Friday, August 28, 2009

The Media Ignores Sarah Palin's Best Argument


Bias by omission is a powerful weapon and has been used many times against Sarah Palin by the media.

Political reporters have an unhealthy addiction to Sarah Palin's Facebook page. They scan every word hoping for something they can use against the former Governor. Not all reporters, of course, but enough to be embarrassing for journalism.

On Wednesday, Sarah Palin posted a simple endorsement of Glenn Beck's show on Fox News.

An Invitation

FOX News' Glenn Beck is doing an extraordinary job this week walking America behind the scenes of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and outlining who is actually running the White House.

Monday night he asked us to invite one friend to watch; tonight I invite all my friends to watch.

-Sarah Palin


That was all it said. The way some in the media reacted to that simple posting from a private citizen, you would think she was palling around with terrorists or something.

Now it is true that Sarah Palin has 840,000 Facebook friends, so her posts carry some weight. But its not her fault that she is popular. She is just recommending a TV show to her friends.

And Sarah does have some pull. Glenn Beck had record ratings on Thursday Night: This from Newsmax.Com -

Although Glenn Beck's hit Fox News show doesn't even air during prime time, he is generating huge prime-time-like numbers at 5 p.m.

TVbytheNumbers.com reports that, despite a liberal group's "boycott" of "The Glenn Beck Program," Beck is striking "pure ratings gold."

On Wednesday, Beck had more than 3 million viewers, just slightly behind Bill O'Reilly's No. 1 show, which airs in prime time.

But Beck pulled ahead of Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren, both of whom also appear in prime time.

Beck pulled more viewers in the key demo group that advertisers love: 25- to 54-year-olds. Beck's draw of 888,000 of these viewers was more than any other show in "the cable news world for the night."


This all comes in the wake of a boycott of Beck (boy did that backfire) led by a group called ColorofChange.Org, a group out of Oakland, California, who even bullied a few advertisors into pulling ads from the Glenn Beck show.

The boycott came after Beck accused Barack Obama of being a racist on the show "Fox and Friends" -

"This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over and over again, who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture, I don't know what it is," Beck said.

When Fox co-host Brian Kilmeade pointed out that most of the staffers Obama has hired are white, Beck kept going.

"I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem. ... This guy, I believe, is a racist," he added.


And so when Sarah Palin asked people to watch Glenn Beck's broadcast, the liberals in the media were attempting to not so subtly tie her to Glenn Beck's comments.

But Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have a deeper connection. They both have special needs children and Beck was one of the first in the country to introduce us to this wonderful woman:



The two became friends before Sarah Palin hit the National Stage as John McCain's running mate. Glenn Beck has been there to support Sarah Palin time and time again, through all of the sliming, through all of the nasty rumors and attacks. Doesn't it say something about Sarah Palin that now, when Glenn Beck is the one under attack, she is there to support her friend?

But there is something else going on here.

The media paid a great deal of attention to Sarah Palin's endorsement of Glenn Beck. I believe many in the media did so because Beck was in the middle of a racially charged controversy and they wanted to through Sarah in the middle of the controversy with him.

We also know that the media is still using in a feeding frenzy over the now famous Sarah Palin "death panel" post on Facebook. The liberal pro-Obama group "Americans United for Change" have even paid for an ad on Facebook to challenge the Sarah Palin post.

Again, the media and the left (is that redundant) used the posting to attack Sarah Palin, claiming she lied about federal "death panels" being in the legislation.

But in between the "Death Panels" post from over two weeks ago and the Glenn Beck post from two days ago, there was another post that has been all but ignored by the media.

It was a well thought out, eloquent argument that any Healthcare reform must include a mechanism to reduce the out of control malpractice and class action lawsuits.

The call for Tort reform included a direct question to President Obama:

Why no legal reform? Why continue to encourage defensive medicine that wastes billions of dollars and does nothing for the patients? Do you want health care reform to benefit trial attorneys or patients?

The Healthcare problem in this country is a three headed monster with insurance companies, drug companies and lawyers all profiting handsomely off the system. President Obama has had no problem going after the Insurance companies and drug companies, but the trial lawyers, big contributors to the Democratic party, are off limits.

It is impossible to truly reform Healthcare in America without dealing with the the legal community and the expense of malpractice litigation. More importantly, it makes what should be a noble effort seem hollow, rife with partisanship and self-motivation.

The lack of Tort reform is the Achilles Heel of the President's Health Reform efforts.

It is fascinating to me that the media chose to ignore it. More than their attacks on Palin's other Facebook posts, their lack of coverage on the Tort reform argument shows a clear bias. It is bias by omission.

The attacks and ridicule of the "death panel" posts ended up backfiring. The more the media wrote about it, even in its indignation, the more the idea took hold with the public. The President, the left and the media has been trying to discredit Sarah Palin ever since. But because of that post, Sarah Palin has proven to be the most effective opponent of the President on healthcare.

Reporters were then chastised by the White House for paying too much attention to Sarah Palin.

With their tails between their legs, those reporters dutifully paid gave Sarah Palin's more damaging post even less credit. Or maybe the argument was so tight, the reporters just couldn't find anything to ridicule.

Either way, I hope my fellow bloggers continue to write about Tort reform so that the Governor's argument gets the attention in deserved and does not fade away.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Please Follow Sarah Palin's Lead in Commenting About The Passing of Ted Kennedy

I have been embarrassed by some of the comments left about the passing of Senator Edward Kennedy on some Sarah Palin sites and even on her own Facebook page.

Ted Kennedy fought with George Bush to pass No Child Left Behind and has tirelessly worked for Education, Healthcare and the Poor. Like many of you, I have rarely agreed with Ted Kennedy, but admired his work ethic.

The time for political attacks on the Senator is not now, For the time being, as his family and friends mourn, if you have nothing nice to say - don't say anything.

I do long for the days when Ronald Reagan would disagree vehemently with Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill - and laugh about it over drinks later.



The passion was real and so was the respect.

Follow the lead of Reagan. Follow the lead of Sarah Palin who posted the following on Facebook on Tuesday:

I would like to extend our sympathies to the Kennedy family as we hear word about the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy. He believed in our country and fought passionately for his convictions.

-Sarah Palin and family

Monday, August 24, 2009

Keith Olbermann - You Have Been Voted Off the Island.

Sarah Palin Fans have spoken and Keith Olbermann - you have been voted off the island (The Island, in this case, being Earth). Please leave immediately.

The readers of The Sarah Palin Blog were given 9 choices of Palin antagonists in a game of Survivor. The question was: If you could throw one of these people off the Island, which one would you choose.

It was a close vote, but with 2,420 votes cast - MSNBC's Keith Olbermann received 242 or 21%.

Olbermann was closely followed by HBO's Bill Maher who got 200 votes or 18%.

The remaining Anti-Palin Survivors are NBC's Chris Matthews with 176 votes (15%).

Maureen Dowd of the New York Times with 174 votes (14%)

And Democratic Operative and Pit Bull Paul Begala with 111 votes or 10%.

Far behind in 6th through 9th place are four Alaskan Palin Haters who are sinking into obscurity now that Sarah Palin has resigned as Governor and is now using Facebook to shape the National Debate on Healthcare and Energy.

