Josh_Painter's blog 2009-07-09T17:26:04Z WordPress http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/feed/atom/ Josh Painter (Profile) <![CDATA[You can still call her ‘governor’ after July 26]]> http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/?p=1537 2009-07-09T17:26:04Z 2009-07-08T23:39:49Z Like ex-senators and former presidents, ex-governors retain their honorific titles, so Sarah Palin will still be addressed as “Governor Palin” after she officially turns the reigns of her office over to Sean Parnell July 26. The 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate has never been much of a stickler for that kind of thing, though, as she signs “Sarah” to her non-official correspondence.

So what will she be doing after July 26?

Only one specific event has been announced so far that will have Gov. Palin’s participation. According to the Simi Valley Republican Women Federation (SVWF), Sarah Palin will be at the Ronald Reagan Library as the guest of honor for their 50th Anniversary. That celebration is on the calendar for Saturday, August 8, at 5:30 PM. Tickets for non-members are $150. If you want to attend, the Club needs your reply with payment by July 20. There can be no more powerful symbolism to Republicans than Gov. Palin launching the national phase of her career of public service at Ronald Reagan’s presidential library.

She will have a long national book tour to keep her busy next spring, and it will coincide with the 2010 mid-term campaign. Between the Reagan library and the book bus, the calendar will have to be filled out. Not that there is any shortage of demand for Gov. Palin to make appearances. Just after the November election there were 800 invitations sent to the GOP’s 2008 vice presidential candidate asking for her presence at one event or another. That number has increased to what SarahPAC’s Pam Pryor said back in April was “thousands of requests” for Palin appearances across the country. With the recent announcement of the governor’s impending resignation, expect a surge in the number of invitations.

Governor Rick Perry told The Associated Press Wednesday that Gov. Palin is “committed to campaigning” in Texas for him as he seeks re-election. Perry said that he welcomes support of his fellow governor, who endorsed him in February. The Texas governor just last month was bragging on the endorsement, saying “If there’s a bigger endorsement in the Republican universe, I don’t know who it is than Sarah.”

There will be other Republicans who will want Sarah Palin to campaign for them. RNC Chairman Michael Steele said Monday:

“I’m very excited about the opportunity to have Sarah Palin freed up now to engage across the country to help, you know, reorient the party and grow it. She said she now wants to be able to contribute in a different way, and as RNC chairman, I absolutely welcome it.”

Beyond campaigning for them, many GOP hopefuls will also welcome an endorsement from Gov. Palin, not to mention a donation. Like most political junkies, they will no doubt be eager to hear how much money SarahPAC has raised when it makes its disclosure at the end of the month, coincidentally just days after her resignation is made official.

Update: Big Hollywood’s Chris Stigall:

“So just how does a Republican candidate whip up a base of support when voters are angry or suspicious of their voting history? Enter the most powerful motivator and fundraiser in all of Republican politics today.”

“Name a Republican today who could draw a larger crowd, and encourage more checks to be cut to a political candidate than Alaska’s governor.”

[...]

“I’ll bet my house that the weekend voice mailbox of Governor Palin was full of begging, pleading Republican Senate, House, and gubernatorial candidates humbly requesting this “erratic, irrelevant, lightweight” to come stand at their side during their upcoming picnic/potluck/town hall/ cocktail fundraiser.”

- JP

]]> Like ex-senators and former presidents, ex-governors retain their honorific titles, so Sarah Palin will still be addressed as “Governor Palin” after she officially turns the reigns of her office over to Sean Parnell July 26. The 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate has never been much of a stickler for that kind of thing, though, as she signs “Sarah” to her non-official correspondence.

So what will she be doing after July 26?

Only one specific event has been announced so far that will have Gov. Palin’s participation. According to the Simi Valley Republican Women Federation (SVWF), Sarah Palin will be at the Ronald Reagan Library as the guest of honor for their 50th Anniversary. That celebration is on the calendar for Saturday, August 8, at 5:30 PM. Tickets for non-members are $150. If you want to attend, the Club needs your reply with payment by July 20. There can be no more powerful symbolism to Republicans than Gov. Palin launching the national phase of her career of public service at Ronald Reagan’s presidential library.

She will have a long national book tour to keep her busy next spring, and it will coincide with the 2010 mid-term campaign. Between the Reagan library and the book bus, the calendar will have to be filled out. Not that there is any shortage of demand for Gov. Palin to make appearances. Just after the November election there were 800 invitations sent to the GOP’s 2008 vice presidential candidate asking for her presence at one event or another. That number has increased to what SarahPAC’s Pam Pryor said back in April was “thousands of requests” for Palin appearances across the country. With the recent announcement of the governor’s impending resignation, expect a surge in the number of invitations.

Governor Rick Perry told The Associated Press Wednesday that Gov. Palin is “committed to campaigning” in Texas for him as he seeks re-election. Perry said that he welcomes support of his fellow governor, who endorsed him in February. The Texas governor just last month was bragging on the endorsement, saying “If there’s a bigger endorsement in the Republican universe, I don’t know who it is than Sarah.”

There will be other Republicans who will want Sarah Palin to campaign for them. RNC Chairman Michael Steele said Monday:

“I’m very excited about the opportunity to have Sarah Palin freed up now to engage across the country to help, you know, reorient the party and grow it. She said she now wants to be able to contribute in a different way, and as RNC chairman, I absolutely welcome it.”

Beyond campaigning for them, many GOP hopefuls will also welcome an endorsement from Gov. Palin, not to mention a donation. Like most political junkies, they will no doubt be eager to hear how much money SarahPAC has raised when it makes its disclosure at the end of the month, coincidentally just days after her resignation is made official.

Update: Big Hollywood’s Chris Stigall:

“So just how does a Republican candidate whip up a base of support when voters are angry or suspicious of their voting history? Enter the most powerful motivator and fundraiser in all of Republican politics today.”

“Name a Republican today who could draw a larger crowd, and encourage more checks to be cut to a political candidate than Alaska’s governor.”

[...]

“I’ll bet my house that the weekend voice mailbox of Governor Palin was full of begging, pleading Republican Senate, House, and gubernatorial candidates humbly requesting this “erratic, irrelevant, lightweight” to come stand at their side during their upcoming picnic/potluck/town hall/ cocktail fundraiser.”

- JP

]]> 0 Josh Painter (Profile) <![CDATA[Palin to Andrea Mitchell: ‘You’re not listening to me’]]> http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/?p=1525 2009-07-07T21:46:24Z 2009-07-07T20:48:51Z Gov. Sarah Palin granted interviews to the legacy media yesterday, and each outlet added its own spin to its presentation of the story. One thing is obvious from watching the various videos and reading the stories: they don’t get it. Palin had to scold NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, for instance. “You’re not listening to me,” she admonished the ditzy reporter after Mitchell asked the governor a question she had already answered.

The Palins’ commercial fishing business requires them to be on the water at the peak of the salmon run, which occurs each year around the 4th of July. The media hacks were clearly out of their element, one reporter describing the experience of being with real people while they are doing real work as “surreal.” From the safe cocoon of the New York studio, Diane Sawyer thanked ABC correspondent Kate Snow in Alaska, “Thanks so much for going up next to the fish,” to get the interview. During the interview, Snow pointed out to Palin: “You have some fish guts on you.” Yes, Kate, that tends to happen to people who work on commercial fishing boats. Flyover country is an alien planet, and those of us who live in it are extraterrestrials to the chattering class. They are still looking for their first clue and not even getting warm.

Video of the Mitchell interview is here, CNN here and ABC here. Write-ups of more interviews by Fox News here, TIME magazine here and the Anchorage Daily News here.

Update 1: Via e-mail from Jim Trotter, another example of how out of touch the chatterati are, from today’s round of Palin interviews:

From the TIME Article - the set up the reporter uses to describe the scene:

“The other is a smoke shack for fish. Their catch of the day is hanging from a clothing line strung from the shack to a tree. The driveway is littered with boots, gray-and-red-tipped fishing socks, waders, scooters, tricycles and a green yoga ball with bunny ears for kids to bounce on.”

Green Yoga Ball? How out of touch with America is this reporter that they have never seen this particular toy before? Are you kidding me? And how does an editor miss this?

This reporter has never seen a Hippity-Hop… that is too much!

Update 2: From FRee Repulic:

“Many commentator’s on Sarah Palin’s remark that ‘politically speaking — if I die, I die. So be it’ would not recognize the allusion or context of  ‘And if not’ – neither its use at Dunkirk nor its Biblical reference.

By way of explanation, a FReeper posted this from a Chuck Colson commentary:

One of the most dramatic moments of the Second World War occurred when the British army was helplessly stranded on the beaches of Dunkirk. It turned out to be one of England’s finest hours-and, oddly enough, a telling illustration of the urgent need for Christian apologetics in our day. The time was June 1940 and the place was Dunkirk. The British Expeditionary Force, sent to stem the Nazi advance into Belgium and France, had been pushed steadily back to the sea. A pall fell over England. Hitler’s armies were poised to destroy the cornered Allied army. As the British people waited anxiously, a three-word message was transmitted from the besieged army at Dunkirk: “And if not.” The British recognized instantly what the message meant: “Even if we are not rescued from Hitler’s army, we will stand strong and unbowed.” “And if not” was found in the Book of Daniel, where Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego defied Nebuchadnezzar, putting their trust in God The message galvanized the British people. Thousands of boats set out across the Channel in a gallant bid to rescue their army. And they succeeded.

But that was England, a believing nation that no longer exists. In its place we have the U.K., a tiny island lost in the wilderness of secularism. Palin supporters see the resignation as her Dunkirk. Stranded in the governor’s office, she is effecting her own rescue. But they have no doubt that she will amass a much larger fighting force and hit the beaches at a time which is to her advantage.

The governor had probably looked to the example of Esther (4:16) for courage in making her decision to resign, or perhaps Ruth or Daniel or all three. But her biblical reference went right over the heads of the media types, which should come as no surprise. Our once fiercely independent Fourth Estate, like that tiny island, has lost its way.

- JP

]]> Gov. Sarah Palin granted interviews to the legacy media yesterday, and each outlet added its own spin to its presentation of the story. One thing is obvious from watching the various videos and reading the stories: they don’t get it. Palin had to scold NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, for instance. “You’re not listening to me,” she admonished the ditzy reporter after Mitchell asked the governor a question she had already answered.

The Palins’ commercial fishing business requires them to be on the water at the peak of the salmon run, which occurs each year around the 4th of July. The media hacks were clearly out of their element, one reporter describing the experience of being with real people while they are doing real work as “surreal.” From the safe cocoon of the New York studio, Diane Sawyer thanked ABC correspondent Kate Snow in Alaska, “Thanks so much for going up next to the fish,” to get the interview. During the interview, Snow pointed out to Palin: “You have some fish guts on you.” Yes, Kate, that tends to happen to people who work on commercial fishing boats. Flyover country is an alien planet, and those of us who live in it are extraterrestrials to the chattering class. They are still looking for their first clue and not even getting warm.

Video of the Mitchell interview is here, CNN here and ABC here. Write-ups of more interviews by Fox News here, TIME magazine here and the Anchorage Daily News here.

Update 1: Via e-mail from Jim Trotter, another example of how out of touch the chatterati are, from today’s round of Palin interviews:

From the TIME Article - the set up the reporter uses to describe the scene:

“The other is a smoke shack for fish. Their catch of the day is hanging from a clothing line strung from the shack to a tree. The driveway is littered with boots, gray-and-red-tipped fishing socks, waders, scooters, tricycles and a green yoga ball with bunny ears for kids to bounce on.”

Green Yoga Ball? How out of touch with America is this reporter that they have never seen this particular toy before? Are you kidding me? And how does an editor miss this?

This reporter has never seen a Hippity-Hop… that is too much!

Update 2: From FRee Repulic:

“Many commentator’s on Sarah Palin’s remark that ‘politically speaking — if I die, I die. So be it’ would not recognize the allusion or context of  ‘And if not’ – neither its use at Dunkirk nor its Biblical reference.

By way of explanation, a FReeper posted this from a Chuck Colson commentary:

One of the most dramatic moments of the Second World War occurred when the British army was helplessly stranded on the beaches of Dunkirk. It turned out to be one of England’s finest hours-and, oddly enough, a telling illustration of the urgent need for Christian apologetics in our day. The time was June 1940 and the place was Dunkirk. The British Expeditionary Force, sent to stem the Nazi advance into Belgium and France, had been pushed steadily back to the sea. A pall fell over England. Hitler’s armies were poised to destroy the cornered Allied army. As the British people waited anxiously, a three-word message was transmitted from the besieged army at Dunkirk: “And if not.” The British recognized instantly what the message meant: “Even if we are not rescued from Hitler’s army, we will stand strong and unbowed.” “And if not” was found in the Book of Daniel, where Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego defied Nebuchadnezzar, putting their trust in God The message galvanized the British people. Thousands of boats set out across the Channel in a gallant bid to rescue their army. And they succeeded.

But that was England, a believing nation that no longer exists. In its place we have the U.K., a tiny island lost in the wilderness of secularism. Palin supporters see the resignation as her Dunkirk. Stranded in the governor’s office, she is effecting her own rescue. But they have no doubt that she will amass a much larger fighting force and hit the beaches at a time which is to her advantage.

The governor had probably looked to the example of Esther (4:16) for courage in making her decision to resign, or perhaps Ruth or Daniel or all three. But her biblical reference went right over the heads of the media types, which should come as no surprise. Our once fiercely independent Fourth Estate, like that tiny island, has lost its way.

- JP

]]> 34 Josh Painter (Profile) <![CDATA[Exploding the ’she abandoned her post’ meme]]> http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/?p=1523 2009-07-08T23:42:21Z 2009-07-07T03:57:41Z In the wake of Gov. Sarah Palin’s announcement that she will resign her office before the end of the month, she has been the target of considerable crtiticism from the punditocracy on both the left and the right who sneer that “she abandoned her post.” John Podhoretz says the charge is disengenuous:

Strangely, neither of these commentators, nor anybody else for that matter, accused, say, Govs. Kathleen Sibelius of Kansas or Janet Napolitano of Arizona of “abandoning their posts” when they resigned to take cabinet jobs in the Obama administration. Nobody accused Rahm Emanuel of dissing his Chicagoland voters when he quit Congress weeks after winning reelection in November to become White House chief of staff. That these elected officials took other jobs in public service is meaningless; they all ran for full terms and decided that they wanted to do something else, so they went ahead and did something else. That’s fine, and so is Palin quitting for whatever reason she chose to quit. Being elected is not a prison sentence; just ask Barack Obama, who didn’t let his promise to Illinois voters that he would serve out a full term impede him from running for office; same with Hillary Clinton, for that matter.

