living, no matter.  I want it, I demand it, give it to me. Or the intrusions into our very bodies by ObamaCare’s Biggest of Big Brothers. Our medical records, our personal information, our physician/patient relationship, our DNA — they want it, they will take it from us. And now that the Left has finally appropriated our health care and our student loans, our banks and newspapers and automobile companies, are they happy?  Satisfied?  Grateful, for God’s sake? No, the mocking continues, the outright threats and the violence escalate.  Suddenly conservatives are not simply opponents exercising First Amendment rights.  We’re delusional, crazy, violent, not quite human. This is what happens when miscreants get away with immoral behavior.  In the criminal arena, when the bad guys are given a wink-wink, or a “boys will be boys,” or, “He’s a victim of white privilege,” the perp becomes more emboldened.  And he’s even more contemptuous of a culture that lets him get away with, quite literally at times, murder. Still not convinced that what’s going on is a Rape of America? What about the queering of children, our School Czar having a history of teaching kids about fisting and water sports?    Or school children being subjected to graphic talks by transsexuals or transvestites or  promoters of the sexuality-du jour?
What about forcing their way into young, impressionable minds, teaching them to hate?  Like Palestinian children programmed to despise Israelis, our kids also learn animosity — but toward America.
Still not sure that the sexualization of children, the wilding of women, the looting of the economy, and the intrusions into our bodies constitute the Rape of America? I have one final piece of evidence.  A majority of citizens are shouting, “No” from the rooftops.  No! to ObamaCare.  No! to socialism.  No! to trashing the Constitution.
And yet, to Obama and the Left, the assertion of “No” does not matter.   Smug and entitled, drunk with power and giddy when they see our fear, they take what they want anyway.

Read the original article American Thinker

General Petraeus in New Hampshire?

Rick Ballard
This oughta get tongues wagging in some circles on the right.

General Petraeus, Commander of CENTCOM, appears about ready to dip his toe in the New Hampshire presidential waters this month.  

Marc Ambinder reports:
Petraeus attends a lot of fancy private dinner gatherings in Washington. I have never been to one of these gatherings, but I’ve spoken with several folks who’ve attended several of them, and they all seem to come away with the impression that Petraeus is far more interested in exploring his political options than he says publicly.

He’s speaking at St. Anselm’s College, the site of many historic political moments — Ronald Reagan paid for his microphone there. No one runs for president without speaking at St. A’s New Hampshire Institute of Politics.
I presume but don’t know that Petraeus will run as Republican

Maybe he’d run as an independent. How does Petraeus fit in with the Tea Partiers, the Libertarians, the Social Conservatives? He certainly upstages Mitt “No Apology” Romney by sheer force of conviction. He’s not a terribly good political speaker, though, even though he gets the politics of large institutions quite small. Also, he’s small in stature. Do not be mislead into believing that a candidate’s height — even a general’s height — doesn’t matter. Wes Clark can tell a few stories about that.

When Petraeus sets foot in Cedar Rapids…now that’ll be something to watch.

First, Petraeus lives in New Hampshire – is registered to vote there. So perhaps his sojourn to St. Anselm’s is not touched with the same significance that would attach to a visit by Sarah Palin or some other undeclared candidate.

Nonetheless, there has been a decent amount of buzz about Petraeus and 2012 and it has to be coming from somewhere. I question whether he really wants to sully his hands with politics, however. His reputation is intact, his place in history assured. Why would he want to risk that with what appears to be a vanity run for the White House (or Veep spot)? America would have to be facing a dire foreign crisis before voters would turn to a general. Otherwise, his is the longest of long shots.

Read the original article on AmericanThinker

Blasting McCain, Hayworth launches campaign for U.S. Senate

Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services

PHOENIX — With a blast at what he called John McCain’s liberal leanings, former Congressman J.D. Hayworth launched his bid to oust the four-term incumbent in the Republican primary.

At an event outside his Phoenix headquarters Monday, Hayworth hurled broadsides at the senator, saying McCain is on the wrong side of all the issues important to GOP conservatives. That includes the incumbent’s call to close the prison for enemy combatants at Guantanamo, his support for some sort of cap-and-trade system of cutting pollution, his vote for the Troubled Asset Relief Program to help bail out financial institutions and his efforts to limit campaign spending.

That’s not all.

“Just like the liberals, John opposes waterboarding captured terrorists like the Christmas bomber,” he said.

And if that weren’t enough, he uttered the dreaded H-word.

“John’s problem is not that he likes Hillary (Clinton),” Hayworth said. “John’s problem is he’s like Hillary.”