The freaky foursome are blogger Shannyn Moore, who sometimes is used by MSNBC to bash Palin. Moore started the rumor that Palin resigned because she was under FBI investigation. The FBI issued a statement basically calling Moore a liar Moore got 75 votes.

Andee McLeod, a former Palin supporter who got mad when Sarah Palin didn't give her a spot in the Administration and then filed several frivolous ethics complaints, got 73 votes.

Linda Kellen Biegel, an Alaskan Blogger who has stooped as low as to mock Sarah Palin's Down Sydrome baby Trig, got 66 votes.

And Jesse Griffin, the Alaskan Blogger who started the Palin divorce rumor, got 66 votes.

The Loathsome Foursome are now just clammering for attention in Sarah Palin's ever increasing shadow. And the Sarah Palin Blog reader's gave them what they deserve - complete indifference.

Sarah has moved on - these four should too. Get another hobby - maybe get a puppy.

The Most Disturbing Sarah Palin Merchandising Ever



And it only costs $569.

Read more on "The Winker" jeans by clicking here.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

John McCain Attacked by Stephanopoulos After Defending Sarah Palin

The White House should just go ahead and put George Stephanopoulos on the payroll. He has always been a card carrying democrat - now he might as well go ahead and wear an Obama button.

Listen and read as he doesn't just ask questions of Senator John McCain - he debate him as an advisary on Sarah Palin's claim that the Obama Healthcare plan included "death panels" in an early version.

And as you read and lsietn, realize that two weeks later, Sarah Palin is STILL forcing dialogiue on the issue -


The following cops is from ABCNews.com

In his first comments on Sarah Palin's "death panel" claims, John McCain is standing by his former running mate.

Sort of...

He doesn't like the phrase "death panels," but he defended the substance of Palin's charge, saying the Democrats have only themselves to blame for the controversy.

In my exclusive This Week interview, I pressed McCain several times on the death panel charge:

STEPHANOPOULOS: The president also says that the debate has been infected by falsehoods. And probably the most notorious one is the one made by your former running mate, Sarah Palin, who said that his bill would encourage death panels that would encourage euthanasia. He called that an extraordinary lie and he is right about that, isn't he?

MCCAIN: Well, I think that what we are talking about here is do – are we going to have groups that actually advise people as these decisions are made later in life and …

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's not in the bill.

MCCAIN: But – it's been taken out, but the way that it was written made it a little bit ambiguous. And another thing …

STEPHANOPOULOS: I don't think that's correct, Senator. The bill, all it said was that, if a patient wanted to have a Medicare consultation about end-of-life issues, they could have it at their request and the doctor would get reimbursed for it, no panel …

MCCAIN: There was a provision in the bill that talks about a board that would decide the most effective measures to provide health care for people, OK? Now, we had amendments, we republican have said that in no way would that affect the decisions that the patients would make and their families. That was rejected by the Democrats and the health committee.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But that's not a death panel.

MCCAIN: So what does – what does that lead to? Doesn't that lead to a possibility, at least opens the door to a possibility of rationing and decisions made such are made in other countries?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, every single independent group that looked at it said it just wasn't true.

MCCAIN: Well, then why did the Democrats turn down our amendments that clarified that none of the decisions that would be made by this board would in any way affect depriving of needed treatments for patients? I don't know why they did that then.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you think Sarah Palin was right?

MCCAIN: Look, I don't think they were called death panels, don't get me wrong. I don't think – but on the best treatment procedures part of the bill, it does open it up to decisions being made as far – that should be left – those choices left to the patient and the individual. That's what I think is pretty clear, which was a different section of the bill.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Sarah Palin's Latest Facebook Blast

Today's first reaction to Sarah Palin's latest Facebook blast about Healthcare comes from The Washington Examiner:

This week, Palin takes on another aspect of the debate and stakes out a position that seems designed to highlight one of the biggest weaknesses of President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders - their dependance upon trial lawyers for funding.

For the entire Washington Examiner post click here. And keep reading for the full blast from Sarah Palin.

No Healthcare Reform Without Legal Reform

President Obama's health care "reform" plan has met with significant criticism across the country. Many Americans want change and reform in our current health care system. We recognize that while we have the greatest medical care in the world, there are major problems that we must face, especially in terms of reining in costs and allowing care to be affordable for all. However, as we have seen, current plans being pushed by the Democratic leadership represent change that may not be what we had in mind -- change which poses serious ethical concerns over the government having control over our families’ health care decisions. In addition, the current plans greatly increase costs of health care, while doing lip service toward controlling costs.

We need to address a REAL bipartisan reform proposition that will have REAL impacts on costs and quality of patient care.

As Governor of Alaska, I learned a little bit about being a target for frivolous suits and complaints (Please, do I really need to footnote that?). I went my whole life without needing a lawyer on speed-dial, but all that changes when you become a target for opportunists and people with no scruples. Our nation’s health care providers have been the targets of similar opportunists for years, and they too have found themselves subjected to false, frivolous, and baseless claims. To quote a former president, “I feel your pain.”

So what can we do? First, we cannot have health care reform without tort reform. The two are intertwined. For example, one supposed justification for socialized medicine is the high cost of health care. As Dr. Scott Gottlieb recently noted, “If Mr. Obama is serious about lowering costs, he'll need to reform the economic structures in medicine—especially programs like Medicare.” [1] Two examples of these “economic structures” are high malpractice insurance premiums foisted on physicians (and ultimately passed on to consumers as “high health care costs”) and the billions wasted on defensive medicine.

Dr. Stuart Weinstein, with the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, recently explained the problem:

”The medical liability crisis has had many unintended consequences, most notably a decrease in access to care in a growing number of states and an increase in healthcare costs.
Access is affected as physicians move their practices to states with lower liability rates and change their practice patterns to reduce or eliminate high-risk services. When one considers that half of all neurosurgeons—as well as one third of all orthopedic surgeons, one third of all emergency physicians, and one third of all trauma surgeons—are sued each year, is it any wonder that 70 percent of emergency departments are at risk because they lack available on-call specialist coverage?” [2]

Dr. Weinstein makes good points, points completely ignored by President Obama. Dr. Weinstein details the costs that our out-of-control tort system are causing the health care industry and notes research that “found that liability reforms could reduce defensive medicine practices, leading to a 5 percent to 9 percent reduction in medical expenditures without any effect on mortality or medical complications.” Dr. Weinstein writes:

“If the Kessler and McClellan estimates were applied to total U.S. healthcare spending in 2005, the defensive medicine costs would total between $100 billion and $178 billion per year. Add to this the cost of defending malpractice cases, paying compensation, and covering additional administrative costs (a total of $29.4 billion). Thus, the average American family pays an additional $1,700 to $2,000 per year in healthcare costs simply to cover the costs of defensive medicine.
Excessive litigation and waste in the nation’s current tort system imposes an estimated yearly tort tax of $9,827 for a family of four and increases healthcare spending in the United States by $124 billion. How does this translate to individuals? The average obstetrician-gynecologist (OB-GYN) delivers 100 babies per year. If that OB-GYN must pay a medical liability premium of $200,000 each year (which is the rate in Florida), $2,000 of the delivery cost for each baby goes to pay the cost of the medical liability premium.” [3]

You would think that any effort to reform our health care system would include tort reform, especially if the stated purpose for Obama’s plan to nationalize our health care industry is the current high costs.