Podhoretz adds that Sarah Palin’s toughest task now is not to study the issues, which he believes she could master in a few months’ time. She needs, he says, to “achieve an image of stability in her private life.” Podhoretz blames Gov. Palin’s children for what he seems to think is her Achille’s heel. Perhaps he would prefer that they become paragons of stability like the Kennedy kids, with all their reported problems with drinking, drugs, rape charges and the like.

William Kristol further deflates the meme:

“Why is it more admirable to run for national office while a sitting governor (or senator), spending a fair amount of time out of your state (or away from Congress), necessarily neglecting or delegating some of your duties — than to turn the office over to your constitutional successor so your constituents have someone working full time on their behalf?”

Why indeed.

Update: James Antle reminds us that “Mitt Quit Too.”

- JP

]]> In the wake of Gov. Sarah Palin’s announcement that she will resign her office before the end of the month, she has been the target of considerable crtiticism from the punditocracy on both the left and the right who sneer that “she abandoned her post.” John Podhoretz says the charge is disengenuous:

Strangely, neither of these commentators, nor anybody else for that matter, accused, say, Govs. Kathleen Sibelius of Kansas or Janet Napolitano of Arizona of “abandoning their posts” when they resigned to take cabinet jobs in the Obama administration. Nobody accused Rahm Emanuel of dissing his Chicagoland voters when he quit Congress weeks after winning reelection in November to become White House chief of staff. That these elected officials took other jobs in public service is meaningless; they all ran for full terms and decided that they wanted to do something else, so they went ahead and did something else. That’s fine, and so is Palin quitting for whatever reason she chose to quit. Being elected is not a prison sentence; just ask Barack Obama, who didn’t let his promise to Illinois voters that he would serve out a full term impede him from running for office; same with Hillary Clinton, for that matter.

Podhoretz adds that Sarah Palin’s toughest task now is not to study the issues, which he believes she could master in a few months’ time. She needs, he says, to “achieve an image of stability in her private life.” Podhoretz blames Gov. Palin’s children for what he seems to think is her Achille’s heel. Perhaps he would prefer that they become paragons of stability like the Kennedy kids, with all their reported problems with drinking, drugs, rape charges and the like.

William Kristol further deflates the meme:

“Why is it more admirable to run for national office while a sitting governor (or senator), spending a fair amount of time out of your state (or away from Congress), necessarily neglecting or delegating some of your duties — than to turn the office over to your constitutional successor so your constituents have someone working full time on their behalf?”

Why indeed.

Update: James Antle reminds us that “Mitt Quit Too.”

- JP

]]> 91 Josh Painter (Profile) <![CDATA[Why she’s resigning: A warrior must be mobile]]> http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/?p=1519 2009-07-05T16:57:30Z 2009-07-05T16:37:18Z From Gov. Palin via Twitter:

See letter from my attorney on baseless allegations of past 24hrs @ http://tinyurl.com/l4ct5n(excerpt)

The Palin-hating left has been salivating this weekend over lies that began at an Alaska ankle biter website, percolated up to the national nutroots and got mentioned on several major liberal media outlets.

At Conservatives 4 Palin, Mel traces the genesis of the rumors through the land of the loonies. Start at the bottom of the post and read up.

In a telephone interview with Josh Meyer of the LA Times, an FBI spokesman in Alaska dismissed the leftist lies that an FBI investigation of Sarah Palin on public corruption charges was the reason she will resign:

“There is absolutely no truth to those rumors, that we’re investigating her or getting ready to indict her,” Special Agent Eric Gonzalez said in a phone interview Saturday. “It’s just not true.”

Gonzalez added that there was “no wiggle room” in his comments that could exclude any kind of probe.

The letter (full text here) from Gov. Palin’s lawyer calls out the Palin-hating bloggers and major media outlets by name:

To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as “fact” that Governor Palin resigned because she is “under federal investigation” for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation. This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law. The Alaska Constitution protects the right of free speech, while simultaneously holding those “responsible for the abuse of that right.” Alaska Constitution Art. I, Sec. 5. http://ltgov.state.ak.us/constitution.php?section=1. These falsehoods abuse the right to free speech; continuing to publish these falsehoods of criminal activity is reckless, done without any regard for the truth, and is actionable.

Although the letter is being mocked by hateful leftists such as the Kos Kidz as mere saber rattling, it serves a purpose. Sarah Plain is putting the nutroots and the liberal media on notice. Unlike former President George W. Bush, who suffered such attacks in silence and allowed the left to define him, she will stand up for herself and her family, and in so doing she is defining herself as a fighter who stands up for what matters to her.

This is one of the reasons Gov. Palin is resigning her state office. With the burden of office put in Sean Parnell’s hands to carry out the Palin agenda in Alaska, she will soon have the time to devote to such a battle. And, with the income from her book deal and possible speaking fees she will be able to earn once free of the demands of the governor’s office, she will be guaranteed to have the resources fighting such a battle requires. But above all, modern warfare demands that the warrior must be mobile. Unencumbered by local demand that Alaska’s governor must be tethered to the state, Sarah Palin, as a former governor, will be free to maneuver.

- JP

]]> From Gov. Palin via Twitter:

See letter from my attorney on baseless allegations of past 24hrs @ http://tinyurl.com/l4ct5n(excerpt)

The Palin-hating left has been salivating this weekend over lies that began at an Alaska ankle biter website, percolated up to the national nutroots and got mentioned on several major liberal media outlets.

At Conservatives 4 Palin, Mel traces the genesis of the rumors through the land of the loonies. Start at the bottom of the post and read up.

In a telephone interview with Josh Meyer of the LA Times, an FBI spokesman in Alaska dismissed the leftist lies that an FBI investigation of Sarah Palin on public corruption charges was the reason she will resign:

“There is absolutely no truth to those rumors, that we’re investigating her or getting ready to indict her,” Special Agent Eric Gonzalez said in a phone interview Saturday. “It’s just not true.”

Gonzalez added that there was “no wiggle room” in his comments that could exclude any kind of probe.

The letter (full text here) from Gov. Palin’s lawyer calls out the Palin-hating bloggers and major media outlets by name:

To the extent several websites, most notably liberal Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, are now claiming as “fact” that Governor Palin resigned because she is “under federal investigation” for embezzlement or other criminal wrongdoing, we will be exploring legal options this week to address such defamation. This is to provide notice to Ms. Moore, and those who re-publish the defamation, such as Huffington Post, MSNBC, the New York Times and The Washington Post, that the Palins will not allow them to propagate defamatory material without answering to this in a court of law. The Alaska Constitution protects the right of free speech, while simultaneously holding those “responsible for the abuse of that right.” Alaska Constitution Art. I, Sec. 5. http://ltgov.state.ak.us/constitution.php?section=1. These falsehoods abuse the right to free speech; continuing to publish these falsehoods of criminal activity is reckless, done without any regard for the truth, and is actionable.

Although the letter is being mocked by hateful leftists such as the Kos Kidz as mere saber rattling, it serves a purpose. Sarah Plain is putting the nutroots and the liberal media on notice. Unlike former President George W. Bush, who suffered such attacks in silence and allowed the left to define him, she will stand up for herself and her family, and in so doing she is defining herself as a fighter who stands up for what matters to her.

This is one of the reasons Gov. Palin is resigning her state office. With the burden of office put in Sean Parnell’s hands to carry out the Palin agenda in Alaska, she will soon have the time to devote to such a battle. And, with the income from her book deal and possible speaking fees she will be able to earn once free of the demands of the governor’s office, she will be guaranteed to have the resources fighting such a battle requires. But above all, modern warfare demands that the warrior must be mobile. Unencumbered by local demand that Alaska’s governor must be tethered to the state, Sarah Palin, as a former governor, will be free to maneuver.

- JP

]]> 50 Josh Painter (Profile) <![CDATA[Sarah’s Satisfaction]]> http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/?p=1505 2009-07-04T05:42:27Z 2009-07-04T03:51:16Z If Sarah Palin had intended to make media heads collectively explode, she couldn’t have planned it better. She called a press conference on short notice, then announced that not only would she not seek a second term as Alaska’s governor, but she intended to resign later this month. All that would remain for her to do is pop some Orville’s, sit back and enjoy the show as the punditocracy begins wildly speculating about that which it does not know. As crazy as this sounds, consider how crazy the reaction has been so far to her announcement

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, claiming she had been talking to people “very close” to Gov. Palin, reported:

“I have been told that she has told her supporters she is out of politics, period. She is fed up with politics. She doesn’t like her life. She feels that she needs to raise her family. She’s sick of the commute from Wasilla to the capitol, and she really does not want to run for higher office. This is not the case where she’s stepping down in order to clear the way for a presidential run. In fact she has told some of her biggest backers in the national Republican Party that they are free to choose other candidates for 2012.”

Sounds very cut and dried.

But wait just a sec. MSNBC’s Howard Fineman says he’s sure that Sarah Palin is running for president. How does he know this?

“I have covered politics for a long time. I can tell when someone is running for president. Sarah Palin is running for president.”

Politico’s Jonathan Martin, working on something more than just knowing a presidential candidate when he sees one, talked to a “close friend” of the governor who says Palin plans to stay “extremely visible” and will seriously consider a 2012 run for president, but has not yet decided:

Friends say Palin plans to spend time writing her book, which is due this fall, then promote it heavily when it comes out in spring 2010.

Palin is by far the Republican Party’s biggest draw for fund-raisers and conservative events, and the friends say she plans to spend a lot of time traveling in “the lower 48″ states, as Alaskans call the continental U.S.

Those friends say she plans to give a series of paid speeches, and will also make free GOP appearances, raising money for the party and for issues. She also plans to help other candidates, collecting political IOUs for herself.

And she’ll be very busy as a mother of five, which friends say is her top priority.

At the Washington Post, Chris Cillizza has sources “familiar with her decision.” He has posted they say Palin is leaving the governors’ mansion to free herself “to build a national political team and travel the country in support of an expected 2012 presidential bid.”

Which pundit is closest to the truth? I don’t honestly know. That’s just it. No one knows. They may all be wrong. But that hasn’t stopped them from acting like they know.

And speaking of acting, people are throwing fits left and right. On the left the anti-Palinists are mocking and taunting the Palinists. Some of the more cultish Palinists find their undergarmets much more twisted than some more thoughtful conservative observers who are angrily denouncing the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate for “letting us down” after “we defended her.” As if she didn’t deserve defending regardless of her future political intentions. The same political opponents are denouncing her for quitting her job that were trying to see that she doesn’t keep it. That would be the hypocrite wing of the Democrat Party.

From the governor’s Blackberry to our screens via Twitter:

“We’ll soon attach info on decision to not seek re-election… this is in Alaska’s best interest, my family’s happy… it is good, stay tuned”

While anger is a stage that is known to follow shock, it might be judicious to keep our condemnation to ourselves until after we see what else Sarah Palin has to say on the matter.

Andrea Mitchell, for all we know, could have her story only half right. Gov. Palin may only be through with politics in Alaska. After some R&R time with her family, she may step back up onto the national stage and make that run for 2012. Or she may wait until 2016, when she will still be a relatively young — for a presidential candidate — 52 years of age.

We can speculate too, and it doesn’t cost a dime. Perhaps she will take a detour on the road to the White House to challenge Alaska’s Democrat junior Senator Mark Begich in 2014. Although not very likely, she could disrupt Don Young’s heart rhythm with an announcement that she will fight him for his House seat in 2010. Or she and Todd could buy a schooner, pack up the kids and sail around the world.

Here’s something we do know. Alaska is one of the worst possible places from which to run for the White House. Consider just the logistics for a minute. As a presidential candidate, almost all of her internal communications would have to be made electronically. She would also face the difficulty of recruiting campaign staff. Many of them would not want to relocate to Alaska. Most consultants wouldn’t even want to travel there. Those who would be willing would quickly tire of the expense and waste of spending hour after hour on airliners between Anchorage and Washington. We have already seen the difficulty the governor’s people in Alaska had trying to coordinate and communicate with her staff in the nation’s capitol.

Any presidential candidate with a PAC needs to campaign for candidates to pick up support, and she can’t do that as governor. The locals piss and moan every time she leaves the state unless it’s on official state business. In essence, if she has presidential ambitions, she’s a prisoner of the very state she loves so much and promotes at every available opportunity. While Sarah Palin has been tied to Alaska, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee have been free to campaign for candidates and make other appearances which keep their profiles above the water line. With all the guns trained on her, they  have drawn little, if any, fire. Even Haley  Barbour and Mike Pence have appearances scheduled in Iowa. Don’t be surprised to see them show up in New Hampshire some time in the not too distant future.

News about Gov. Palin that comes out of the 49th state tends to be the bad, as the media is not very interested in disseminating the good. Her accomplishments tend to go unnoticed or quickly get pushed off of the screen in favor of the sensational. Recall her trip to Texas to conclude the deal which brought ExxonMobil into a cooperative agreement with TransCanada to get Gov. Palin’s pet pipeline project off the ground. She granted interviews to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and NBC’s Matt Lauer, but both were more interested in getting her to talk about David Letterman’s hot air than Alaska’s natural gas.

The media has been relentless in its crusade against her, with the exception of a few local radio talk show hosts. There’s a coalition of bloggers in AK that do nothing but attack her 24/7. Everything they write is picked up and regurgitated by the nutroots nationally - Kos, HuffPo, C&L, etc. Much of what the nutroots writes is picked up and regurgitated by a national media which rarely even bothers to try to check the facts.

There are other possibilites. Some in the hostile media are speculating that another running shoe is about to fall. They talk wistfully of impending scandal. Some less hostile observers wonder if, God forbid, there is some medical issue either with the governor herself or someone close to her. CNN’s Rick Sanchez has even questioned if she may be pregnant with her sixth child. Some have asked if there is some other impending crisis in Gov. Palin’s family that she may need to deal with. Others speculate that she just wants to take a time out, spend some time with her family, write her book and return to the political wars with her batteries recharged. Whatever her reason or reasons for resigning her governorship must be good ones. This is not a woman who likes to quit or has shown much propensity to do so in the past.