His bid got an immediate boost Monday when Chris Simcox shelved his own Republican campaign against McCain to throw his support behind Hayworth. Simcox, a founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, said his supporters told him the move was necessary to have a united conservative front.

The race shapes up to be one of the most contested — and potentially divisive — intraparty campaigns in Arizona history.

McCain, hoping to shore up support for his nomination and election, set off this week on appearances around the state. That began Monday with a press conference in Tempe to announce his endorsement by 31 mayors from around the state. He also scheduled appearances this week in Thatcher, Flagstaff, Yuma, Phoenix, Tucson and Payson.

While McCain seeks bipartisan support, Hayworth pokes fun at the incumbent’s working with Democrats. Instead, Hayworth, who served 12 years in Congress before being defeated in 2006 by Democrat Harry Mitchell, is making a clear bid for the backing of those who identify themselves as part of the Tea Party movement.

While that may work in a Republican party, it remains unclear how that plays out in a statewide general election.

In 2002 and again in 2006 Republicans chose those who identified themselves as conservatives to run for governor. Democrat Janet Napolitano won both times.

Those same years the Republican candidates for attorney general came from the GOP’s conservative wing. The result was victories for Democrat Terry Goddard.

But Hayworth told Capitol Media Services he doesn’t foresee his nomination as giving a political leg-up to Rodney Glassman, a Democratic city councilman from Tucson.

“This is an entirely different campaign and an entirely different year,” he said. Hayworth said while his focus now is corralling Republican votes, “in the fullness of time we’re reaching out to independents and to disaffected Democrats.”

He said things have changed since then.

“The political wind is at our back,” Hayworth said. “People recognize that the change they need is conservative change, not someone who’s going to go there, as Mr. Glassman would, and be a rubber stamp for Barack Obama.”

McCain, however, at his own press conference Monday, acknowledged the strength of the Tea Party movement but claimed them as his own backers, citing the endorsement of Sarah Palin, his 2008 vice presidential running mate.

“I am a fiscal conservative,” he said. “I’m the one who stood up and fought against earmark projects that Mr. Hayworth so proudly proclaimed that he would get for his congressional district.”

And McCain took his own shot at Hayworth, saying the practice of earmarks leads to corruption, citing the example of lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The U.S. Department of Justice investigated Hayworth’s ties to the convicted Abramoff, though that inquiry resulted in no charges.

Hayworth said he does not believe that a brutal primary battle would leave whoever survives too politically scarred to win in November. That’s what happened in the 1970s when two GOP congressmen, John Conlan and Sam Steiger, battled it out, with Democrat Dennis DeConcini from Tucson snatching the seat in November.

“I believe that a good, old-fashioned primary is a good thing for the party,” Hayworth said. “It will help both John and I prepare for the general.”

On that point, McCain agreed.

“I ve been involved in primaries before,” he said. “I m confident the people of Arizona again will judge me not on what I have done for them but on what they think I can do for them in these most difficult times.”

Hayworth was careful to thank McCain, a former prisoner of war, for his military service, and even admitted campaigning for the senator during his failed 2000 presidential bid.

“He still fights hard, all right,” Hayworth said. “But too often, for the wrong causes.”

Read the original article Arizona Daily Star

Senate Health-Care Bill Provision Would Make it Impossible for Future Congresses to Repeal Parts of Bill

(CNSNews.com) – A provision deep within the Senate’s 2,000-page health-care overhaul bill would make it impossible, once approved, for the legislation to be repealed or changed by future Congresses — a provision that a Senate Republican and a conservative analyst say is unconstitutional.
 
On page 1,020, the bill states: “It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.

The provision appears in Section 3403 of the Senate bill, which creates an Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB). The objective of the board would be to “reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending,” which has ballooned in recent decades. The IMAB would recommend changes to the Medicare program to limit its spending growth — recommendations that would automatically go into effect unless Congress votes to block them.
 
The provision would not allow Senators in future congresses to offer legislation that would change or repeal the content of the preceding subsection, which dictates how Congress would consider the recommendations of the IMAB. 

Before the Senate recessed for Christmas, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) raised a number of questions about the provision — including its constitutionality.
 
In a floor speech on Dec. 21, DeMint called the provision, “a rather substantial change to the standing rules of the Senate.”
 
After reading it aloud, DeMint said, “This is not legislation — it’s not law. This is a rule change. It’s a pretty big deal.”
 