So I have new questions for the president: Why no legal reform? Why continue to encourage defensive medicine that wastes billions of dollars and does nothing for the patients? Do you want health care reform to benefit trial attorneys or patients?

Many states, including my own state of Alaska, have enacted caps on lawsuit awards against health care providers. Texas enacted caps and found that one county’s medical malpractice claims dropped 41 percent, and another study found a “55 percent decline” after reform measures were passed. [4] That’s one step in health care reform. Limiting lawyer contingency fees, as is done under the Federal Tort Claims Act, is another step. The State of Alaska pioneered the “loser pays” rule in the United States, which deters frivolous civil law suits by making the loser partially pay the winner’s legal bills. Preventing quack doctors from giving “expert” testimony in court against real doctors is another reform.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry noted that, after his state enacted tort reform measures, the number of doctors applying to practice medicine in Texas “skyrocketed by 57 percent” and that the tort reforms “brought critical specialties to underserved areas.” These are real reforms that actually improve access to health care. [5]

Dr. Weinstein’s research shows that around $200 billion per year could be saved with legal reform. That’s real savings. That’s money that could be used to build roads, schools, or hospitals.
If you want to save health care, let’s listen to our doctors. There should be no health care reform without legal reform. There can be no true health care reform without legal reform.

- Sarah Palin

[1] See Wall Street Journal online
[2] See The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons
[3] Id.
[4] See The American Bar Association Journal
[5] See The Washington Examiner

Palin Is Right About The Obama Offshore Oil Contradiction

Just imagine when she really starts talking!

The fact that Sarah Palin can post something on Facebook every few days and get such attention is amazing to long time political analysts and frustrated other 2012 Republican hopefuls, no to mention the White House.

On Wednesday, Sarah Palin posted an essay in reaction to a Wall Street Journal article that the United States Import-Export Bank was prepared to help finance drilling off the coast of Brazil.

Sarah Palin's post pointed out the hypocrisy of the financing:

For years, states rich with an abundance of oil and natural gas have been begging Washington, DC politicians for the right to develop their own natural resources on federal lands and off shore. Such development would mean good paying jobs here in the United States (with health benefits) and the resulting royalties and taxes would provide money for federal coffers that would potentially off-set the need for higher income taxes, reduce the federal debt and deficits, or even help fund a trillion dollar health care plan if one were so inclined to support such a plan.

It is a fair point, if the Obama administration is blocking off-shore oil drilling in the United States as environmentally unsound, why promote it elsewhere?

But instead of reacting to her message, Palin critics once again nit-picked the message for any inaccuracy so they can attack the messenger.

Governor Palin wrote:

So why is it that during these tough times, when we have great needs at home, the Obama White House is prepared to send more than two billion of your hard-earned tax dollars to Brazil so that the nation's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, can drill off shore and create jobs developing its own resources? That's all Americans want; but such rational energy development has been continually thwarted by rabid environmentalists, faceless bureaucrats and a seemingly endless parade of lawsuits aimed at shutting down new energy projects.

It is true that the Export-Import bank receives no appropriations from Congress and thus does not rely on American taxpayer dollars and is also not "sending" $2 billion to the Brazilian company but offering lines of credit to U.S. firms so they can compete to land contracts as part of Petrobras' drilling operations.

I would agree that in the future Governor Palin's staff needs to tighten up their verbiage and better research before posting.

But, the essence of the above paragraph is still accurate. Americans do lose out on tax dollars when we ban a lucrative enterprise from taking place in America and grow that same business elsewhere. It is in a word - insane.

Just imagine if the United States were to halt future automobile production in the United States and then guarantee loans to help South Korean automakers. The nation would be in an uproar with violent demonstrations in Detroit and Washington D.C.

This is what is happening with this off shore drilling financing for Petrobas, a Brazilian Oil Company. It sends money, jobs and, yes, future tax dollars out of the United States and to a foreign land.

Isn't energy independence an expressed goal of this administration? If we promote oil exploration off foreign lands, don't we become more dependent on foreign oil?

None of it makes sense.

Well, let me clear things up a little.

First, politics and hypocrisy have long been bed mates. Offshore oil drilling is a mortal sin to the Liberal base of the Democratic party, even though technology has made it much less invasive. A strong stand against off-shore oil drilling is a liberal litmus test, one of those knee jerk issues that a democratic candidate must espouse to get the nomination.

But, what trumps long held beliefs in politics? Anybody? The answer is obvious - money.

Enter George Soros, the democratic money man and a huge contributor to all things Obama.

The New York-based hedge fund firm controlled by the billionaire backer of liberal causes and campaigns bought and sold millions of shares in Petrobras -- the largest of the firm's holdings -- prior to public disclosure of the Export-Import bank's offer of new credit guarantees to the Brazilian energy giant.

So the transactions stink to high heaven and should be investigated.

It seems on the face that Soros and the Obama White House may have had some kind of arrangement to funnel money to a Soros investment. A payback? No one can prove that, but it is worth looking into.

I know many Obama supporters will try and point out that the U.S. Import-Expert Bank is supposed to be an Independent agency. Please. The agency serves under the Executive Branch of Government and its board members are appointed by the President.

Right now the White House is trying to avoid this issue altogether. Spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday, "I have not seen the story," he said. "I'd have to take a look."

I have not seen the story? Do you think Sarah Palin could get away with that answer?

Someone has some questions to answer. I just hope that the Main Stream Media keeps asking and does not let this go.

They did spend most of the week criticizing one sentence in Sarah Palin's statement, while ignoring the more bigger and more important message - that this deal stinks to high heavens and hurts America.

In case you missed it, here is the entire Facebook post from Sarah Palin on Wednesday:

Today's Wall Street Journal contains some puzzling news for all Americans who are impacted by high energy prices and who share the goal of moving us toward energy independence.

For years, states rich with an abundance of oil and natural gas have been begging Washington, DC politicians for the right to develop their own natural resources on federal lands and off shore. Such development would mean good paying jobs here in the United States (with health benefits) and the resulting royalties and taxes would provide money for federal coffers that would potentially off-set the need for higher income taxes, reduce the federal debt and deficits, or even help fund a trillion dollar health care plan if one were so inclined to support such a plan.

So why is it that during these tough times, when we have great needs at home, the Obama White House is prepared to send more than two billion of your hard-earned tax dollars to Brazil so that the nation's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, can drill off shore and create jobs developing its own resources? That's all Americans want; but such rational energy development has been continually thwarted by rabid environmentalists, faceless bureaucrats and a seemingly endless parade of lawsuits aimed at shutting down new energy projects.