This speculation business is easy, but unfortunately, it’s accomplishes little. It will not stop until Sarah Palin makes it stop by telling us what she plans to do. I’m willing to give her time to do that. I will neither condemn her nor cry in my beer if she decides not to run for president. God knows she has given much and received little reward and much punishment for herself and her family. Gov. Palin saved the GOP and John McCain from an electoral blowout of McGovern proportions, and she made Saxby Chambliss’ return to the U.S. Senate a sure thing with a safety margin of 10 insurance points. She’s been fighting for missile defense, fiscal restraint and energy security, among other things. She’s defended young girls and women of all ages against misogynistic attacks by dirty men both young and old. And she has been a source of encouragement to women everywhere to be all that they can be, and not just in the U.S. Army.

Whatever we have given her, she has repaid with interest. Today, she asked us to trust her decision. Let’s give her that much at least, see what her intentions are and keep her and hers in our prayers.

Update: Is Gov. Palin simply following good advice? See Item #1.

- JP

]]> If Sarah Palin had intended to make media heads collectively explode, she couldn’t have planned it better. She called a press conference on short notice, then announced that not only would she not seek a second term as Alaska’s governor, but she intended to resign later this month. All that would remain for her to do is pop some Orville’s, sit back and enjoy the show as the punditocracy begins wildly speculating about that which it does not know. As crazy as this sounds, consider how crazy the reaction has been so far to her announcement

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, claiming she had been talking to people “very close” to Gov. Palin, reported:

“I have been told that she has told her supporters she is out of politics, period. She is fed up with politics. She doesn’t like her life. She feels that she needs to raise her family. She’s sick of the commute from Wasilla to the capitol, and she really does not want to run for higher office. This is not the case where she’s stepping down in order to clear the way for a presidential run. In fact she has told some of her biggest backers in the national Republican Party that they are free to choose other candidates for 2012.”

Sounds very cut and dried.

But wait just a sec. MSNBC’s Howard Fineman says he’s sure that Sarah Palin is running for president. How does he know this?

“I have covered politics for a long time. I can tell when someone is running for president. Sarah Palin is running for president.”

Politico’s Jonathan Martin, working on something more than just knowing a presidential candidate when he sees one, talked to a “close friend” of the governor who says Palin plans to stay “extremely visible” and will seriously consider a 2012 run for president, but has not yet decided:

Friends say Palin plans to spend time writing her book, which is due this fall, then promote it heavily when it comes out in spring 2010.

Palin is by far the Republican Party’s biggest draw for fund-raisers and conservative events, and the friends say she plans to spend a lot of time traveling in “the lower 48″ states, as Alaskans call the continental U.S.

Those friends say she plans to give a series of paid speeches, and will also make free GOP appearances, raising money for the party and for issues. She also plans to help other candidates, collecting political IOUs for herself.

And she’ll be very busy as a mother of five, which friends say is her top priority.

At the Washington Post, Chris Cillizza has sources “familiar with her decision.” He has posted they say Palin is leaving the governors’ mansion to free herself “to build a national political team and travel the country in support of an expected 2012 presidential bid.”

Which pundit is closest to the truth? I don’t honestly know. That’s just it. No one knows. They may all be wrong. But that hasn’t stopped them from acting like they know.

And speaking of acting, people are throwing fits left and right. On the left the anti-Palinists are mocking and taunting the Palinists. Some of the more cultish Palinists find their undergarmets much more twisted than some more thoughtful conservative observers who are angrily denouncing the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate for “letting us down” after “we defended her.” As if she didn’t deserve defending regardless of her future political intentions. The same political opponents are denouncing her for quitting her job that were trying to see that she doesn’t keep it. That would be the hypocrite wing of the Democrat Party.

From the governor’s Blackberry to our screens via Twitter:

“We’ll soon attach info on decision to not seek re-election… this is in Alaska’s best interest, my family’s happy… it is good, stay tuned”

While anger is a stage that is known to follow shock, it might be judicious to keep our condemnation to ourselves until after we see what else Sarah Palin has to say on the matter.

Andrea Mitchell, for all we know, could have her story only half right. Gov. Palin may only be through with politics in Alaska. After some R&R time with her family, she may step back up onto the national stage and make that run for 2012. Or she may wait until 2016, when she will still be a relatively young — for a presidential candidate — 52 years of age.

We can speculate too, and it doesn’t cost a dime. Perhaps she will take a detour on the road to the White House to challenge Alaska’s Democrat junior Senator Mark Begich in 2014. Although not very likely, she could disrupt Don Young’s heart rhythm with an announcement that she will fight him for his House seat in 2010. Or she and Todd could buy a schooner, pack up the kids and sail around the world.

Here’s something we do know. Alaska is one of the worst possible places from which to run for the White House. Consider just the logistics for a minute. As a presidential candidate, almost all of her internal communications would have to be made electronically. She would also face the difficulty of recruiting campaign staff. Many of them would not want to relocate to Alaska. Most consultants wouldn’t even want to travel there. Those who would be willing would quickly tire of the expense and waste of spending hour after hour on airliners between Anchorage and Washington. We have already seen the difficulty the governor’s people in Alaska had trying to coordinate and communicate with her staff in the nation’s capitol.

Any presidential candidate with a PAC needs to campaign for candidates to pick up support, and she can’t do that as governor. The locals piss and moan every time she leaves the state unless it’s on official state business. In essence, if she has presidential ambitions, she’s a prisoner of the very state she loves so much and promotes at every available opportunity. While Sarah Palin has been tied to Alaska, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee have been free to campaign for candidates and make other appearances which keep their profiles above the water line. With all the guns trained on her, they  have drawn little, if any, fire. Even Haley  Barbour and Mike Pence have appearances scheduled in Iowa. Don’t be surprised to see them show up in New Hampshire some time in the not too distant future.

News about Gov. Palin that comes out of the 49th state tends to be the bad, as the media is not very interested in disseminating the good. Her accomplishments tend to go unnoticed or quickly get pushed off of the screen in favor of the sensational. Recall her trip to Texas to conclude the deal which brought ExxonMobil into a cooperative agreement with TransCanada to get Gov. Palin’s pet pipeline project off the ground. She granted interviews to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and NBC’s Matt Lauer, but both were more interested in getting her to talk about David Letterman’s hot air than Alaska’s natural gas.

The media has been relentless in its crusade against her, with the exception of a few local radio talk show hosts. There’s a coalition of bloggers in AK that do nothing but attack her 24/7. Everything they write is picked up and regurgitated by the nutroots nationally - Kos, HuffPo, C&L, etc. Much of what the nutroots writes is picked up and regurgitated by a national media which rarely even bothers to try to check the facts.

There are other possibilites. Some in the hostile media are speculating that another running shoe is about to fall. They talk wistfully of impending scandal. Some less hostile observers wonder if, God forbid, there is some medical issue either with the governor herself or someone close to her. CNN’s Rick Sanchez has even questioned if she may be pregnant with her sixth child. Some have asked if there is some other impending crisis in Gov. Palin’s family that she may need to deal with. Others speculate that she just wants to take a time out, spend some time with her family, write her book and return to the political wars with her batteries recharged. Whatever her reason or reasons for resigning her governorship must be good ones. This is not a woman who likes to quit or has shown much propensity to do so in the past.

This speculation business is easy, but unfortunately, it’s accomplishes little. It will not stop until Sarah Palin makes it stop by telling us what she plans to do. I’m willing to give her time to do that. I will neither condemn her nor cry in my beer if she decides not to run for president. God knows she has given much and received little reward and much punishment for herself and her family. Gov. Palin saved the GOP and John McCain from an electoral blowout of McGovern proportions, and she made Saxby Chambliss’ return to the U.S. Senate a sure thing with a safety margin of 10 insurance points. She’s been fighting for missile defense, fiscal restraint and energy security, among other things. She’s defended young girls and women of all ages against misogynistic attacks by dirty men both young and old. And she has been a source of encouragement to women everywhere to be all that they can be, and not just in the U.S. Army.

Whatever we have given her, she has repaid with interest. Today, she asked us to trust her decision. Let’s give her that much at least, see what her intentions are and keep her and hers in our prayers.

Update: Is Gov. Palin simply following good advice? See Item #1.

- JP

]]> 198 Josh Painter (Profile) <![CDATA[Sarah Palin will resign as Alaska governor]]> http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/?p=1489 2009-07-03T20:32:51Z 2009-07-03T19:12:16Z From anchorage television station KTUU:

WASILLA, Alaska — Gov. Sarah Palin will resign her office in a few weeks, she said during a news conference at her home Friday morning.

The governor gave no reason why she will resign, but there has been much speculation that she intends to run for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.

Update: A tweet from the governor:

“We’ll soon attach info on decision to not seek re-election… this is in Alaska’s best interest, my family’s happy… it is good, stay tuned”

- JP

]]> From anchorage television station KTUU:

WASILLA, Alaska — Gov. Sarah Palin will resign her office in a few weeks, she said during a news conference at her home Friday morning.

The governor gave no reason why she will resign, but there has been much speculation that she intends to run for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.

Update: A tweet from the governor:

“We’ll soon attach info on decision to not seek re-election… this is in Alaska’s best interest, my family’s happy… it is good, stay tuned”

- JP

]]> 129 Josh Painter (Profile) <![CDATA[The Declaration of Independence]]> http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/?p=1479 2009-07-03T11:25:04Z 2009-07-03T11:09:53Z From the National Archives:

Drafted by Thomas Jefferson between June 11 and June 28, 1776, the Declaration of Independence is at once the nation’s most cherished symbol of liberty and Jefferson’s most enduring monument. Here, in exalted and unforgettable phrases, Jefferson expressed the convictions in the minds and hearts of the American people. The political philosophy of the Declaration was not new; its ideals of individual liberty had already been expressed by John Locke and the Continental philosophers. What Jefferson did was to summarize this philosophy in “self-evident truths” and set forth a list of grievances against the King in order to justify before the world the breaking of ties between the colonies and the mother country.

A transcription of the complete text of the Declaration after the break.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of….

…the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

— Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to…

… compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,

That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

— And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

]]> From the National Archives:

Drafted by Thomas Jefferson between June 11 and June 28, 1776, the Declaration of Independence is at once the nation’s most cherished symbol of liberty and Jefferson’s most enduring monument. Here, in exalted and unforgettable phrases, Jefferson expressed the convictions in the minds and hearts of the American people. The political philosophy of the Declaration was not new; its ideals of individual liberty had already been expressed by John Locke and the Continental philosophers. What Jefferson did was to summarize this philosophy in “self-evident truths” and set forth a list of grievances against the King in order to justify before the world the breaking of ties between the colonies and the mother country.

A transcription of the complete text of the Declaration after the break.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of….

…the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

— Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to…

… compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,

That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

— And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

]]> 4 Josh Painter (Profile) <![CDATA[Frum demonstrates why Vichy Republicans will kill the GOP]]> http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/?p=1476 2009-07-03T02:16:13Z 2009-07-03T02:12:26Z David Frum has done conservatives a great favor, and we should be thankful. The favor is not that he has written another negative piece about Gov. Palin. No, that’s nothing new for Frum, who has been bashing the governor since she stepped up onto the national stage. Frum’s gift to conservatives is that in the article, he clearly demonstrates why Vichy Republicans cannot be trusted to act in the GOP’s best interests.

Referencing Todd Purdum’s VF hit piece which has caused such a stir, Frum itemizes Purdum’s anti-Palin talking points from the VF smear job, and then he makes this eye-opening statement:

“If true, the leaks constitute an urgent warning and public service. I believe they are true.”

And there you have it. Vichy Republicans of Frum’s ilk prefer to believe liberal Democrat media hacks and anonymous leakers rather than thoughtful and honest GOP moderates such as Fred Malek. Admittedly, thoughtful and intellectually honest moderate Republicans like Malek are all too rare these days.

Here’s what Malek wrote about Purdum’s anonymous sources today:

“I am not sure who the unnamed Vanity Fair sources are, but without question they lack chivalry and have acted in a craven manner. They also lack the facts. I am ashamed of my former campaign colleagues, whoever they are.”

Of Purdum, Malek had this to say:

“The writer clearly had an unshakable point of view from the start and talked only to those who would criticize.”

About Gov. Palin, Malek wrote:

“I have known many political leaders over four decades including all Republican presidents and VPs. I have come to know Sarah Palin over the past year and can state unequivocally that she is smart, curious, hard working, charming, and effective. She also has something her detractors clearly lack – a sense of honor and loyalty.”

[...]

“I have seen Sarah up close with leading heavyweights, and have seen her hold her own and then some. At the dinner at my home referenced in the article, she engaged comfortably and deeply with people ranging from Alan Greenspan to Madeleine Albright to Mitch McConnell. She asked for a foreign policy discussion on her June 7 trip to Washington, and I saw her engage in an informed and spirited manner with Frank Carlucci.”

We know that Vichy Republicans dismiss out of hand any argument made by conservatives. But one thinks they would at least consider what Fred Malek says. After all, he is no right-wing idealogue. Far from it, Malek is a moderate. Frum, however, totally ignores Malek, who knows Gov. Palin and has watched her closely, yet he believes Purdum, a leftist who acts as a Democrat operative. And he believes Purdum’s hearsay  about what McCain staffers with a common agenda (saving their careers after running a presidential campaign into the ground) whispered into  Purdam’s ear.

And that’s why Vichy Republicans are such a threat to the party of Lincoln and Reagan. They trust liberal Democrats implicitly and refuse to entertain the ideas and advice of conservatives and even intellectually honest moderates. Ronald Reagan knew better than to trust liberals unconditionally. He dealt with them in the same manner he did with the Soviets,  i.e., “Trust, but verify.” Vichy Republicans want to turn the Grand Old Party into a virtual clone of the Democrat Party. The American people want real choices between the political parties, not between Democrat and Ersatz Democrat.