DeMint explained that the Senate would effectively be passing health-care legislation that includes a series of rules on how Congress would handle IMAB recommendations, and simultaneously will be keeping future lawmakers from changing it as they desire.
 
“We will be passing a new law,” he said, “and at the same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.
 
“I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a Senate rule (and not a law). I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force to – for — future Senates,” DeMint added.
 
“(T)his goes to the fundamental purpose of Senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority — or of future congresses.”
 
The subsection that cannot be repealed or changed contains a number of other stipulations on how Congress will handle the IMAB recommendations, even setting deadlines for specific committees to consider them, which DeMint said were also new rules. “These provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth,” DeMint alleged.
 
Democratic Chair: Procedural Change, Not Rules Change

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who was the presiding officer in the Senate at the time of DeMint’s speech, disputed the conservative senator’s allegation, on the advice of parliamentarian Alan Frumin, who interprets Senate rules. When DeMint asked if the provision on page 1,020 did indeed change the rules of the Senate — and therefore required a separate two-thirds majority vote to pass — Merkley disagreed.
 
“The section of the proposed legislation addressed by the Senator does not amend the standing rules — the standing rules of the Senate,” Merkley said, “and therefore, its inclusion does not affect the number of votes required to (end debate on the matter).”
 
DeMint then asked Merkley whether rules changes had ever been included in a law before.
 
“Mr. President, is the chair aware of any precedent where the Senate created a law and in doing so created a new rule?” DeMint asked before again quoting the text of page 1,020. “Is the chair aware that we have ever put this type of binding legislation on future congresses in a bill?”
 
Merkley replied: “It is quite common to do that.” DeMint responded: “I would ask the chair to get those references, if the parliamentarian would, to us.”
 
But the South Carolina Republican, meanwhile, said he had never — in two terms in the Senate — seen a new piece of legislation ruled out of order because it would change laws that preceded it, and contended that the proposed rule “goes to the fundamental purpose of Senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future congresses.”
 
After DeMint finished his speech and yielded his floor time back, Merkley repeated his response to the claims.
 
“The chair will note that it is quite common to include provisions effecting Senate procedure in legislation,” Merkley said.
 
DeMint returned to the podium and asked: “Is there a difference between Senate procedures and rules?”
 
“Yes,” Merkley said.
 
“(S)o the language that you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?” DeMint asked.
 
“That is correct,” Merkley said.
 
“Then I guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if we can redefine them,” DeMint said.
 
DeMint said it was “truly historic that we have included new rules changes in legislation.”
 
He added: “We have changes in this legislation — yet we’re ignoring a rule that requires a two-thirds cloture vote to pass it. I believe that it’s unconstitutional.”
 
Bryan Darling, the director of Senate relations at The Heritage Foundation, told CNSNews.com that contrary to what Merkley had indicated, including a rule in a bill was not common.
 
“First of all, it doesn’t happen all the time,” Darling said “Second of all, any rules changes buried in legislation would subject the legislation to a two-thirds vote of the Senate to go into effect, because to change the rules of the Senate you need a supermajority — a two-thirds vote.”
 
A specialist in Senate procedures, Darling said the provision itself would “make sure that Congress can’t overturn the decisions of the (IMAB) panel.
 
“It’s undemocratic. These are panels that are using (taxpayer dollars),” he added. “So to make that argument means that, basically, the Democrats can change all the rules of the Senate, and instead of using a two-thirds vote, if they bury it in legislation then they can just change the rules with 60 votes, and that really is unprecedented.”
 
Darling told CNSNews.com that the rules change was a reflection of the unpopularity of the health-care bill – and that the majority Democrats know it.
 
“Trying to bind future congresses is really — it’s hard to do,” he said, “but it shows that they’re fearful that Republicans will in fact try to repeal (parts) of the bill.”
 
The Senate parliamentarian, who advised Merkley on his rulings, does not conduct interviews with the media. However, a DeMint spokesman said that the parliamentarian’s answers through the chair at the time – Merkley — could be taken as his response.

He also said that while some prior legislation had effectively created rules changes, he had not seen any precedent from the parliamentarian on provisions that would bind the activities of a future Congress, such as in the provision on page 1,020.
 
Despite DeMint’s challenge, the bill cleared the Senate early Christmas Eve on a 60-39 party-line vote (one Republican, Kentucky’s retiring Jim Bunning, was absent). It now must go to a conference committee, where House and Senate conferees will work do their bvt he bill, and the product, called a “conference report,”  be sent to President Obama to be signed.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin made headlines last summer for referring to the IMAB as a “death panel” because it would presumably cause cost-cuts that would affect the care of certain people.
 