I'll speak for the talent I have personally witnessed on the oil fields in Alaska when I say no other country in the world has a stronger workforce than America, no other country in the world has better safety standards than America, and no other country in the world has stricter environmental standards than America. Come to Alaska to witness how oil and gas can be developed simultaneously with the preservation of our eco-system. America has the resources. We deserve the opportunity to develop our resources no less than the Brazilians. Millions of Americans know it is true: "Drill, baby, drill." Alaska is proof you can drill and develop, and preserve nature, with its magnificent caribou herds passing by the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), completely unaffected. One has to wonder if Obama is playing politics and perhaps refusing a "win" for some states just to play to the left with our money.

The new Gulf of Mexico lease sales tomorrow sound promising and perhaps will move some states in the right direction, but we all know that the extreme environmentalists who serve to block progress elsewhere, including in Alaska, continue to block opportunities. These environmentalists are putting our nation in peril and forcing us to rely on unstable and hostile foreign countries. Mr. Obama can stop the extreme tactics and exert proper government authority to encourage resource development and create jobs and health benefits in the U.S.; instead, he chooses to use American dollars in Brazil that will help to pay the salaries and benefits for Brazilians to drill for resources when the need and desire is great in America.

Buy American is a wonderful slogan, but you can't say in one breath that you want to strengthen our economy and stimulate it, and then in another ship our much-needed dollars to a nation desperate to drill while depriving us of the same opportunity.

- Sarah Palin

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

The Side Show

If Sarah Palin is the main attraction - here are some stories from the side show:

Levi Johnston has stated that he would pose nude for the right amount of money. Now money has been offered. Will he take it? He has date Kathy Griffin for money and lied for money - so why not? It isn't like he has any pride left. Click here for the story.

Levi's Mom pleads guilty - click here.

Is Sarah Moving to Rhode island - click here.

What to give the woman that has everything? Here's a list - click here.

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Maureen Dowd Stalks Sarah Palin

Maureen Dowd has proved herself to be not much better than Shannyn Moore and the small clatch of Internet witches who surf and snip in Sarah Palin's wake in hopes of getting some residual attention.

Dowd, yet again, attacked Sarah Palin in her Sunday column, a column that Dowd should just re-title - "Why Is Everyone Talking About Sarah Palin And Not Me." Down has become the Jan Brady of columnists - instead of "Marcia, Marcia Marcia," it's "Sarah, Sarah, Sarah."

Dowd got so carried away trying to look down her nose at everything Palin that she attacked a popular Social Internet Network because it was tooched by Sarah. A childish tactic that amounts to - "I'm not sitting there because she did and it has cooties."

Down wrote:

She took a forum, Facebook, more commonly used by kids hooking up and cyberstalking, and with one catchy phrase, several footnotes and a zesty disregard for facts, managed to hijack the health care debate from Mr. Obama.

Through her red-eyed, spittle laden rage, Maureen forgot that she too is on Facebook. Well, she is getting up there in years and as we get older we tend to forget these things.

Mark Finkelstein of NewsBusters wrote a wonderful retort to :

So Maureen, who are Barack Obama, Michelle Obama and Rahm Emanuel or . . . you yourself, hooking up with or stalking?

Well, Mark we know who Maureen is stalking.

To read the entire NewsBusters Post - click here.

If you must read the insipid and uninspiring Maureen Dowd piece - click here.

But I must thank The Nanny of The New York Times (she sounds like Fran Drescher)for giving me an idea. To the right of this post is a poll. Let's play Sara Palin Survivor. Which Palin Critic would you most like to see thrown of the Island. In this case, the island would be the planet earth.

Have fun.

(If the poll is not up right away - check back.)

The Power Of Palin


Sarah Palin's political clout is astonishing.

As we take a break in the action, let's reflect on the unprecedented ability Sarah Palin has to grab the nation's attention. She was able to break through all of the noise around the Health Care debate, to be heard over the angry mobs, and the legions of talking heads - simply by posting on Facebook.

Think about that.

She posted her thoughts on an Internet Social Network and was immediately elevated to the voice of dissent. The President of the United States was forced to respond to her.

We are seeing something that has never happened before in politics.

For all of those who thought Sarah Palin committed political suicide by resigning as Governor of Alaska - think again. This woman has an unprecedented power to have her message heard above all others. Those who underestimate that power do so at their own risk.

Even the White House has complained to the press corp that they give Sarah Palin too much attention. It is the very media that Sarah Palin criticizes that gives her incredible power.

CBS News also posted a story on this - you can read it by clicking here.

For all of those who believe that Sarah Palin is a "lightweight" and needs political advice - remember that when she announced that she was stepping down as Governor, she told us all that she didn't need a title to have a voice in the national debate. She told us, in fact, that the title of Governor may actually hold her back - especially with the constant assault of politically motivated frivolous ethics complaints. She told us that all of this would happen.

Those who said her political career was over were wrong, Those who said she had taken herself out of the 2012 campaign were wrong. Those who said she had given up her bully pulpit were wrong.

This is a new kind of politics and Sarah Palin is writing the playbook.

Her critics should pay attention - they could learn a thing or two.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Snarling Dog Paul Begala Nips At Sarah Palin


Democratic attack dog Paul Begala attacked Sarah Palin today calling her "flaky and an intellectual lightweight."

Begala was asked on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer" to respond to a Politico story in which former House Speaker Newt Gingrich outlined several ways for Palin to repair her image.

Although Begala called Gingrich "a brilliant political strategist," he said giving advice to Palin is an exercise in futility.

"Here's the problem," said Begala, a CNN contributor. "He is trying to treat her like a serious person. She is not. OK? She is about half a whack job. She does not have the intellectual heft of Newt Gingrich or almost anyone else in the Republican Party, and I think she has proved that."

He continued: "I admire Newt Gingrich for pretending that she is a serious person. But Sarah Palin has proven herself to be flaky and an intellectual lightweight."



Sarah Palin has gotten under the skin of the ultra-sensitive Obama administration and they have released the attack dogs. Remember that is all Begala is and it is all he will ever be - a dog on a leash and every once and awhile they let him go bite someone.

Ronald Reagan Argues Against Socialized Medicine

Sound familiar?

Thursday, August 13, 2009

The Obama-Palin Debate

Today Sarah Palin responded to President Obama.

Two points - First, Sarah Palin has become THE voice of the Republican Party. Second, when the President engages in a one on one debate with Sarah Palin - Sarah Palin wins, as she is elevated to equal status.

Here is the entire statement:

Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.

The President made light of these concerns. He said:

“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore....It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.” [1]

The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program." [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]

Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.... If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]

As Lane also points out:

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic. [7]

Even columnist Eugene Robinson, a self-described “true believer” who “will almost certainly support” “whatever reform package finally emerges”, agrees that “If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.” [8]

So are these usually friendly pundits wrong? Is this all just a “rumor” to be “disposed of”, as President Obama says? Not according to Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, who writes:

Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives.... It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen ... should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign. [9]

Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” [11]

President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. It’s all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform.

Sarah Was Right About Death Panels


It seems that I stirred up some raw emotions from some by not following lock-step with the popular interpretation of Sarah Palin's Facebook statement.

I will argue that many, including some Conservatives and Republicans, have been tricked by the Obama forces slight of hand. They have used Governor Palin's use of the the term "Death Panel" to call attention away from the rest of the statement. In context the term is appropriate.