Frum’s timing was terrible. Rather than back off on the Palin attacks for a while, he instead showed his solidarity with those who are so desperately engaged in trying to destroy her. This comes at a time when many Americans have grown tired of the constant dissing of the governor, and also at a time when her favorability ratings among independents and even Democrats are on the rise.

So conservatives owe David Frum a debt of gratitude. He has demonstrated that Vichy Republicans have more in common with liberal Democrats than with center-right Republicans. Now we have a clear example to cite in the arguments we make in the battle for the heart and soul of the Reublican Party. Had it not been for Sarah Palin, who unhinges the Vichy Republicans as much as she does the liberal Democrats, Frum and others of his ilk might have kept their cool and not made this critical error.

Thank you, Mr. Frum. Keep up the good work.

- JP

]]> David Frum has done conservatives a great favor, and we should be thankful. The favor is not that he has written another negative piece about Gov. Palin. No, that’s nothing new for Frum, who has been bashing the governor since she stepped up onto the national stage. Frum’s gift to conservatives is that in the article, he clearly demonstrates why Vichy Republicans cannot be trusted to act in the GOP’s best interests.

Referencing Todd Purdum’s VF hit piece which has caused such a stir, Frum itemizes Purdum’s anti-Palin talking points from the VF smear job, and then he makes this eye-opening statement:

“If true, the leaks constitute an urgent warning and public service. I believe they are true.”

And there you have it. Vichy Republicans of Frum’s ilk prefer to believe liberal Democrat media hacks and anonymous leakers rather than thoughtful and honest GOP moderates such as Fred Malek. Admittedly, thoughtful and intellectually honest moderate Republicans like Malek are all too rare these days.

Here’s what Malek wrote about Purdum’s anonymous sources today:

“I am not sure who the unnamed Vanity Fair sources are, but without question they lack chivalry and have acted in a craven manner. They also lack the facts. I am ashamed of my former campaign colleagues, whoever they are.”

Of Purdum, Malek had this to say:

“The writer clearly had an unshakable point of view from the start and talked only to those who would criticize.”

About Gov. Palin, Malek wrote:

“I have known many political leaders over four decades including all Republican presidents and VPs. I have come to know Sarah Palin over the past year and can state unequivocally that she is smart, curious, hard working, charming, and effective. She also has something her detractors clearly lack – a sense of honor and loyalty.”

[...]

“I have seen Sarah up close with leading heavyweights, and have seen her hold her own and then some. At the dinner at my home referenced in the article, she engaged comfortably and deeply with people ranging from Alan Greenspan to Madeleine Albright to Mitch McConnell. She asked for a foreign policy discussion on her June 7 trip to Washington, and I saw her engage in an informed and spirited manner with Frank Carlucci.”

We know that Vichy Republicans dismiss out of hand any argument made by conservatives. But one thinks they would at least consider what Fred Malek says. After all, he is no right-wing idealogue. Far from it, Malek is a moderate. Frum, however, totally ignores Malek, who knows Gov. Palin and has watched her closely, yet he believes Purdum, a leftist who acts as a Democrat operative. And he believes Purdum’s hearsay  about what McCain staffers with a common agenda (saving their careers after running a presidential campaign into the ground) whispered into  Purdam’s ear.

And that’s why Vichy Republicans are such a threat to the party of Lincoln and Reagan. They trust liberal Democrats implicitly and refuse to entertain the ideas and advice of conservatives and even intellectually honest moderates. Ronald Reagan knew better than to trust liberals unconditionally. He dealt with them in the same manner he did with the Soviets,  i.e., “Trust, but verify.” Vichy Republicans want to turn the Grand Old Party into a virtual clone of the Democrat Party. The American people want real choices between the political parties, not between Democrat and Ersatz Democrat.

Frum’s timing was terrible. Rather than back off on the Palin attacks for a while, he instead showed his solidarity with those who are so desperately engaged in trying to destroy her. This comes at a time when many Americans have grown tired of the constant dissing of the governor, and also at a time when her favorability ratings among independents and even Democrats are on the rise.

So conservatives owe David Frum a debt of gratitude. He has demonstrated that Vichy Republicans have more in common with liberal Democrats than with center-right Republicans. Now we have a clear example to cite in the arguments we make in the battle for the heart and soul of the Reublican Party. Had it not been for Sarah Palin, who unhinges the Vichy Republicans as much as she does the liberal Democrats, Frum and others of his ilk might have kept their cool and not made this critical error.

Thank you, Mr. Frum. Keep up the good work.

- JP

]]> 22 Josh Painter (Profile) <![CDATA[Petty Democrats want to remove Reagan’s name from airport]]> http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/?p=1461 2009-07-02T22:44:34Z 2009-07-02T22:31:17Z Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Board chairman H.R. Crawford told the panel at its Wednesday meeting that he heard some congresscritters talking about removing President Ronald Reagan’s name from DC’s airport.

MWAA spokeswoman Tara Hamilton tried to minimize the fallout that is already hitting the ground inside the Beltway:

“It was just a discussion. We’re not aware of anything specific.”

Why does the Left always preface its defense of the indefensible with “It was just…?” “It was just about sex.” “It was just talk.” “It was just a fetus.”

We all know the seething hatred liberals still harbor for Reagan, twenty years after he left the White House and five years after his death. This, despite the fact that he rebuilt our nation’s military, gave Americans reason to feel good about their country’s future again and helped to help free millions of Eastern Europeans from communist oppression, all after the misery of the Carter years.

Can they be so partisan and petty to want to rewrite history after an airport had already been renamed in our 40th president’s honor?

I know, I know. Rhetorical question.

- JP

]]> Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Board chairman H.R. Crawford told the panel at its Wednesday meeting that he heard some congresscritters talking about removing President Ronald Reagan’s name from DC’s airport.

MWAA spokeswoman Tara Hamilton tried to minimize the fallout that is already hitting the ground inside the Beltway:

“It was just a discussion. We’re not aware of anything specific.”

Why does the Left always preface its defense of the indefensible with “It was just…?” “It was just about sex.” “It was just talk.” “It was just a fetus.”

We all know the seething hatred liberals still harbor for Reagan, twenty years after he left the White House and five years after his death. This, despite the fact that he rebuilt our nation’s military, gave Americans reason to feel good about their country’s future again and helped to help free millions of Eastern Europeans from communist oppression, all after the misery of the Carter years.

Can they be so partisan and petty to want to rewrite history after an airport had already been renamed in our 40th president’s honor?

I know, I know. Rhetorical question.

- JP

]]> 36 Josh Painter (Profile) <![CDATA[Poor Joe Biden can’t even fill a room]]> http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/?p=1456 2009-07-02T00:29:06Z 2009-07-02T00:25:13Z Back in December at a meeting with the nation’s governors, then vice President-Elect Joe Biden asked Governor  Sarah Palin for help in attracting some attention:

“I might point out, as I told you, we walked in. Since the race is over, no one pays attention to me at all,” Biden joked in his delivered remarks. “So I’m — maybe you will walk outside with me or something later and say hello to me.”

It was good, self-depreciating humor, and everyone present had a chuckle. But Biden has a real problem in Pennsylvania that the governor might be able to help him with:

Only around 100 or so people have showed up so far to hear Biden talk at noon at Seneca High School off Route 8 in Wattsburg… The room looked so sparse that about 30 or so chairs were removed by volunteers to give the illusion of a full house. The effect didn’t exactly work.

Give Sarah Palin a call Joe. Perhaps she can lend a hand. Sarah knows how to draw a crowd.

- JP

]]> Back in December at a meeting with the nation’s governors, then vice President-Elect Joe Biden asked Governor  Sarah Palin for help in attracting some attention:

“I might point out, as I told you, we walked in. Since the race is over, no one pays attention to me at all,” Biden joked in his delivered remarks. “So I’m — maybe you will walk outside with me or something later and say hello to me.”

It was good, self-depreciating humor, and everyone present had a chuckle. But Biden has a real problem in Pennsylvania that the governor might be able to help him with:

Only around 100 or so people have showed up so far to hear Biden talk at noon at Seneca High School off Route 8 in Wattsburg… The room looked so sparse that about 30 or so chairs were removed by volunteers to give the illusion of a full house. The effect didn’t exactly work.

Give Sarah Palin a call Joe. Perhaps she can lend a hand. Sarah knows how to draw a crowd.

- JP

]]> 3 Josh Painter (Profile) <![CDATA[Panama will swear in a new president today]]> http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/?p=1452 2009-07-03T14:15:03Z 2009-07-01T16:42:55Z Twenty years after the United States removed Manuel Noriega from power, and with the recent focus on Honduras, Panama has been well below the radar for most Americans:

But it is a strategically important country that is playing a growing role in global trade. Indeed, it is estimated that 5 percent of all international trade-and a much higher percentage of U.S. trade-goes through the Panama Canal. [Outgoing President] Torrijos has successfully promoted Panama as a tourist hotspot and commercial hub. It is an increasingly popular retirement destination for Americans; indeed, U.S. expatriates helped fuel the recent Panamanian housing boom.

Ricardo Martinelli will officially be sworn in as president of Panama today and will serve a five-year term. The occasion will mark Panama’s fourth peaceful presidential transition since the overthrow of Noriega in 1989. Martinelli, who was the candidate of the conservative Alliance for Change party, won a landslide victory of 59 percent to 36 percent over Hugo Chavez favorite Balbina Herrera in the May elections.

Martinelli is a confirmed capitalist in a region where the Castro brothers and Chavez have been actively trying to export their brand of Marxism. Panama’s president-elect has a degree in business administration from the University of Arkansas (Class of 1973) and earned an MBA from the INCAE Business School in Costa Rica. He has experience in government and in the private sector. Martinelli served as Panama’s director of Social Security from 1994 to 1996, and from 1999 to early in 2003 was minister for canal affairs and chairman of the Board of Directors of the Panama Canal Authority. He is chairman of the board of a large chain of supermarkets, chairman of two other companies and sits on the boards of at least eight others.

In an interview with the Miami Herald in March, Martinelli said that his administration “would be a much more pro-American government” than one which would have existed under Herrera, whom he described as a dangerous ally of Chavez:

Asked for specific foreign policy changes that his government would bring about, Martinelli cited more vigorous efforts to get the U.S.-Panama free trade agreement passed by the U.S. Congress, more votes in line with U.S. foreign policy in the United Nations on issues such as Israel’s stand in the Middle Eastern conflict or human rights in Cuba, and closer relations with Colombia.

Martinelli has promised a foreign policy that would “maintain a relationship of mutual respect and friendship” with Cuba and Venezuela, but “not an ideological relation that could generate commitments that go against the interests of our country.” During the presidential campaign:

Martinelli attempted to portray himself as ideologically connected with Colombia’s Uribe and the Dominican Republic’s Fernandez. In an interview with AFP, Martinelli even promoted himself as the first of a wave of change in Latin America moving away from the “left.” While many analysts saw this election as helping the US-Panama relationship, it’s good to remember that Martinelli is center-right and much closer to the GOP in the US than to the current US president’s party. Martinelli also offered promises to remove Panama from the Central American parliament and consider changing diplomatic recognition to China, both moves would be shifts in Central America’s foreign policy worth watching.

Martinelli’s administration will be under considerable pressure to perform:

According to La Prensa, he will now have to face the challenge of keeping his campaign promises to solve the country’s crime, education, health, and public transport problems, and to cut poverty.

But the number one issue on the minds of Panamanians is the country’s economy, and voters will hold Martinelli to his campaign rhetoric:

La Prensa reminded its readers that one of Martinelli’s key campaign promises was to “revive the economy in the first 100 days of the administration.” He proposes to do this by creating jobs and signing a free trade agreement with the U.S.

The Panama Canal is important not only to Panama’s economy, but also to the global economy and that of the U.S. Martinelli’s prior experience as an effective manager of the canal should prove to be a valuable asset for efficient management of the waterway. Panama’s political stability depends on it. That is why much is expected of Martinelli, not only by his own countrymen, but by the rest of the world as well:

In a global economic environment characterized by recession and financial upheaval, Panama stands out as a relative bright spot. The United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean projects that Panama’s economy will expand by 4 percent in 2009 while the regional economy as a whole will contract by 0.3 percent. But 4 percent annual GDP growth represents a major drop from 9.2 percent growth in 2008 and 11.5 percent growth in 2007. In those years, Panama benefited from robust global trade and a massive housing boom. Its unemployment rate plummeted. Now international trade is shrinking rapidly and, as Jeremy Schwartz notes in the Austin-American Statesman, the Panamanian real-estate sector “might be heading for a sharp downturn.”

Panama’s new president will have other important issues to deal with. Inflation has driven up the nation’s cost of living sharply, and Martinelli will have to provide Panamanians with better public services in the form of health care and education than did his predecessor. And if all that were not enough, the country has recently experienced a spike in its crime rate.

While managing all of these things, Martinelli will need to keep a sharp eye on Chavez and the Castros, who will be working in the shadows to undermine his government. Misery loves company, and the dictators would like nothing better than to see a Marxist Panama which would use the canal as leverage against the U.S. and other Western nations. Given recent events in Honduras, Martinelli might have one more friend in the region than he had previously counted.

Still, Martinelli will have his work cut out for him. With an American president who seems to be more friendly to communist regimes than to traditional U.S. Central American allies, Panama’s new leader will have to provide exceptional leadership. We wish him well.

- JP

]]> Twenty years after the United States removed Manuel Noriega from power, and with the recent focus on Honduras, Panama has been well below the radar for most Americans:

But it is a strategically important country that is playing a growing role in global trade. Indeed, it is estimated that 5 percent of all international trade-and a much higher percentage of U.S. trade-goes through the Panama Canal. [Outgoing President] Torrijos has successfully promoted Panama as a tourist hotspot and commercial hub. It is an increasingly popular retirement destination for Americans; indeed, U.S. expatriates helped fuel the recent Panamanian housing boom.

Ricardo Martinelli will officially be sworn in as president of Panama today and will serve a five-year term. The occasion will mark Panama’s fourth peaceful presidential transition since the overthrow of Noriega in 1989. Martinelli, who was the candidate of the conservative Alliance for Change party, won a landslide victory of 59 percent to 36 percent over Hugo Chavez favorite Balbina Herrera in the May elections.