“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel,’” she wrote in an August Facebook post, “so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care.”

The board would be required to solicit from the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid a projected rate of cost growth for the following year. If the number falls outside the target rate of growth, the IMAB would submit a series of recommendations to bring costs in line.

The bill requires “the Secretary (of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius) to implement such proposals unless Congress enacts legislation pursuant to this section.”The bill, however, also stipulates on page 1,004 that IMAB’s proposals “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care” or “restrict benefits.”

Read the original article CNSNews

NBC’s Robach: ‘Will [Palin] Ever Just Go Away?’

The Sarah you don’t read about!

By Dewie Whetsell, Alaskan Fisherman. As posted in comments on Greta’s article referencing the MOVEON ad about Sarah Palin.

The last 45 of my 66 years I’ve spent in a commercial fishing town in Alaska .  I understand politics but never understood national politics well until this last year.  Here’s the breaking point: Neither side of the Palin controversy gets it.  It’s not about persona, style, rhetoric, it’s about doing things.  Even Palin supporters never mention the things that I’m about to mention here1- Democrats forget when Palin was the Darling of the Democrats, because as soon as Palin took the Governor’s office away from a fellow Republican and tough SOB, Frank Murkowski, she tore into the Republican’s “Corrupt Bastards Club” (CBC) and sent them packing. Many of them are now residing in State housing and wearing orange jump suits. The Democrats reacted by skipping around the yard, throwing confetti and singing, “la la la la” (well, you know how they are). Name another governor in this country that has ever done anything similar.
 
2- Now with the CBC gone, there were fewer Alaskan politicians to protect the huge, giant oil companies here. So she constructed and enacted a new system of splitting the oil profits called “ACES.” Exxon (the biggest corporation in the world) protested and Sarah told them, “don’t let the door hit you in the stern on your way out.” They stayed, and Alaska residents went from being merely wealthy to being filthy rich. Of course, the other huge international oil companies meekly fell in line. Again, give me the name of any other governor in the country that has done anything similar.
 
3- The other thing she did when she walked into the governor’s office is she got the list of State requests for federal funding for projects, known as “pork.” She went through the list, took 85% of them and placed them in the “when-hell-freezes-over” stack. She let locals know that if we need something built, we’ll pay for it ourselves. Maybe she figured she could use the money she got from selling the previous governor’s jet because it was extravagant. Maybe she could use the money she saved by dismissing the governor’s cook (remarking that she could cook for her own family), giving back the State vehicle issued to her, maintaining that she already had a car, and dismissing her State provided security force (never mentioning – I imagine – that she’s packing heat herself). I’m still waiting to hear the names of those other governors.
 
4- Now, even with her much-ridiculed “gosh and golly” mannerism, she also managed to put together a totally new approach to getting a natural gas pipeline built which will be the biggest private construction project in the history of North America. No one else could do it although they tried. If that doesn’t impress you, then you’re trying too hard to be unimpressed while watching her do things like this while baking up a batch of brownies with her other hand.

 5- For 30 years, Exxon held a lease to do exploratory drilling at a place called Point Thompson. They made excuses the entire time why they couldn’t start drilling. In truth they were holding it like an investment. No governor for 30 years could make them get started… This summer, she told them she was revoking their lease and kicking them out. They protested and threatened court action. She shrugged and reminded them that she knew the way to the court house. Alaska won again.

6- President Obama wants the nation to be on 25% renewable resources for electricity by 2025. Sarah went to the legislature and submitted her plan for Alaska to be at 50% renewables by 2025. We are already at 25%. I can give you more specifics about things done, as opposed to style and persona. Everybody wants to be cool, sound cool, look cool. But that’s just a cover-up. I’m still waiting to hear from liberals the names of other governors who can match what mine has done in two and a half years. I won’t be holding my breath.
By the way, she was content to return to AK after the national election and go to work, but the haters wouldn’t let her. Now these adolescent screechers are obviously not scuba divers. And no one ever told them what happens when you continually jab and pester a barracuda. Without warning, it will spin around and tear your face off. Shoulda known better.
You have just read the truth about Sarah Palin that sends the media, along with the Democrat party, into a wild uncontrolled frenzy to discredit her. I guess they are only interested in skirt chasers, dishonesty, immoral people, liars, womanizers, murderers, and bitter ex-presidents’ wives. So “You go, Girl.” I only wish the men in Washington had your guts, determination, honesty, and morals.
      I rest my case.

Only FOOLS listen to the biased media.