Here is the "death panel" part of the statement again:

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. 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” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.


The President and others have purposely misinterpreted and maligned the meaning of the statement for their own agenda. They claim that she has taken the "living will" provision of the health care bill to scare the elderly.

But just read the statement - she is NOT talking solely about euthanasia - she says "And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course."

Now Boys and Girls, you need to know, that there is rationed health care right now in America as Salon.Com has skillfully pointed out in an article entitled "The Death Panels Are Already Here."

Coverage of Palin's remarks, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's defense of them, over the weekend did point out that the idea that the reform plans would encourage government-sponsored euthanasia is one of a handful of deliberate falsehoods being peddled by opponents of the legislation. But the idea that only if reform passes would the government start setting up rationing and interfering with care goes beyond just the bogus euthanasia claim.

Opponents of reform often seem to skip right past any problems with the current system -- but it's rife with them. A study by the American Medical Association found the biggest insurance companies in the country denied between 2 and 5 percent of claims put in by doctors last year (though the AMA noted that not all the denials were improper). There is no national database of insurance claim denials, though, because private insurance companies aren't required to disclose such stats. Meanwhile, a House Energy and Commerce Committee report in June found that just three insurance companies kicked at least 20,000 people off their rolls between 2003 and 2007 for such reasons as typos on their application paperwork, a preexisting condition or a family member's medical history. People who buy insurance under individual policies, about 6 percent of adults, may be especially vulnerable, but the 63 percent of adults covered by employer-provided insurance aren't immune to difficulty.


I urge you to read the article - it gives example after example of "death panels" making decisions in health care. It is something that The Government will necessarily take over if there is a public option.

The question becomes twofold -

1) Do you want the Government Bureaucrats to make those life and death decisions in you or your families health?

2) Will we be allowed to suit the Federal Government if they make the wrong decision?


The second question is an important one because right now you can sue your Insurance company for denying coverage, but the Federal Government is immune from those suits.

So, when the Federal government says NO - it really can be a death sentence - with no means of appeal.

Now, let me address people like Bill Hess, a good man who took exception to the previous posting about Sarah Palin's "death panel" comment. Bill wrote:

You're very funny! And what nerve you have! Trying to say heads is tails. Sarah Palin's comment about death panels is meant to derail the Obama effort to end this practice by the private insurance industry. In tearing down Obama, she was jumping to the aid of such rationing by the insurance companies (who have done it to me) and it is perverse of you to now try to pretend that the argument that most strongly argues against Palin is exactly the kind of thing she was attacking.

Bill, I read your blog, and I am so sorry you had to suffer and that your Insurance company was not there for you.

Everyone agrees that the current health care system must be fixed. But Government run health care is an over-reaction. And make no mistake - that IS what is being proposed.

So it is not me, or Salon.Com, that is saying heads is tails and black is white. It is the people who are pushing for Government controlled health care. They purposely used Sarah Palin's use of the term "death Panel" to obscure its real and deeper question - Do we want the Government making these life and death decisions?

That is the #1 issue with the public option - an option that companies and individuals will gravitate to because it is cheaper without considering the real cost.

Bill, you seem to be a thoughtful man, as I am certain many others are on the Obama side of the health care debate. I just encourage everyone to try and see through the fog of war at what is really at stake.

Sarah Palin used strong words to bring this issue to the forefront. It worked.

Now lets allow the emotions to subside and really discuss the future of health care without the political tactics that have just soured the debate.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Death Panels Already Exist - Under Obama They'll Just Be Run By the Government

Sarah Palin has been excoriated by the media, by Democrats and even some fellow Republicans for a Facebook posting claiming the Government would have "death panels" to decide life and death issues.

But "death panels" already exist.

From Salon.Com:

Long before anyone started talking about government "death panels" or warning that Obama would have the government ration care, 17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan, a leukemia patient from Glendale, Calif., died in December 2007, after her parents battled their insurance company, Cigna, over the surgery. Cigna initially refused to pay for it because the company's analysis showed Sarkisyan was already too sick from her leukemia; the liver transplant wouldn't have saved her life.

That kind of utilitarian rationing, of course, is exactly what Palin and other opponents of the healthcare reform proposals pending before Congress say they want to protect the country from. "Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote, in the same message posted on Facebook where she raised the "death panel" specter. "Health care by definition involves life and death decisions."

I encourage everyone to read the article posted on Salon.Com by clicking here.

These decisions are being made by "death panels" in the private sector everyday. Up to Five percent of the claims put in my Doctors were overturned by those panels.

The question before us now is - "Do you want the Government making those decisions?"

It is a fair question and we are all entitled to our opinion. But do not deny that such Government run panels would exist under the Obama healthcare plan - they necessarily must.

Thank you to SPB reader MONTY for sending me the Salon article.

Sarah Gets Support From Michael Steele and Another Ethics Complaint is Thrown Out

Republican Chairman Michael Steel defends Sarah Palin's attack on President Obama's Health Care Plan:


AND Another Ethics complaint against Sarah Palin bites the dust. This one was from a frequent filer - Andree McLeod, who used to be a Palin supporter until Sarah became Governor and wouldn't give McLeod a patronage job.

From the AP:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — A judge has ruled that the Alaska governor's office can use private email accounts to conduct state business, as former Gov. Sarah Palin sometimes did.

Superior Court Judge Jack W. Smith said in his ruling Wednesday that there is no provision in Alaska state law that prohibits the use of private email accounts when conducting state business.

The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Anchorage resident Andree McLeod.

McLeod contended such use of private emails denies citizens the right to inspect public records.

State lawyers argued that McLeod misinterpreted current state law. And if the practice is to be changed, lawyers said it was up to Alaska lawmakers do it.


McLeod is now 0 for four, but has two ethics complaints still pending. And Vanity Fair reported last month - "McLeod has no plans to stop at six. 'There’s going to be more,' she told VF Daily, including one against staff members of current lieutenant governor Sean Parnell, who is set to become governor when Palin steps down.

Great - keep wasting the tax payers money Andree. This is a costly personal vendetta - Alaska has had to dole out at least 1.9 million dollars to investigate these claims.

Maybe someone should start fling frivolous complaints against Ms. McLeod so she knows how it feels when she is the target of someone abusing the law.

Here is the Fox News report from earlier:

Imagine If Sarah Palin Had Lied Like Obama Did

Sarah Palin has been raked over the coals for using the term "death panels" in a Facebook post about Obama's Health care plan.

She has been called "nuts,"a liar" and "a danger."

But at his Townhall meeting in New Hampshire, Barack Obama was throwing out lies like T-shirts at halftime at an NBA game.

USA Today fact-checked the President's assertions and caught these whoppers:

OBAMA: "Under the reform we're proposing, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

REALITY: Not necessarily. In an analysis of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bill, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that 10 million workers could lose employer-provided benefits and would have to find other insurance.

OBAMA: "Insurance companies basically get $177 billion of taxpayer money to provide services that Medicare already provides."