Martinelli is a confirmed capitalist in a region where the Castro brothers and Chavez have been actively trying to export their brand of Marxism. Panama’s president-elect has a degree in business administration from the University of Arkansas (Class of 1973) and earned an MBA from the INCAE Business School in Costa Rica. He has experience in government and in the private sector. Martinelli served as Panama’s director of Social Security from 1994 to 1996, and from 1999 to early in 2003 was minister for canal affairs and chairman of the Board of Directors of the Panama Canal Authority. He is chairman of the board of a large chain of supermarkets, chairman of two other companies and sits on the boards of at least eight others.

In an interview with the Miami Herald in March, Martinelli said that his administration “would be a much more pro-American government” than one which would have existed under Herrera, whom he described as a dangerous ally of Chavez:

Asked for specific foreign policy changes that his government would bring about, Martinelli cited more vigorous efforts to get the U.S.-Panama free trade agreement passed by the U.S. Congress, more votes in line with U.S. foreign policy in the United Nations on issues such as Israel’s stand in the Middle Eastern conflict or human rights in Cuba, and closer relations with Colombia.

Martinelli has promised a foreign policy that would “maintain a relationship of mutual respect and friendship” with Cuba and Venezuela, but “not an ideological relation that could generate commitments that go against the interests of our country.” During the presidential campaign:

Martinelli attempted to portray himself as ideologically connected with Colombia’s Uribe and the Dominican Republic’s Fernandez. In an interview with AFP, Martinelli even promoted himself as the first of a wave of change in Latin America moving away from the “left.” While many analysts saw this election as helping the US-Panama relationship, it’s good to remember that Martinelli is center-right and much closer to the GOP in the US than to the current US president’s party. Martinelli also offered promises to remove Panama from the Central American parliament and consider changing diplomatic recognition to China, both moves would be shifts in Central America’s foreign policy worth watching.

Martinelli’s administration will be under considerable pressure to perform:

According to La Prensa, he will now have to face the challenge of keeping his campaign promises to solve the country’s crime, education, health, and public transport problems, and to cut poverty.

But the number one issue on the minds of Panamanians is the country’s economy, and voters will hold Martinelli to his campaign rhetoric:

La Prensa reminded its readers that one of Martinelli’s key campaign promises was to “revive the economy in the first 100 days of the administration.” He proposes to do this by creating jobs and signing a free trade agreement with the U.S.

The Panama Canal is important not only to Panama’s economy, but also to the global economy and that of the U.S. Martinelli’s prior experience as an effective manager of the canal should prove to be a valuable asset for efficient management of the waterway. Panama’s political stability depends on it. That is why much is expected of Martinelli, not only by his own countrymen, but by the rest of the world as well:

In a global economic environment characterized by recession and financial upheaval, Panama stands out as a relative bright spot. The United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean projects that Panama’s economy will expand by 4 percent in 2009 while the regional economy as a whole will contract by 0.3 percent. But 4 percent annual GDP growth represents a major drop from 9.2 percent growth in 2008 and 11.5 percent growth in 2007. In those years, Panama benefited from robust global trade and a massive housing boom. Its unemployment rate plummeted. Now international trade is shrinking rapidly and, as Jeremy Schwartz notes in the Austin-American Statesman, the Panamanian real-estate sector “might be heading for a sharp downturn.”

Panama’s new president will have other important issues to deal with. Inflation has driven up the nation’s cost of living sharply, and Martinelli will have to provide Panamanians with better public services in the form of health care and education than did his predecessor. And if all that were not enough, the country has recently experienced a spike in its crime rate.

While managing all of these things, Martinelli will need to keep a sharp eye on Chavez and the Castros, who will be working in the shadows to undermine his government. Misery loves company, and the dictators would like nothing better than to see a Marxist Panama which would use the canal as leverage against the U.S. and other Western nations. Given recent events in Honduras, Martinelli might have one more friend in the region than he had previously counted.

Still, Martinelli will have his work cut out for him. With an American president who seems to be more friendly to communist regimes than to traditional U.S. Central American allies, Panama’s new leader will have to provide exceptional leadership. We wish him well.

- JP

]]> 3 Josh Painter (Profile) <![CDATA[There they go again]]> http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/?p=1448 2009-07-01T06:36:23Z 2009-07-01T06:34:55Z The NY Daily News is promoting the August edition of Vanity Fair, in which a vicious hit piece full of lies, distortions and innuendo savagely attacks everything about Sarah Palin, not the least of which is her character.

The author is the liberal magazine’s national editor Todd Purdum. If you don’t know where he’s coming from, consider that Purdum formerly hacked for the New York Times, the newspaper of the Democrat Party’s liberal wing.  He is married to Dee Dee Myers, who was Bill Clinton’s White House press secretary from 1993 to 1994. Clinton has called Purdum “a real slimy guy,” “a scumbag” and a” dishonest guy.” Clinton should know. The former president was impeached on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice by the U.S. House of Representatives in 1998.

So the VF hit piece, written by “a dishonest guy,” quotes “a slew of senior members of McCain’s campaign team” who bash Sarah Palin. None of these McCain staffers has the courage to put their names behind their attacks, of course. And none of the McCain aides who have consistently defended Gov. Palin, such as Randy Scheunemann, are quoted. Balance is the last thing on a writer’s mind when he’s authoring a smear job.

The anonymous Palin-bashing campaign aides haven’t changed their modus operandi since last November, when DBKP pointed out:

As Rush Limbaugh observed, “John McCain’s campaign staff has spent more time attacking Sarah Palin than it did attacking Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers…and Obama himself.”

Michelle Malkin called the Palin-bashers inside the McCain campaign “classless cowards”:

“At least all the Hollywood and Manhattan Palin-haters were willing to sign their names and put their faces on their attacks.”

Six months later, and there they go again. Unable to man up and admit that they ran one of the worst presidential campaigns in U.S. electoral history, the cowardly campaign staffers are repeating their hearsay attacks on Gov. Palin.

Why, you may ask, are they doing this? It’s simple, really. They want jobs with any potential GOP presidential candidate for 2012 who will hire them. In order to excuse the poor performance of the campaign they ran for McCain, they still need their scapegoat, and they long ago chose McCain’s former running mate to blame their incompetence on. Though it’s only 2009, we’re approaching the point where the planning for primary campaigns begins, and staffing is one of the first things the nascent campaign organizations start thinking about.

Who is behind the anonymous dissing of Sarah Palin? The first former McCain staffer outed for kneecapping Gov. Palin was Nicole Wallace. Wallace had been a political analyst for the CBS Evening News, where she became friends with Katie Couric and arranged the interview with Sarah Palin for which Couric prepared by studying with anti-Palin foreign-policy advisors who went on to campaign for then-candidate Barack Obama.

Late in October, The Prowler revealed:

“Former Mitt Romney presidential campaign staffers, some of whom are currently working for Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin’s bid for the White House, have been involved in spreading anti-Palin spin to reporters, seeking to diminish her standing after the election. ‘Sarah Palin is a lightweight, she won’t be the first, not even the third, person people will think of when it comes to 2012,’ says one former Romney aide, now working for McCain-Palin. ‘The only serious candidate ready to challenge to lead the Republican Party is Mitt Romney. He’s in charge on November 5th.’”

The Prowler added:

“Some former Romney aides were behind the recent leaks to media, including CNN, that Governor Sarah Palin was a ‘diva’ and was going off message intentionally.”

The Romney supporters in the McCain campaign had access to internal polling which indicated well in advance of the November 4 election that McCain had no chance to win. So they began working to position their man Mitt for a run in 2012.

Just two days after the election, The Palmetto Scoop reported:

“One of the first stories to hit the national airwaves was the claim of a major internal strife between close McCain aides and the folks handling his running mate Sarah Palin.”

“I’m told by very good sources that this was indeed the case and that a rift had developed, but it was between Palin’s people and the staffers brought on from the failed presidential campaign of former Gov. Mitt Romney, not McCain aides.”

“The sources said nearly 80 percent of Romney’s former staff was absorbed by McCain and these individuals were responsible for what amounts to a premeditated, last-minute sabotage of Palin.”

These aides loyal to Romney inside the McCain campaign, said The Scoop, reportedly saw that Palin would be a serious contender for the Republican nomination in 2012 or 2016, which made her a threat to another presidential quest by Romney.

Erick Erickson, who organized Operation Leper, said:

“Here’s what I think: I think there are some staffers on the McCain campaign who seriously screwed up the roll out of Sarah Palin, to which Governor Palin herself objected. These staffers are now out trying to finish her off thinking, as typical D.C. types do, that if they don’t do it to her, she’ll do it to them. They just never understood who Palin is or what she is about.”

“Likewise, I do think there are some staffers and others who expect Mitt Romney to run again in 2012, they decided McCain could not win, and decided to undermine Sarah Palin and her chances hoping it would ingratiate themselves with Mitt Romney. This also explains people like Kathleen Parker, who lusts the magnificent hair.”

There’s no evidence that Romney himself directed or was even aware of what his former staffers were up to. But some Romney supporters have engaged in some below-the-belt campaign tactics against Republican challengers. Just ask Fred Thompson.

Reaction: Some McCain staffers whose loyalties may have remained with Romney include Tucker Eskew, Nicole Wallace, John Feehery, Carl Forti, Kevin Madden, Michelle Laxalt, Joe Pounder and Joe Gray.

Bill Kristol names Steve Schmidt as one of the McCain staffers trash-talking Palin. Other reaction from Jim Geraghty and Tom Bevin shows the Vainly Unfair smear job to be liberal boilerplate offering nothing new to the same old lies from the left.

Joseph Russo eviscerates Purdumb’s hit piece, and William Jacobson says you can tell the 2012 campaign is already underway because the drive-by media is attacking Sarah Palin “based on anonymous sources… dubious rumors and innuendo.” Dan Riehl didn’t even have to read the article to point out, “Now these are the same people who let it out that McCain was uncomfortable discussing economics in the middle of a financial collapse, yet it’s Sarah Palin’s fault that he lost? What a bunch of nonsense.” Even liberal blogger Andrew Perez worries that the VF slime job may help Gov. Palin instead of hurt her: “It reads like an attack piece and will help to reinforce Palin’s assertion… that the left-wing media is out to destroy her…” Andrew, it “reads like” an attack piece because that’s what it is.

In the wake of the Vainly Unfair hit piece, three McCain staffers have gone on the record with the Washington Times in support of Gov. Palin:

Randy Scheunemann, director of foreign policy and national security for the McCain-Palin campaign and who played Joe Biden in Mrs. Palin’s debate prep, was happy to push back against the Vanity Fair piece, saying she was an impressive and capable candidate.

He recalled her performance in the vice-presidential debate where she “held her own and went toe-to-toe” against Mr. Biden, a candidate with much more experience in debates and decades of public service. She was “incredibly hard-working and concerned she’d do a good job for John McCain who was a national hero and plucked her from obscurity,” Mr. Scheunemann said. “That weighed on her every day.”

“It’s disheartening and dishonorable anyone who worked for John McCain would participate in this kind of character assassination against his running mate,” Mr. Scheunemann said.

Jason Recher, who worked closely with Mrs. Palin as a vice presidential candidate, said “The mean tone of this article is completely false, this is not the Sarah Palin I knew and spent two and a half months with.” He also said he was tired of reporters using information about Mrs. Palin from people unwilling to go on the record.

David Welch, deputy research director for the McCain-Palin ticket, said he was “shocked to read the Vanity Fair article about Governor Palin and the allegations made against her by former staffers” and complained “significant parts of the story are based on half truths and gossip from staffers who refused to go on the record.”

None of these men were approached by Vanity Fair to discuss their experience working with Mrs. Palin for Mr. Purdum’s piece.

Pam Geller weighs in, as does Mike Sargent. And here’s Geraghty again, this time taking apart Purdum’s smear job point by point. Meanwhile, Jonathan Martin hosts a tag team match at Politico: Kristol and Scheunemann vs. Schmidt and Wallace.

And this is just the first day’s fallout.

- JP

]]> The NY Daily News is promoting the August edition of Vanity Fair, in which a vicious hit piece full of lies, distortions and innuendo savagely attacks everything about Sarah Palin, not the least of which is her character.

The author is the liberal magazine’s national editor Todd Purdum. If you don’t know where he’s coming from, consider that Purdum formerly hacked for the New York Times, the newspaper of the Democrat Party’s liberal wing.  He is married to Dee Dee Myers, who was Bill Clinton’s White House press secretary from 1993 to 1994. Clinton has called Purdum “a real slimy guy,” “a scumbag” and a” dishonest guy.” Clinton should know. The former president was impeached on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice by the U.S. House of Representatives in 1998.

So the VF hit piece, written by “a dishonest guy,” quotes “a slew of senior members of McCain’s campaign team” who bash Sarah Palin. None of these McCain staffers has the courage to put their names behind their attacks, of course. And none of the McCain aides who have consistently defended Gov. Palin, such as Randy Scheunemann, are quoted. Balance is the last thing on a writer’s mind when he’s authoring a smear job.

The anonymous Palin-bashing campaign aides haven’t changed their modus operandi since last November, when DBKP pointed out:

As Rush Limbaugh observed, “John McCain’s campaign staff has spent more time attacking Sarah Palin than it did attacking Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers…and Obama himself.”

Michelle Malkin called the Palin-bashers inside the McCain campaign “classless cowards”:

“At least all the Hollywood and Manhattan Palin-haters were willing to sign their names and put their faces on their attacks.”

Six months later, and there they go again. Unable to man up and admit that they ran one of the worst presidential campaigns in U.S. electoral history, the cowardly campaign staffers are repeating their hearsay attacks on Gov. Palin.

Why, you may ask, are they doing this? It’s simple, really. They want jobs with any potential GOP presidential candidate for 2012 who will hire them. In order to excuse the poor performance of the campaign they ran for McCain, they still need their scapegoat, and they long ago chose McCain’s former running mate to blame their incompetence on. Though it’s only 2009, we’re approaching the point where the planning for primary campaigns begins, and staffing is one of the first things the nascent campaign organizations start thinking about.

Who is behind the anonymous dissing of Sarah Palin? The first former McCain staffer outed for kneecapping Gov. Palin was Nicole Wallace. Wallace had been a political analyst for the CBS Evening News, where she became friends with Katie Couric and arranged the interview with Sarah Palin for which Couric prepared by studying with anti-Palin foreign-policy advisors who went on to campaign for then-candidate Barack Obama.