Reality: About 10.2 million Medicare recipients are in Medicare Advantage. Under that program, the government pays insurers a set amount per Medicare beneficiary. Obama ridiculed it as costly and redundant, but the plan provides additional benefits, such as vision, dental and hearing, to seniors and helps coordinate health care for those with chronic conditions, says Robert Zirkelbach at the trade association, America's Health Insurance Plans.

OBAMA: "The rumor that's been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for 'death panels' that will basically pull the plug on Grandma. ... (T)he intention. .. was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they're ready, on their own terms. ... (O)ne of the chief sponsors of this bill originally was a Republican ... (Sen.) Johnny Isakson from Georgia."

REALITY: Isakson issued a press release saying Obama misused his name. A provision he attached to a Senate health care bill would allow seniors to obtain help in formulating a living will something Isakson said is different from House language. The House bill would require Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling sessions, but it would not mandate that anyone use the benefit.

OBAMA: "AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, OK?"

REALITY: The AARP issued a press release to make it clear that it has not endorsed any particular health care proposal. "Indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate," AARP said.

There are 4 lies thanks to USA Today.

Robert Moon of the Examiner.Com found Ten. Read his list here.

Add to that the fact that Michelle Malkin pointed out that at least one of the questions was a set-up. (The cute oe read by a little girl) Read more here. And the fact that the crowd was hand picked. It was so bad that the President even tried to find a person in the crowd who was skeptical of his plan and couldn't fin one - NOT ONE. Even the President knew this looked too suspicious. Read nmore here.

The point is = where is the outrage from the main stream media.

Obama blatantly lies throughout the Townhall meeting - and only a few are brave enough to point it out - even then only timidly.

This is the President at a Townhall meeting, not a former Governor on Facebook. And yet Sarah Palin is vilified and Barack Obama gets a mild ginger wagging. Keith Olbermann, I won't hold my breath for the 15 minute rant about how the President lying to a National TV audience is a "clear and present danger." Although it is more of a danger and you are smart enough to know that. Shame on you, Mr. Olbermann. God Forgive you, Mr Olbermann.

And their is outrage from the left that the honest dissent at townhall meeting across America must be fueld by Republicans. "It's Racist<" Chris Matthews claims. "They are nuts," says the Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania.

But nothing is said of Americans being barred from a town hall meeting and being replaced by automatons. That's not America. America was born of honest dissent. The right to disagree with our President, even to his face, is protected by the Constitution. it is exactly what makes us great.

The kind of censorship we saw in new Hampshire is a "clear and present danger," Mr. Olbermann. That kind of censorship scar me more that the term death panels or even government run health care.

If the networks had any sense of journalistic ethics whatsoever, they would refuse to cover these townhall meetings if there is even a hint of them being staged. It goes against everything American Journalism is supposed to stand for - It is not Fair - It is not Accurate - It is not Balanced. It is, in fact, decidedly un-American.

But the American press has been afraid to criticize Barack Obama since he came into office.

Just imagine if Sarah Palin had done any of the things that Barack Obama did in New Hampshire.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Keith Olberman Is What He Claims To Despise

In his ten minute tirade against Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and anyone who doesn't agree with - well - Keith Olbermann about health care, Kieth Olbermann again proved to be the same kind of hate-filled, hyperbolic, fear monger he claims to loathe.

He penned a mind-numbingly long soliloquy about the opponents of health care - calling them racists and stupid.

And after accusing Sarah Palin of "yelling fire in a crowded theater" by using the term "death panels" in her attack of the Obama Health Plan, he himself went way overboard and did the exact same thing.

Saying things like:

"Madam, you are a clear an present danger to the safety and security of this nation."

"It should debar you for all time for all time from any position of responsibility of this national or any of its states or municipalities."


I have posted the Olbermann rant below - don't take it to seriously - it's just Keith stirring up the base of his party - you know, the same thing he claims Sarah Palin does.

And back away from the computer monitor - this guy spits so much its like being in the front row of a Gallagher concert.



What a hypocrite. It is a shame that Olbermann can't get out of the way of his own ego. If he was REALLY a talented writer - he would edit himself.

Arturo Mora also wrote a great column on the Olbermann rant in the Kansas City Star - click here.

Also, on her Facebook Page Sarah's camp did respond to claims by some in the Main Stream Media that she should not be talking about "death pnales" for seniors because - they claimed - she had a poor record with end of life issues and seniors.

The response from Sarah Palin's staff -

Palin Reduced Medicaid Backlog 83% In Two YearsShare
Today at 9:37pm
Contrary to some assertions, Sarah Palin has a strong record supporting Alaskan seniors. For example, Governor Palin successfully obtained approval for a five year extension of a state program that provided monthly cash payments to low-income seniors.

On May 23, 2007, using a rarely invoked emergency regulation, Governor Palin ordered assistance benefits to continue for Alaska’s neediest seniors after the Alaska legislature failed to fund the SeniorCare Program. After her action, the legislature responded, and on July 28, 2007, Governor Palin signed Senate Bill 4 to continue support for low-income Alaskan seniors by adopting the Senior Benefits Program. “This program continues important assistance to Alaska seniors,” Governor Palin said. “I promised that seniors would not go hungry, and we worked with the Alaska Legislature to address this critical need.” It was estimated that 10,700 Alaskan seniors would be able to benefit under the program.

Also under Governor Palin’s tenure, on December 19, 2008, the state stepped in and took over the Mary Conrad Center, an Anchorage nursing home, when the state determined that there was “'immediate danger to the health, safety or welfare' of its residents.”

So, with this clear record of support and care for Alaska’s seniors by Governor Palin, what is the current criticism about? According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, prior to Governor Palin’s election in November 2006, in April of 2006, in an effort to control rapidly increasing costs for home health care providers, known as the PCA program, Governor Frank Murkowski’s administration implemented a screening process for Alaska Medicaid eligible persons by using a Level of Care assessment (LOC). The LOC assessment was designed for persons who would otherwise require hospitalization or nursing home care and was intended to help weed out fraud and abuse.

By definition, many of these people were ill, elderly or disabled and thus in need of personal care attendants to assist them. Only registered nurse assessors were allowed to evaluate consumers to determine if they qualified for PCA care. The job of assessing consumers was contracted out, but the State of Alaska DHHS determined that the hired contractor had too much backlog. Notably, under federal Medicaid strictures, the State could not get another private business to bid on the contract. So the State was forced to take over the job in November 2007. However, the State DHHS was unable to eliminate the backlog using its own staff, and the backlog then grew. The Federal DHHS temporarily suspended new admissions to the PCA program pending audit compliance to handle the backlog of existing cases and come up with a plan to speed the assessment process. The suspension has been lifted as of August 12.

Further, Gov. Palin’s FY 2009 budget clearly showed her analysis of the issue as of December 2007, and described both the problem and the solution long before the federal government got involved. The backlog issue was discussed and a plan proposed for improvement.

The graph below shows that under Gov. Palin (2007 and 2008) the backlog problem was dramatically reduced, from 30.9% in 2005 to 4.5% in 2008. Looking at these data, one can conclude that Gov. Palin substantially reduced the outstanding percentage of Medicaid assessments by 83%.




% Not Reviewed

FY 2008 4.5%

FY 2007 4.5%

FY 2006 23.18%

FY 2005 30.9%

What is the lesson in all of this? Even with good intentions, the government generally cannot provide better health care services than the private sector. Beware of complex federal laws purporting to offer government health care. For those who want nationalized medicine, take heed of this lesson.

More information can be found here:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=114345578434

Levi Johnston - the Odd Smell That Won't Go Away


I apologize in advance for doing this to you, faithful readers of the Sarah Palin Blog. But Levi Johnston is like an odd smell that you are both revolted by, but can't ignore. And really, what am I am doing with this blog post is what you and I do in real life, I am leaning across the table with Levi Johnston in my hands to say, "Smell this, Does this smell funny to you?"

It really is not surprising that Levi Jonhston's act stinks. It has gone on WAAAAYY past its expiration date. His 15 minutes were up two months ago.

And who picked that act out of the trash to try and serve it once again - self admitted publicity whore Kathy Griffin. At least she gets that SHE is the joke. Levi I am afraid is clueless.

Levi is like Forest Gump. He is accidentally famous and seems to appear everywhere. But Gump had a big heart and some talent. There seems to be nothing inside of this kid at all but a burning desire to make some money - no matter who get hurt in the process - Bristol, The Palins, his son or himself.

If you haven't heard, Palin-hater Kathy Griffin took Levi Johnston to the Teen Choice awards yesterday as a publicity stunt. It worked. She got a world of publicity. And it sounds like the dim wit on her arm got paid to be her date.



Two observations: First, Levi's only words were - "I'm lost here." Wow. Talk about overstating the obvious. This kid would be lost in his own bedroom. Second, how annoying is Kathy Griffin? I am certain that this is not the first time she paid for a date.

And this was all about money. Levi got paid to be the butt of the Kathy Griffin joke (wait, is that redundant?) And he is still out there trying to sell a book by dropping hints that he knows much more about Sarah Palin and her family than he really does.

When you were a teenager, how much did you really know about your boyfriend or girlfriend's family? And we are believe that the "I am lost here" kid has astute and aware enough to have intimate details about the Palin's? No wonder he can't get a book deal.

Still he is out there "makin' things up" about the Palin's. At the Teen Choice Awards he gave an exclusive interview to RadarOnline.Com and continued with the claim that Sarah Palin resigned because the family was having financial trouble and she wanted a big payday.

That is ridiculous on a couple levels. First, Sarah Palin already signed a 7 million dollar book deal. She was getting that money whether she resigned or not. Second, SHE is doing it for the money????

From the LA Times Entertainment blog:

"She took the money,” he said. “That’s what she’s talked about, that’s what I’m gathering and I think that’s what she’s doing.”

Look who's calling the kettle black. Why, it's the pot!


Agreed. You can read the entire LA Times blog called The Envelope - by clicking here.

But that is not the worst thing this dope said. Levi claims that the Palin's were having marital problems "from day one" and it was part of the reason that Sarah Palin resigned.

How would he know what Todd and Sarah were like on day one? He wasn't even born. He is saying anything to try and sell a book. Watch the video of this "exclusive" video at Radaronline.com by clicking here and then tell me if this punk has any credibility whatsoever. EVEN HE doesn't believe what comes out of his mouth.

This kid is being tossed about and used like the money grubbing boy toy that he is. Kathy Griffin is just the latest to put Levi on a leash for her own personal gain. Incredibly, this stunt even got her a fill-in shot on Larry King that was painful to watch. I am only posting the video so you can fast forward to the end when Griffin asks Little Boy Mumbles to read something -



No wonder Levi Johnston can't get a book deal. The first prerequisite of writing a book - is being able to read.

Again, dear readers, I am sorry that I couldn't ignore this story. And you will leave comments that I am only calling more attention to Levi by posting this, playing right into their hands, and you will be right.

I just can't seem to get this smell off my fingers.

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Newt Defends Sarah Against Former Democratic Strategist



Former Democratic strategist George Stephanopoulos sometimes struggles with his role of now being an objective mediator and interviewer. This is a perfect example of his bias slipping. Another example is every interview he does wit Barack Obama - he will actually help The President through answers.

He just recently passed Meet The Press with David Gregory in the ratings. He has to keep his bias in check or his victory will be short-lived.

Saturday, August 8, 2009

If There Was Ever Any Doubt That Sarah Palin Was Running For President...

...yesterday's statement released at 4:26 EST on Facebook should make things crystal clear.

Sarah Palin is not running against Mitt Romney or Nike Huckabee or any other Republican. She is running against Barack Obama and is claiming the mantle of spokesperson for the Republican party.

One thing is clear - no one will get more attention. Right now it is Palin versus Obama and this was round two of the 2012 campaign: (Round one was the editorial in the Washington Post against Cap and Trade)

As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. 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” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.

Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.

We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate. Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back. Ronald Reagan once wrote, “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Let’s stop and think and make our voices heard before it’s too late.

- Sarah Palin


Did anyone hear what Mitt Romney had to say about Obamacare? No - he has been drowned out by Sarah Palin.

Here is the reaction to Sarah Palin's posting:

President Obama decried Saturday what he called the "outlandish" claims by critics of his plans for health-care reform as he continued to ratchet up his personal rhetoric in support of the changes he hopes to make. - Washington Post.



And Barack Obama stalker Chris Matthew continues to play the race card in defense of his unrequited lover.



So every objection to an Obama policy is going to be labeled as racist by Chris Matthews. This man should be fired. He has become nothing but a shill for Obama and uses the most incendiary and ugliest argument to attack Obama's detractors.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Why Does Chris Matthews Still Have a Job?

Chris Matthews asks "Is Sarah Palin a poster girl for racism?" What?

Matthews says Palin will "exploit the cul-de-sacs of whitedom" in the South and Midwest to get votes.

Matthews (and Trojan horse conservative Kathleen Parker who wrote this column on the topic) seems to argue that because Sarah Palin is a white woman who wants to run against a white man - she is stirring up racism.

Huh? Can you imagine for one second if someone ever made the reverse argument? They would be fired during commercial break. Here is the bizarre segment from the man who gets a "tingly feeling up and down his leg" about Barack Obama.



Newsbusters has more on the bizarre not so subtle accusation by Chris Matthews - click here.

Whoopi Goldberg Doesn't Have To Play Dumb - She Is



An Anti-Palin Internet Troll Is Exposed

Oh, this is toooo good!

If you believe that the world exists in a cosmic balance, then you will love this story. Because cosmic justice has been served on the Internet Troll who made up the vicious "exclusive" that Sarah and Todd Palin were getting a divorce.

And it has nothing to do with his lying about Sarah Palin. It has more to do with his other extracurricular activity - pornography and masturbation.

I told you this was good.

Jesse Griffin is no longer a teaching assistant at an Anchorage kindergarten after he was exposed for moonlighting under the Internet moniker "Gryphen.' It seems "Gryphen" ran a website called "Immoral Minority" where he championed his true passions - like playing with himself. (I kid you not - check out some of his postings, if you must, by clicking here.)

Excellent work in lifting the Internet rock to find the troll by both "The Other McCain" blog and "Riehl World View."