Late in October, The Prowler revealed:

“Former Mitt Romney presidential campaign staffers, some of whom are currently working for Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin’s bid for the White House, have been involved in spreading anti-Palin spin to reporters, seeking to diminish her standing after the election. ‘Sarah Palin is a lightweight, she won’t be the first, not even the third, person people will think of when it comes to 2012,’ says one former Romney aide, now working for McCain-Palin. ‘The only serious candidate ready to challenge to lead the Republican Party is Mitt Romney. He’s in charge on November 5th.’”

The Prowler added:

“Some former Romney aides were behind the recent leaks to media, including CNN, that Governor Sarah Palin was a ‘diva’ and was going off message intentionally.”

The Romney supporters in the McCain campaign had access to internal polling which indicated well in advance of the November 4 election that McCain had no chance to win. So they began working to position their man Mitt for a run in 2012.

Just two days after the election, The Palmetto Scoop reported:

“One of the first stories to hit the national airwaves was the claim of a major internal strife between close McCain aides and the folks handling his running mate Sarah Palin.”

“I’m told by very good sources that this was indeed the case and that a rift had developed, but it was between Palin’s people and the staffers brought on from the failed presidential campaign of former Gov. Mitt Romney, not McCain aides.”

“The sources said nearly 80 percent of Romney’s former staff was absorbed by McCain and these individuals were responsible for what amounts to a premeditated, last-minute sabotage of Palin.”

These aides loyal to Romney inside the McCain campaign, said The Scoop, reportedly saw that Palin would be a serious contender for the Republican nomination in 2012 or 2016, which made her a threat to another presidential quest by Romney.

Erick Erickson, who organized Operation Leper, said:

“Here’s what I think: I think there are some staffers on the McCain campaign who seriously screwed up the roll out of Sarah Palin, to which Governor Palin herself objected. These staffers are now out trying to finish her off thinking, as typical D.C. types do, that if they don’t do it to her, she’ll do it to them. They just never understood who Palin is or what she is about.”

“Likewise, I do think there are some staffers and others who expect Mitt Romney to run again in 2012, they decided McCain could not win, and decided to undermine Sarah Palin and her chances hoping it would ingratiate themselves with Mitt Romney. This also explains people like Kathleen Parker, who lusts the magnificent hair.”

There’s no evidence that Romney himself directed or was even aware of what his former staffers were up to. But some Romney supporters have engaged in some below-the-belt campaign tactics against Republican challengers. Just ask Fred Thompson.

Reaction: Some McCain staffers whose loyalties may have remained with Romney include Tucker Eskew, Nicole Wallace, John Feehery, Carl Forti, Kevin Madden, Michelle Laxalt, Joe Pounder and Joe Gray.

Bill Kristol names Steve Schmidt as one of the McCain staffers trash-talking Palin. Other reaction from Jim Geraghty and Tom Bevin shows the Vainly Unfair smear job to be liberal boilerplate offering nothing new to the same old lies from the left.

Joseph Russo eviscerates Purdumb’s hit piece, and William Jacobson says you can tell the 2012 campaign is already underway because the drive-by media is attacking Sarah Palin “based on anonymous sources… dubious rumors and innuendo.” Dan Riehl didn’t even have to read the article to point out, “Now these are the same people who let it out that McCain was uncomfortable discussing economics in the middle of a financial collapse, yet it’s Sarah Palin’s fault that he lost? What a bunch of nonsense.” Even liberal blogger Andrew Perez worries that the VF slime job may help Gov. Palin instead of hurt her: “It reads like an attack piece and will help to reinforce Palin’s assertion… that the left-wing media is out to destroy her…” Andrew, it “reads like” an attack piece because that’s what it is.

In the wake of the Vainly Unfair hit piece, three McCain staffers have gone on the record with the Washington Times in support of Gov. Palin:

Randy Scheunemann, director of foreign policy and national security for the McCain-Palin campaign and who played Joe Biden in Mrs. Palin’s debate prep, was happy to push back against the Vanity Fair piece, saying she was an impressive and capable candidate.

He recalled her performance in the vice-presidential debate where she “held her own and went toe-to-toe” against Mr. Biden, a candidate with much more experience in debates and decades of public service. She was “incredibly hard-working and concerned she’d do a good job for John McCain who was a national hero and plucked her from obscurity,” Mr. Scheunemann said. “That weighed on her every day.”

“It’s disheartening and dishonorable anyone who worked for John McCain would participate in this kind of character assassination against his running mate,” Mr. Scheunemann said.

Jason Recher, who worked closely with Mrs. Palin as a vice presidential candidate, said “The mean tone of this article is completely false, this is not the Sarah Palin I knew and spent two and a half months with.” He also said he was tired of reporters using information about Mrs. Palin from people unwilling to go on the record.

David Welch, deputy research director for the McCain-Palin ticket, said he was “shocked to read the Vanity Fair article about Governor Palin and the allegations made against her by former staffers” and complained “significant parts of the story are based on half truths and gossip from staffers who refused to go on the record.”

None of these men were approached by Vanity Fair to discuss their experience working with Mrs. Palin for Mr. Purdum’s piece.

Pam Geller weighs in, as does Mike Sargent. And here’s Geraghty again, this time taking apart Purdum’s smear job point by point. Meanwhile, Jonathan Martin hosts a tag team match at Politico: Kristol and Scheunemann vs. Schmidt and Wallace.

And this is just the first day’s fallout.

- JP

]]> 7 Josh Painter (Profile) <![CDATA[Suppressed reports vindicate Palin polar bear policy]]> http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/?p=1444 2009-06-29T04:31:01Z 2009-06-29T04:29:17Z Early in January, a Sarah Palin op-ed appeared in the NY Times in which she argued against adding the Polar Bear to the list of endangered species because the polar bear populations in the Arctic were healthy:

“…polar bears are more numerous now than they were 40 years ago. The polar bear population in the southern Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s North Slope has been relatively stable for 20 years, according to a federal analysis.”

The governor said that the bears were “magnificent animals, not cartoon characters” that are “worthy of our utmost efforts to protect them and their Arctic habitat,” but added that putting them on the endangered species list was the wrong way to do it.

The Palin op-ed was mostly a response to intense criticism from an emotional Left. They had been hammering her on the issue for months. “Sarah Palin: Tough on polar bears” shouted the Boston Globe’s Green Blog. The American Prospect published a web article headlined “Palin’s Polar Bear Problem.” ABC News’ The Blotter condemned her with “Palin Fought Polar Bear Protections” and included a quote from a University of Alaska professor who called her a liar. At Think Progress, Matthew Yglesias had written of “Palin’s War on Polar Bears” only hours after John McCain had named the governor as his running mate.

Gov. Palin’s NY Times opinion piece did little to convince the liberals that on the issue of the polar bears, their condemnation of the governor was reactionary and alarmist. Friday, it came to light that the EPA had suppressed an internal report which was skeptical of claims made by global warming alarmists:

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message (PDF) to a staff researcher on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward…and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”

The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be an independent review process inside a federal agency–and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.

Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, said in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. “It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else,” Carlin said. “That was obviously coming from higher levels.”

NewsBusters.org’s P.J. Gladnik has news of more suppression of inconvenient truths. This time it’s a polar bear expert who has been forbidden from presenting evidence which supports what Gov. Sarah Palin has long been arguing — that the numbers of most polar bear populations have either been increasing for the past few years or remain at optimum levels:

Dr. Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.

He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists’ agenda as their most iconic single cause. The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the wind-sculpted ice they were standing on made such a striking image.

Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week’s meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming.

This is how the left deals with research and researchers that don’t echo their party line. They suppress and then try to ignore. If the researcher makes too much noise over being excluded, then it’s time to invoke Rule 5 and Rule 12 from Alinsky.

This is exactly the formula the left has followed regarding Gov. Palin’s polar bear policy. They bombard the web, crying “Palin hates polar bears.” These people are so divorced from reality that they probably will tell you that “eevill woman” hates unicorns and rainbows also.

- JP

]]> Early in January, a Sarah Palin op-ed appeared in the NY Times in which she argued against adding the Polar Bear to the list of endangered species because the polar bear populations in the Arctic were healthy:

“…polar bears are more numerous now than they were 40 years ago. The polar bear population in the southern Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s North Slope has been relatively stable for 20 years, according to a federal analysis.”

The governor said that the bears were “magnificent animals, not cartoon characters” that are “worthy of our utmost efforts to protect them and their Arctic habitat,” but added that putting them on the endangered species list was the wrong way to do it.

The Palin op-ed was mostly a response to intense criticism from an emotional Left. They had been hammering her on the issue for months. “Sarah Palin: Tough on polar bears” shouted the Boston Globe’s Green Blog. The American Prospect published a web article headlined “Palin’s Polar Bear Problem.” ABC News’ The Blotter condemned her with “Palin Fought Polar Bear Protections” and included a quote from a University of Alaska professor who called her a liar. At Think Progress, Matthew Yglesias had written of “Palin’s War on Polar Bears” only hours after John McCain had named the governor as his running mate.

Gov. Palin’s NY Times opinion piece did little to convince the liberals that on the issue of the polar bears, their condemnation of the governor was reactionary and alarmist. Friday, it came to light that the EPA had suppressed an internal report which was skeptical of claims made by global warming alarmists:

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message (PDF) to a staff researcher on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward…and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”

The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be an independent review process inside a federal agency–and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.

Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, said in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. “It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else,” Carlin said. “That was obviously coming from higher levels.”

NewsBusters.org’s P.J. Gladnik has news of more suppression of inconvenient truths. This time it’s a polar bear expert who has been forbidden from presenting evidence which supports what Gov. Sarah Palin has long been arguing — that the numbers of most polar bear populations have either been increasing for the past few years or remain at optimum levels:

Dr. Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.

He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists’ agenda as their most iconic single cause. The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the wind-sculpted ice they were standing on made such a striking image.

Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week’s meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming.

This is how the left deals with research and researchers that don’t echo their party line. They suppress and then try to ignore. If the researcher makes too much noise over being excluded, then it’s time to invoke Rule 5 and Rule 12 from Alinsky.

This is exactly the formula the left has followed regarding Gov. Palin’s polar bear policy. They bombard the web, crying “Palin hates polar bears.” These people are so divorced from reality that they probably will tell you that “eevill woman” hates unicorns and rainbows also.

- JP

]]> 1 Josh Painter (Profile) <![CDATA[Obama’s middle-class tax pledge headed under the bus]]> http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/?p=1439 2009-06-28T22:02:43Z 2009-06-28T21:56:36Z One of Barack Obama’s often repeated promises made on the campaign trail was that he would not raise taxes on the midddle class:

“I can make a firm pledge,” he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

He repeatedly vowed “you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.”

Some Obama critics have charged that by signing a law last spring that raised the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, the president broke his promise. That tax hits the middle-class and the poor especially hard since most smokers fall in one of those categories. Obama apologists argued that the number of smokers is rapidly declining, and the tax only falls on those who engage in a practice which harms themselves, so it really doesn’t affect the majority of the middle class.

Let’s see them spin their way out of this one:

The White House seems to be retreating from President Barack Obama’s campaign promise that he would not raise taxes on families making less than $250,000.

Under persistent questioning from ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Sunday, Obama senior adviser David Axelrod declined to restate the vow and left open the possibility that the president might sign health care reform legislation that taxes high-cost, employer-provided insurance plans which some middle-class families currently receive tax free.

ABC “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos:

I pressed Axelrod on whether Obama will draw a line in the sand and veto any bill that funds health care reform with tax hikes for people making under $250,000 a year — despite a pledge Barack Obama made during the 2008 presidential campaign not to raise taxes on the poor and middle-class.

“One of the problems we’ve had in this town is that people draw lines in the sand and they stop talking to each other. And you don’t get anything done. That’s not the way the president approaches us. He is very cognizant of protecting people — middle class people, hard-working people who are trying to get along in a very difficult economy. And he will continue to represent them in these talks,” Axelrod said.

“But they’re also dealing with punishing health care costs, and that’s something that we have to deal with.”

Translation: Obama lied.

As Jim Geraghty so presciently observed back in November:

All Barack Obama Statements Come With an Expiration Date. All Of Them.

Translation: He lies.

After all, he won. In the view of the Obama apologists, his election victory was a mandate to urinate on the legs of all Americans and tell them that it’s raining.

- JP

]]> One of Barack Obama’s often repeated promises made on the campaign trail was that he would not raise taxes on the midddle class:

“I can make a firm pledge,” he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

He repeatedly vowed “you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.”

Some Obama critics have charged that by signing a law last spring that raised the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, the president broke his promise. That tax hits the middle-class and the poor especially hard since most smokers fall in one of those categories. Obama apologists argued that the number of smokers is rapidly declining, and the tax only falls on those who engage in a practice which harms themselves, so it really doesn’t affect the majority of the middle class.

Let’s see them spin their way out of this one:

The White House seems to be retreating from President Barack Obama’s campaign promise that he would not raise taxes on families making less than $250,000.

Under persistent questioning from ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Sunday, Obama senior adviser David Axelrod declined to restate the vow and left open the possibility that the president might sign health care reform legislation that taxes high-cost, employer-provided insurance plans which some middle-class families currently receive tax free.

ABC “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos:

I pressed Axelrod on whether Obama will draw a line in the sand and veto any bill that funds health care reform with tax hikes for people making under $250,000 a year — despite a pledge Barack Obama made during the 2008 presidential campaign not to raise taxes on the poor and middle-class.

“One of the problems we’ve had in this town is that people draw lines in the sand and they stop talking to each other. And you don’t get anything done. That’s not the way the president approaches us. He is very cognizant of protecting people — middle class people, hard-working people who are trying to get along in a very difficult economy. And he will continue to represent them in these talks,” Axelrod said.

“But they’re also dealing with punishing health care costs, and that’s something that we have to deal with.”

Translation: Obama lied.

As Jim Geraghty so presciently observed back in November:

All Barack Obama Statements Come With an Expiration Date. All Of Them.

Translation: He lies.

After all, he won. In the view of the Obama apologists, his election victory was a mandate to urinate on the legs of all Americans and tell them that it’s raining.

- JP

]]> 15 Josh Painter (Profile) <![CDATA[Spokesperson: Kerry didn’t mean what he said]]> http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/?p=1433 2009-06-27T21:22:45Z 2009-06-27T21:04:13Z Senator John Kerry has thrown the joke he told Tuesday about Governor Sarah Palin under the bus. Or in Kerryspeak, he obviously voted for the joke before he voted against it.

Just one day after Gov. Palin stood up to the liberal Senator and returned fire, he has apparently calculated that his joke went too far, not to mention that he has lousy timing.

Kerry spokeswoman Jodi Seth told WaPo’s The Sleuth:

“We stand corrected, the truth is every Democrat hopes Governor Palin is in the public eye for a long, long time, especially on the 2012 presidential ballot. Lately it’s been Vice President Cheney that everyone hopes would lose the cameras and go for a long leisurely hike on the Appalachian Trail. And good grief, if anyone thinks John Kerry is afraid of strong, smart women, they sure haven’t met his brilliant wife and two independent daughters. It sounds like getting crushed these last two election cycles cost some of these Republicans their sense of humor.”

Interesting statement. Ms. Seth admits that (1) John Kerry doesn’t always mean what he says; (2) He really thinks that Gov. Palin is a “strong, smart” woman; (3) Dick Cheney has been so effectively kicking the Democrats’ behinds on the issues that they wish he would just go away; and (4) the Senator from Taxachusetts is so arrogant that he speaks for “everyone” and their hopes.

The latest Kerry flip-flop is the second Palin victory in as many weeks over two high-profile leftists. By standing up to David Letterman’s creepy sexism, she forced him to apologize two weeks ago. Now, by giving Kerry a taste of his own medicine, she has forced him to admit that the Senator’s words have an expiration date (a characteristic he shares with President Barack Obama).

“We cannot spare this woman – she fights.”

- JP

]]> Senator John Kerry has thrown the joke he told Tuesday about Governor Sarah Palin under the bus. Or in Kerryspeak, he obviously voted for the joke before he voted against it.

Just one day after Gov. Palin stood up to the liberal Senator and returned fire, he has apparently calculated that his joke went too far, not to mention that he has lousy timing.

Kerry spokeswoman Jodi Seth told WaPo’s The Sleuth:

“We stand corrected, the truth is every Democrat hopes Governor Palin is in the public eye for a long, long time, especially on the 2012 presidential ballot. Lately it’s been Vice President Cheney that everyone hopes would lose the cameras and go for a long leisurely hike on the Appalachian Trail. And good grief, if anyone thinks John Kerry is afraid of strong, smart women, they sure haven’t met his brilliant wife and two independent daughters. It sounds like getting crushed these last two election cycles cost some of these Republicans their sense of humor.”

Interesting statement. Ms. Seth admits that (1) John Kerry doesn’t always mean what he says; (2) He really thinks that Gov. Palin is a “strong, smart” woman; (3) Dick Cheney has been so effectively kicking the Democrats’ behinds on the issues that they wish he would just go away; and (4) the Senator from Taxachusetts is so arrogant that he speaks for “everyone” and their hopes.

The latest Kerry flip-flop is the second Palin victory in as many weeks over two high-profile leftists. By standing up to David Letterman’s creepy sexism, she forced him to apologize two weeks ago. Now, by giving Kerry a taste of his own medicine, she has forced him to admit that the Senator’s words have an expiration date (a characteristic he shares with President Barack Obama).

“We cannot spare this woman – she fights.”

- JP

]]> 12 Josh Painter (Profile) <![CDATA[Gene Robinson fan offered his 5-year-old son for sex]]> http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/?p=1425 2009-06-27T02:50:43Z 2009-06-27T00:25:03Z In a case which explores the depths of human depravity, authorities say that a Duke University official tried to persuade a person he had met in an internet chat room to travel to North Carolina to have sex with the official’s adopted 5-year-old child. Unfortunately for Frank Lombard, the associate director of Duke’s Center for Health Policy, he did not know at the time he attempted to pimp out the son he had adopted as an infant that the other person in the chat room was a police officer.

A District of Columbia police detective’s affidavit charges that Lombard — using the internet handle of “perv dad for fun” — said he had sexually molested his young son:

Lombard was arrested and charged in federal court in Washington with attempting to induce someone to cross state lines to engage in sex with a child. If convicted, he could face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

A Duke spokesperson says Lombard, who has been employed with the university for ten years, has been placed on unpaid administrative leave. The university, which was notified of the incident after Lombard’s arrest, is said by the spokesperson to be cooperating with the investigation.

Lombard’s Facebook page proudly proclaims that he is a fan of Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, who delivered the invocation at the ‘ We Are One ‘ Inaugural Celebration for President Barack Obama.

According to the arrest warrant (PDF), Lombard lives in Durham with a gay partner and has two adopted children.

It will be interesting to see if this story gets half of the media attention that the Duke Lacrosse incident received. Our guess is no — far from it. When the victim of a crime is not a member of one of the leftist media’s protected groups, they show little interest in allowing such a story to grow legs.

The case is sure to add fuel to the controversy over the issue of gay adoption. On a pro-gay website, a post titled “What’s wrong with gay adoption?” claims:

…there’s nothing wrong with it. It improves the lives of children by bringing them into loving homes. Where’s the problem with that?

Apparently conservatives (such as luckily-not-president McCain) believe that allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt is somehow bad or immoral. McCain had this to say about it:

I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don’t believe in gay adoption.

So, better to leave them in an orphanage rather than to let them be adopted by what he think (sic) is a less than ideal family?

The issue of gay adoption doesn’t get the press that gay marriage marriage does, but increasingly it is seen as an important new front in the battle for gay rights. On the other side of the battle line, it is also seen as a front in the battle for religious liberty:

For example, last year Lambda Legal, a gay rights organization, filed a discrimination complaint against an Arizona-based adoption service.

The reason? Adoption Profiles refused to post same-sex couple profiles on its website. The result? That agency no longer operates in New York or California.

In 2006, Boston’s Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption work rather than comply with Massachusetts’ gay adoption law.

Religious liberties advocate Kevin Hasson worries about the implications of such moves.

“What’s wrong with gay adoption from a religious liberties perspective is that it forces religious agencies and individuals to do something that violates their conscience,” he said. “And that’s wrong.”

For now, the battle over who will adopt our nation’s children remains in the courtroom both for individual cases and broader policy issues.

For every statistical study that shows that gay adoption is not harmful to children, there’s one which shows that it does harm them. The battle will continue to rage, but stories like this one do not help gay activists make their case.

- JP

]]> In a case which explores the depths of human depravity, authorities say that a Duke University official tried to persuade a person he had met in an internet chat room to travel to North Carolina to have sex with the official’s adopted 5-year-old child. Unfortunately for Frank Lombard, the associate director of Duke’s Center for Health Policy, he did not know at the time he attempted to pimp out the son he had adopted as an infant that the other person in the chat room was a police officer.

A District of Columbia police detective’s affidavit charges that Lombard — using the internet handle of “perv dad for fun” — said he had sexually molested his young son:

Lombard was arrested and charged in federal court in Washington with attempting to induce someone to cross state lines to engage in sex with a child. If convicted, he could face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

A Duke spokesperson says Lombard, who has been employed with the university for ten years, has been placed on unpaid administrative leave. The university, which was notified of the incident after Lombard’s arrest, is said by the spokesperson to be cooperating with the investigation.

Lombard’s Facebook page proudly proclaims that he is a fan of Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire Gene Robinson, the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, who delivered the invocation at the ‘ We Are One ‘ Inaugural Celebration for President Barack Obama.

According to the arrest warrant (PDF), Lombard lives in Durham with a gay partner and has two adopted children.

It will be interesting to see if this story gets half of the media attention that the Duke Lacrosse incident received. Our guess is no — far from it. When the victim of a crime is not a member of one of the leftist media’s protected groups, they show little interest in allowing such a story to grow legs.

The case is sure to add fuel to the controversy over the issue of gay adoption. On a pro-gay website, a post titled “What’s wrong with gay adoption?” claims:

…there’s nothing wrong with it. It improves the lives of children by bringing them into loving homes. Where’s the problem with that?

Apparently conservatives (such as luckily-not-president McCain) believe that allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt is somehow bad or immoral. McCain had this to say about it:

I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don’t believe in gay adoption.

So, better to leave them in an orphanage rather than to let them be adopted by what he think (sic) is a less than ideal family?

The issue of gay adoption doesn’t get the press that gay marriage marriage does, but increasingly it is seen as an important new front in the battle for gay rights. On the other side of the battle line, it is also seen as a front in the battle for religious liberty:

For example, last year Lambda Legal, a gay rights organization, filed a discrimination complaint against an Arizona-based adoption service.

The reason? Adoption Profiles refused to post same-sex couple profiles on its website. The result? That agency no longer operates in New York or California.

In 2006, Boston’s Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption work rather than comply with Massachusetts’ gay adoption law.

Religious liberties advocate Kevin Hasson worries about the implications of such moves.

“What’s wrong with gay adoption from a religious liberties perspective is that it forces religious agencies and individuals to do something that violates their conscience,” he said. “And that’s wrong.”

For now, the battle over who will adopt our nation’s children remains in the courtroom both for individual cases and broader policy issues.

For every statistical study that shows that gay adoption is not harmful to children, there’s one which shows that it does harm them. The battle will continue to rage, but stories like this one do not help gay activists make their case.

- JP

]]> 47 Josh Painter (Profile) <![CDATA[Does Kerry moonlight as a writer for Letterman?]]> http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/?p=1412 2009-06-26T04:40:15Z 2009-06-26T04:16:35Z One would think Sen. John Kerry (D-Cambodia) would have realized by now that his idea of humor doesn’t go over very well. It must be because he’s a nasty person, and his pathetic attempts at being funny just turn out to be… well, nasty.

He should have remembered the firestorm he set off with this crack:

That prompted this response from the First Brigade, 34th Infrantry Division of the Minnesota National Guard, which was deployed to Iraq at the time:

Yes, the photo was for real, not photo shopped. The outcry from both sides of the aisle was so loud that Kerry was forced to offer up an excuse disguised as an apology, which was just as lame as the joke.

After all that, you would think that Kerry would avoid trying his hand at humor, but the nasty in him just can’t stay bottled up. On top of that, he has lousy timing, and the clown tried to attack Sarah Palin when it was still thought that Gov. Mark Sanford was somewhere on the Appalachian Trail. Kerry told a gathering of Boston business and civic leaders Tuesday:

“Too bad,” Kerry said, “if a governor had to go missing it couldn’t have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin.”

Even joking that you are hoping for a member of the political opposition to disappear is… nasty.

But he’s a Democrat. Nasty is what they do.

- JP

]]> One would think Sen. John Kerry (D-Cambodia) would have realized by now that his idea of humor doesn’t go over very well. It must be because he’s a nasty person, and his pathetic attempts at being funny just turn out to be… well, nasty.

He should have remembered the firestorm he set off with this crack:

That prompted this response from the First Brigade, 34th Infrantry Division of the Minnesota National Guard, which was deployed to Iraq at the time:

Yes, the photo was for real, not photo shopped. The outcry from both sides of the aisle was so loud that Kerry was forced to offer up an excuse disguised as an apology, which was just as lame as the joke.

After all that, you would think that Kerry would avoid trying his hand at humor, but the nasty in him just can’t stay bottled up. On top of that, he has lousy timing, and the clown tried to attack Sarah Palin when it was still thought that Gov. Mark Sanford was somewhere on the Appalachian Trail. Kerry told a gathering of Boston business and civic leaders Tuesday:

“Too bad,” Kerry said, “if a governor had to go missing it couldn’t have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin.”

Even joking that you are hoping for a member of the political opposition to disappear is… nasty.

But he’s a Democrat. Nasty is what they do.

- JP

]]> 42 Josh Painter (Profile) <![CDATA[Gov. Palin headed for Europe to visit troops]]> http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/?p=1406 2009-06-24T21:31:33Z 2009-06-24T14:23:35Z From the governor via Twitter:

“Travel now to bring appreciation from their Alaska family & Natl Guard leadership to heroes in US European Command’s area of responsibility”

We had wondered if Gov. Palin was going to return to the Middle East to visit her state’s Guard troops deployed there after she tweeted:

“Got Fed ok for Adjutant Gen Campbell, Command Sgt Major Choate and me to travel to our Ak Army Natl Guard troops on Wed. Glad to go to them”

But now it seems that she’s headed for Europe.

The U.S. European Command — USEUCOM — has a wide area of responsibility:

Prior to the formation of Africa Command in October 2008 the area of responsibility (AOR) of the United States European Command covered more than 13 million square miles and included 91 countries and territories. This territory extends from the North Cape of Norway, through the waters of the Baltic and Mediterranean seas, most of Europe, parts of the Middle East, to the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa. Several other countries and territories were considered to be part of the USEUCOM area of interest (AOI).

Effective 01 October 1998, the AOR of USEUCOM expanded to include six Western Slavic and Caucasus states of the former Soviet Union; Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. Another six European countries and territories are considered to be within EUCOM’s Area of Interest [AOI]. This is an area of concern to the Commander because of the possibility of current or planned operations. This could also include areas occupied by forces that could jeopardize the accomplishment of the mission. These were Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

On 17 April 2002, Defense officials announced changes in the Unified Command Plan. US European Command (EUCOM) will increase its area of responsibility. EUCOM will include the remainder of the Atlantic area off the East Coast to the shores of the Europe, he said, and it will pick up primary responsibility for Russia. Previously, Russian relations were handled in the Pentagon. U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) will help European Command with the far eastern part of Russia and will add Antarctica to its area of responsibility.

An interactive map of the USEUCOM AOR is here.

One of the countries where Alaska Army National guard troops are deployed is Kosovo, where 140 soldiers of the 1st Battalion, 207th Aviation Regiment began a year long deployment in December of 2008 with its eight Blackhawk helicopters.

No reason she can’t go on to the M.E. from Kosovo, however, and we think it’s likely she will stop in Germany to visit the wounded at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center again, as she did in 2007.

Update: ADN and CNN finally reported on the trip hours after RedState.com broke the story. Meanwhile, the governor’s office published this news release on its website.