Dan Riehl is the one who discovered the duel identities of "Gryphen." Riehl broke the news on his blog and on the Eddie Burke talk radio show on KBYR radio in Alaska.

This from The Other McCain blog:

Griffin wrote on his blog Wednesday, "I stand by every single word" of the original report, which accused Sarah Palin of attempting "to hide a broken relationship" with husband Todd.

Griffin blamed "the Palin team and their minions" for discovery of his "Gryphen" online alias, which he says resulted in death threats and harassment. During his KBYR interview, Riehl disparaged Griffin's credibility.

"Right now, the best I can tell, [Griffin] has 'bogus' written so much all over him it should be his middle name," Riehl said, adding that he had discovered "one lie after another" from Griffin.


So, wait, wait - this just keeps getting better.

"Gryphen" is upset that "minions" of "the Palin team" exposed him. So it was okay for him to fabricate a story about the Palins and create a rumor cancer that spread on the Internet. But, it is not okay for someone to expose him.

Gryphen, you do see the difference right? What you did is called - "lying." What Dan Riehl did is called - "good reporting." The difference being - now stay with me on this Gryphen - something called - "the truth."

If you would like to leave a comment for Mr. Griffin on "The Immoral Minority" - just click here. His latest post explains that he was not fired by the school - he quit. Credibility is not your strong suit Gryphen.

In the meantime, the Palin's have threatened Griffin with a lawsuit. Bill O'Reilly wants the Palin's to drag Gryphen into court and expose him even more as a warning to the other trolls who may want to make up their own exclusives -



Jesse Griffin - another fine example of the forces working against Sarah Palin. Sometime you can find the strength of a person, not just in the loyalty of their friends, but in the character of their enemies.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Finally! A Proposal To Reform Alaska's Ethics Reform Act

Governor Sarah Palin gave it was one of the reasons she resigned from office - the continuing abuse of Alaska's Ethics Reform Act.

Several times I have called for reform on this blog - the first time on May 11 in a post entitled "The Sarah Palin Complaints are proof Alaska Needs to Change Ethics Laws."

Just a few weeks ago, in a post entitled "Alaska Needs To Get Its House in Order" I wrote:

Change the ethics laws to include stiff penalties for filings found to be frivolous. Future Governors should not have to suffer through the abuse of this law.

Well, that is exactly what's happening.

From Newsminer.com -

Alaska Attorney General Dan Sullivan today unveiled a proposal to reform the state ethics act. Former Gov. Sarah Palin said alleged abuses of the act drove her, in part, to resign her office.

His plan would create penalties for abuses of the ethics act, would allow the state to foot legal bills for exonerated public officials, and would extend greater confidentiality for complaints.


And there is more - click here for the entire Newsminers article.

A Million Dollar X-BOX? It's signed by Sarah Palin!

Listed on EBay by Vinny from Alberta Canada -

An X-Box 360 signed by Sarah Palin. Opening Bid $1.1 Million Dollars.



Here is the description: The infamous Sarah Palin XBOX 360 was autographed at the governors picnic on July 24, 2009, in Wasilla, Alaska, just two days before her resignation as governor of that state. You can own this 60GB, perfect-condition, one-of-a-kind item before her expected run for president of the United States of America in 2012.

This must be Vinny -



There are no bids - yet. Click here if you have the extra cash.

Sarah Says Blogger Just Made Up the Story About Her Divorce

From Mike Allen on Politico.Com

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin tells POLITICO that widespread blogosphere reports about a possible divorce from her husband, Todd, are “made up.”

In a brief telephone interview on Tuesday night, Palin quipped that she loves finding out “what’s goin’ on in my life from the news.”

“Do you want to talk to Todd?” she teased. “He’s sitting right next to me.” But he didn’t come on the line.

The former governor and her family were in New York City to visit her publisher, HarperCollins Publishers.

Palin said her memoir, due out next spring, will convey a “pioneering spirit” and will “inspire those doing battle in their own lives.” She said she and the family had been doing “fun kids’ things” during her trip to Manhattan.

Palin was eating dinner at Michael’s restaurant with her husband; her adviser, Meg Stapleton; and Washington lawyer Robert Barnett, her book agent.




Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25819.html#ixzz0NLK4cVQd

Monday, August 3, 2009

McCain Says the Media is "Vicious" to Palin

John McCain talks about Sarah Palin on CNN: "I am saddened by the fact that there are still such vicious attacks on her and her family. I’ve never seen anything quite like it.



It is refreshing to hear John McCain defending Sarah Palin. However, I am still waiting for John McCain to condemn the cowards on his campaign staff who anonymously attacked Sarah Palin in the press after the 2008 election.

Sarah Gets Standing Ovation from NRA


A standing ovation and loud cheers for Sarah Palin after what has been described as a "stirring speech on second amendment rights" at an NRA dinner in Alaska Saturday night.

The dinner concluded the events of the NRA’s XVIII Gun Collectors 4 day seminar in Anchorage.

Yes, Todd was there at the dinner with her, Sarah was wearing her wedding ring and the two couldn't have been happier together.

Guess who wasn't there? The media.

It was Governor Palin's first public appearance since resigning from office and it was beautifully kept a secret and the cameras and reporters were kept away.

After the speech, Governor Palin had to stay at the podium to receive a car full of awards.

From a blog on the NRA website:

Following the speech she was presented with Life Memberships in The Missouri Valley Arms Collectors Association, Ohio Gun Collectors Association and the Dallas Arms Collectors Association. The members of the Missouri Valley Arms Collectors Association also presented Gov. Palin with an NRA Benefactor Life Membership as well. She was also presented with the NRA’s Gold Medal Award of Merit for the Promotion of Gun Collecting. This is only the second time in 10 years the award has been presented on behalf of the NRA’s Gun Collectors Committee.

Jimmy Orr from the Christian Science Monitor reminds us that gun toting Sarah Palin is a darling of the NRA and has received many awards from the association before:

It’s not the first time Palin has received commendation from the NRA. You’ll recall that a few months ago she was presented a special M4-like assault rifle. The custom-made, all-white AR-15 dubbed the “Alaskan Hunter” was presented to Palin in May.

Less than a month ago, Palin signed a guns rights bill to much fanfare in Fairbanks where she appeared on the “Firearms Friday” radio talk show. Rocker Ted Nugent dialed in and “told Palin from his home in Michigan that he was firing up the grill to cook up some Alaska black bear backstrap in her honor.”

“Awesome,” she replied.


To read the entire Christian Science Monitor article - click here.

Here is video proof that Sarah Palin knows how to handle an assault rifle after getting expert training while visiting the troops in Kuwait in 2007. This video is also proof that the media were wise to stay away from the NRA dinner:



The NRA Gun Collectors Department affiliates over 100 Gun Collector Clubs in the United States. Members of these clubs receive special news from NRA Gun Collectors Programs about activities in their area as well as news on NRA Gun Collector display awards and competition.

Now let's just hope that someone - oh, I don't know - maybe Palin spokesperson Meghan Stapleton, let's say - posts the text of the NRA speech on Sarah Palin's Facebook page so we can all read it. Hint, hint.