- JP

]]> From the governor via Twitter:

“Travel now to bring appreciation from their Alaska family & Natl Guard leadership to heroes in US European Command’s area of responsibility”

We had wondered if Gov. Palin was going to return to the Middle East to visit her state’s Guard troops deployed there after she tweeted:

“Got Fed ok for Adjutant Gen Campbell, Command Sgt Major Choate and me to travel to our Ak Army Natl Guard troops on Wed. Glad to go to them”

But now it seems that she’s headed for Europe.

The U.S. European Command — USEUCOM — has a wide area of responsibility:

Prior to the formation of Africa Command in October 2008 the area of responsibility (AOR) of the United States European Command covered more than 13 million square miles and included 91 countries and territories. This territory extends from the North Cape of Norway, through the waters of the Baltic and Mediterranean seas, most of Europe, parts of the Middle East, to the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa. Several other countries and territories were considered to be part of the USEUCOM area of interest (AOI).

Effective 01 October 1998, the AOR of USEUCOM expanded to include six Western Slavic and Caucasus states of the former Soviet Union; Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. Another six European countries and territories are considered to be within EUCOM’s Area of Interest [AOI]. This is an area of concern to the Commander because of the possibility of current or planned operations. This could also include areas occupied by forces that could jeopardize the accomplishment of the mission. These were Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

On 17 April 2002, Defense officials announced changes in the Unified Command Plan. US European Command (EUCOM) will increase its area of responsibility. EUCOM will include the remainder of the Atlantic area off the East Coast to the shores of the Europe, he said, and it will pick up primary responsibility for Russia. Previously, Russian relations were handled in the Pentagon. U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) will help European Command with the far eastern part of Russia and will add Antarctica to its area of responsibility.

An interactive map of the USEUCOM AOR is here.

One of the countries where Alaska Army National guard troops are deployed is Kosovo, where 140 soldiers of the 1st Battalion, 207th Aviation Regiment began a year long deployment in December of 2008 with its eight Blackhawk helicopters.

No reason she can’t go on to the M.E. from Kosovo, however, and we think it’s likely she will stop in Germany to visit the wounded at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center again, as she did in 2007.

Update: ADN and CNN finally reported on the trip hours after RedState.com broke the story. Meanwhile, the governor’s office published this news release on its website.

- JP

]]> 8 Josh Painter (Profile) <![CDATA[Is Palin going back to the Middle East?]]> http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/?p=1396 2009-06-24T14:25:32Z 2009-06-24T04:07:35Z Governor Sarah Palin recently tweeted:

“Got Fed ok for Adjutant Gen Campbell, Command Sgt Major Choate and me to travel to our Ak Army Natl Guard troops on Wed. Glad to go to them”

The 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate’s tweet didn’t say exactly where she would travel to visit the toops. But one has to wonder why she would need permission from the Feds to visit her own state’s Guard troops unless she’s talking… er, tweeting about going overseas to do it. The only other place we can think of that she might need federal permission to visit Alaska Army Guard troops is Fort Greely.  The missile base, however, is a hundred miles from Fairbanks, so a visit to the facility would not involve much in the way of travelling. Also, Gen. Cambell should not need federal permission to visit Greely.

The governor is about due for a return trip to visit Alaska’s troops in the M.E.:

In July 2007, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) traveled to a U.S. military base in Kuwait to visit Alaska National Guard soldiers who provide logistical support for our operations in Iraq. On her return trip, she stopped to visit wounded troops at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany.

Detachments of the Alaska Guard have been sent to both Iraq and Afghanistan since 2005. An infantry battalion was deployed to the middle east in 2006, and another infantry company deployed to Iraq in 2007. The governor’s son Track deployed with his regular Army unit in 2008. The Alaska Army National Guard’s aviation units have also seen a series of company sized rotations to Iraq.

If Gov. Palin does go back to the M.E., it would be a major story. It would also be nice if she could visit Track. Intrigued, we’re awaiting something more specific from the governor regarding her travel plans.

- JP

]]> Governor Sarah Palin recently tweeted:

“Got Fed ok for Adjutant Gen Campbell, Command Sgt Major Choate and me to travel to our Ak Army Natl Guard troops on Wed. Glad to go to them”

The 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate’s tweet didn’t say exactly where she would travel to visit the toops. But one has to wonder why she would need permission from the Feds to visit her own state’s Guard troops unless she’s talking… er, tweeting about going overseas to do it. The only other place we can think of that she might need federal permission to visit Alaska Army Guard troops is Fort Greely.  The missile base, however, is a hundred miles from Fairbanks, so a visit to the facility would not involve much in the way of travelling. Also, Gen. Cambell should not need federal permission to visit Greely.

The governor is about due for a return trip to visit Alaska’s troops in the M.E.:

In July 2007, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) traveled to a U.S. military base in Kuwait to visit Alaska National Guard soldiers who provide logistical support for our operations in Iraq. On her return trip, she stopped to visit wounded troops at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany.

Detachments of the Alaska Guard have been sent to both Iraq and Afghanistan since 2005. An infantry battalion was deployed to the middle east in 2006, and another infantry company deployed to Iraq in 2007. The governor’s son Track deployed with his regular Army unit in 2008. The Alaska Army National Guard’s aviation units have also seen a series of company sized rotations to Iraq.

If Gov. Palin does go back to the M.E., it would be a major story. It would also be nice if she could visit Track. Intrigued, we’re awaiting something more specific from the governor regarding her travel plans.

- JP

]]> 1 Josh Painter (Profile) <![CDATA[Meet the Basij, Iran’s thug militia]]> http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/?p=1387 2009-06-22T13:30:15Z 2009-06-22T13:00:16Z If you’ve watched any of the televised images from Iran since the people first went into the streets to protest their country’s rigged election, you’ve seen them in action. That bunch of thugs wearing civilian garb and clubbing protesters with nightsticks are the Basij — Niruyeh Moghavemat Basij is the formal name — the militia the mullahs use to maintain control of Iran’s population.

In addition to their nightsticks (some of which are electrically charged), members of the Basij (pronounced buh-SEEJ) also wield chains, knives and axes, and they ride around on small motorbikes. A commenter on CNN this weekend described them as “a cross between Hell’s Angels and Al-Qaeda.” While their motorbikes are small compared to the hogs the Angels ride, don’t laugh. The little bikes have more than enough power to chase down young Iranians who are fleeing for their lives.

Dr. Wahied Wahdat-Hagh of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), in a briefing paper (PDF), characterizes the force as:

“…the ideological-military core of the Islamic regime, glorifying values such as martyrdom and self-sacrifice for the sake of the lofty goals of Islam and the homeland. As such, it is the embodiment of the ethos and values of the Islamic Revolution.”

Ahmadinejad himself served in the Basij as well as in the the Revolutionary Guards during the Iran-Iraq war.

When the Basij shock troops were first organized after a November 1979 decree issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, most of the members were old men and young boys, since the lion’s share of the males in between were already in the Army or had been killed in battle.

The Basij are not just your average, run-of-the-mill thugs. These pigs are true believers. It is from their ranks that volunteers were recruited to launch “human wave” attacks during the war between Iraq and Iran, particularly in the area which surrounds Basra:

Under the command of the Revolutionary Guards, they would charge blindly across minefields with plastic keys, symbolising the martyr’s entry to paradise, strung round their necks.

It should come as no surprise, then, that Basij volunteers were martyred by the tens of thousands in the war with Iraq, but now they act as Khomeini’s moral police:

They have been active in monitoring the activities of citizens, enforcing the hijab and arresting women for violating the dress code, and seizing ‘indecent’ material and satellite dish antennae.

At the core of the thug militia is a cadre of religious zealots who see their mission in life to preserve the Revolution:

They have been active in harassing government critics and intellectuals, have firebombed bookstores and disrupted meetings. They are said to gather at the invitation of the state-affiliated media and generally act without meaningful police restraint or fear of persecution.

The size of this force is not known precisely. GlobalSecurity.org says that according to Khomeini’s decree:

“A country with 20 million youths must have 20 million riflemen or a military with 20 million soldiers; such a country will never be destroyed.”

Their numbers have never come close to that goal:

Officially, the Basij today number some five million: but only a fraction of its cadres are thought to be active.

The Basij are everywhere. The paramilitary force:

“…has leaders based in mosques in every village and city throughout Iran, giving it the widest security network in the country,” said Mehdi Khalaji, a senior fellow with The Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a specialist in Iranian politics.

According to witnesses, the Basij participated in a police raid on Tehran University student dorms Sunday night after the students threw stones, bricks and Molotov cocktails at police:

Basij members used axes, sticks and daggers to ransack student rooms and smash computers and furniture, wounding many students, according to witnesses.

A day later, students attacked a compound used by the Basij and tried to set it on fire. Gunmen on the roof fired on the crowd and killed seven people, according to state media.

Those who are hoping to see the courageous young protesters overthrow Iran’s repressive regime may have a long wait. In addition to the country’s regular military, police and the Basij militia, Iran has a secret police every bit as brutal as the Shah’s dreaded Savak. Organized under the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, the VEVAK secret police are the mechanism through which Iran maintains its reputation as the most active sponsor of terrorism in the world. Thanks largely to the Basij, which handles domestic spying on the country’s own citizens, VEVAK is free to concentrate on exporting terror to other nations.

Without help from outside sources, mainly in the form of small arms to use against the Basij, Iran’s citizens who yearn to be free from the yoke of their own government’s oppression are up against overwhelming odds. At night, the youthful voices of those who dare to defy Iran’s totalitarian regime can be heard from the rooftops:

“Allahu akbar!” the two young women cry out across the rooftops.

Another voice joins in, and then another, and then another, building to a crescendo.

“Allaaaaahu akbar!” a deep male voice crests.

The voice is beautiful, and easily recognizable as the muezzin from the local mosque.

“Allaaaaahu akbar!” his rich voice echoes through the neighborhood. “Allaaaaahu akbar!”

The people turn to their God in the misery of their enslavement. There is no one else they can turn to.

- JP

]]> If you’ve watched any of the televised images from Iran since the people first went into the streets to protest their country’s rigged election, you’ve seen them in action. That bunch of thugs wearing civilian garb and clubbing protesters with nightsticks are the Basij — Niruyeh Moghavemat Basij is the formal name — the militia the mullahs use to maintain control of Iran’s population.

In addition to their nightsticks (some of which are electrically charged), members of the Basij (pronounced buh-SEEJ) also wield chains, knives and axes, and they ride around on small motorbikes. A commenter on CNN this weekend described them as “a cross between Hell’s Angels and Al-Qaeda.” While their motorbikes are small compared to the hogs the Angels ride, don’t laugh. The little bikes have more than enough power to chase down young Iranians who are fleeing for their lives.

Dr. Wahied Wahdat-Hagh of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), in a briefing paper (PDF), characterizes the force as:

“…the ideological-military core of the Islamic regime, glorifying values such as martyrdom and self-sacrifice for the sake of the lofty goals of Islam and the homeland. As such, it is the embodiment of the ethos and values of the Islamic Revolution.”

Ahmadinejad himself served in the Basij as well as in the the Revolutionary Guards during the Iran-Iraq war.

When the Basij shock troops were first organized after a November 1979 decree issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, most of the members were old men and young boys, since the lion’s share of the males in between were already in the Army or had been killed in battle.

The Basij are not just your average, run-of-the-mill thugs. These pigs are true believers. It is from their ranks that volunteers were recruited to launch “human wave” attacks during the war between Iraq and Iran, particularly in the area which surrounds Basra:

Under the command of the Revolutionary Guards, they would charge blindly across minefields with plastic keys, symbolising the martyr’s entry to paradise, strung round their necks.

It should come as no surprise, then, that Basij volunteers were martyred by the tens of thousands in the war with Iraq, but now they act as Khomeini’s moral police:

They have been active in monitoring the activities of citizens, enforcing the hijab and arresting women for violating the dress code, and seizing ‘indecent’ material and satellite dish antennae.

At the core of the thug militia is a cadre of religious zealots who see their mission in life to preserve the Revolution:

They have been active in harassing government critics and intellectuals, have firebombed bookstores and disrupted meetings. They are said to gather at the invitation of the state-affiliated media and generally act without meaningful police restraint or fear of persecution.

The size of this force is not known precisely. GlobalSecurity.org says that according to Khomeini’s decree:

“A country with 20 million youths must have 20 million riflemen or a military with 20 million soldiers; such a country will never be destroyed.”

Their numbers have never come close to that goal:

Officially, the Basij today number some five million: but only a fraction of its cadres are thought to be active.

The Basij are everywhere. The paramilitary force:

“…has leaders based in mosques in every village and city throughout Iran, giving it the widest security network in the country,” said Mehdi Khalaji, a senior fellow with The Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a specialist in Iranian politics.

According to witnesses, the Basij participated in a police raid on Tehran University student dorms Sunday night after the students threw stones, bricks and Molotov cocktails at police:

Basij members used axes, sticks and daggers to ransack student rooms and smash computers and furniture, wounding many students, according to witnesses.

A day later, students attacked a compound used by the Basij and tried to set it on fire. Gunmen on the roof fired on the crowd and killed seven people, according to state media.

Those who are hoping to see the courageous young protesters overthrow Iran’s repressive regime may have a long wait. In addition to the country’s regular military, police and the Basij militia, Iran has a secret police every bit as brutal as the Shah’s dreaded Savak. Organized under the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, the VEVAK secret police are the mechanism through which Iran maintains its reputation as the most active sponsor of terrorism in the world. Thanks largely to the Basij, which handles domestic spying on the country’s own citizens, VEVAK is free to concentrate on exporting terror to other nations.

Without help from outside sources, mainly in the form of small arms to use against the Basij, Iran’s citizens who yearn to be free from the yoke of their own government’s oppression are up against overwhelming odds. At night, the youthful voices of those who dare to defy Iran’s totalitarian regime can be heard from the rooftops:

“Allahu akbar!” the two young women cry out across the rooftops.

Another voice joins in, and then another, and then another, building to a crescendo.

“Allaaaaahu akbar!” a deep male voice crests.

The voice is beautiful, and easily recognizable as the muezzin from the local mosque.

“Allaaaaahu akbar!” his rich voice echoes through the neighborhood. “Allaaaaahu akbar!”

The people turn to their God in the misery of their enslavement. There is no one else they can turn to.

- JP

]]> 38