Categorized | Sidebar Open Thread

Open Thread

I’ve going with the Falcons and the Ravens this weekend.

The Governor was at the Russo Steel Auction in Scottsdale, Arizona. M. Joseph Sheppard has the videos and pictures on his website.


Comment Policy: The Editors reserve the right to delete any comments which in their sole discretion are deemed false or misleading, profane, pornographic, defamatory, harassment, name calling, libelous, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate. Additionally, the Editors reserve the right to ban any registered poster who, in their sole discretion, violates the terms of use. Do not post any information about yourself reasonably construed as private or confidential. Conservatives4Palin and its contributors are not liable if users allow others to contact them offsite.

  • ZH100

    Good morning all.

    Excellent article about Gov.Palin’s record of accomplishments.

    ‘Who Is the Real Sarah Palin?’

    From the article:

    Executive Authority and Success

    Palin was the first female and youngest governor to be elected in Alaska, which is tied for the second most powerful governorship in the United States, according to Thad Beyle, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina.

    Budgeting and Spending

    Palin cut state spending between 2007 and 2010 by 9.5% while also reducing federal earmark requests by more than 80% during her tenure. She used her line-item veto to cut more than a quarter billion in superfluous spending in both 2007 and 2008. In 2009, she instituted a temporary hiring freeze, while at the same time reducing spending by more than 33% between FY2009 and FY2010.

    In stark contrast to President Obama and other governors whose fiscal records are dogged by credit downgrades, Palin left Alaska with an improved credit rating during and following her tenure as governor. Standard & Poor’s raised Alaska’s credit rating from AA to AA+ in April 2008. Then in 2010, both Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s upgraded Alaska to AAA for the first time in the state’s history due to policies enacted by Palin that made the state’s finances more than solvent.


    Under Palin’s leadership, Alaska was 2nd in job growth, and 3rd in the change in its unemployment rate, compared to the other states. Alaska also saw a record number of oil jobs in both 2008 and 2009, while natural resource and logging jobs increased 13.7% during Palin’s tenure.

    In fact, Palin’s record on jobs compared to the country as a whole was stronger than the President’s and other prominent governors’ during their respective tenures

    Business Growth

    Alaska was an opportunity society under Palin. Alaska moved up from the 4th most business tax-friendly state to the 3rd most business tax-friendly state during her tenure.

    Palin was a firm believer in tax cuts. In addition to lowering unemployment insurance tax rates, she cut business license fees in half, suspended the state motor fuel tax, and signed legislation, allowing Alaska-based businesses the same opportunities as out-of-state businesses. All of this was consistent with her record as Mayor of Wasilla, where she eliminated small business inventory taxes and cut property tax mill levies every year she was in office.


    Energy issubeteutiful photoses are Palin’s forte, and her record proves it. In 2007, Governor Palin signed ACES—Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share—a net tax on oil profits that was passed in a bipartisan and transparent manner. ACES replaced the corruption-tainted oil tax plan of the previous administration, which was passed in secret and ultimately lead to the federal indictment of several Alaskan state officials and oil company personnel. Furthermore, ACES provided oil companies with incentives to develop. The progressivity of the tax meant producers were protected when oil prices were low, but the interest of the resource owners—the people of Alaska—were appropriately protected as well to achieve a fair return for their resource.

    Most importantly, ACES led to jobs, increased development, and a huge surplus for Alaska.

    Perhaps Palin’s biggest energy achievement was spearheading the creation of the Alaska natural gas pipeline. After five decades of unsuccessful attempts by Alaskan administrations to bring a gas pipeline project into existence, Palin and her team introduced the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) in March 2007. AGIA passed the Legislature by a vote of 57-1 in May of that year.

    Unlike the behind-closed-doors cronyism of past administrations, Palin’s AGIA legislation was conducted out in the open and made use of a genuine free-market competitive bidding process. Palin’s AGIA placed not only Alaska, but also the nation, further on the path toward energy independence.

    Palin played hardball with the big oil companies in her state. According to the Alaska state constitution, Alaskans are the resource owners in their state; and it was Palin’s duty as their CEO to get the best deal for Alaskans while at the same time partnering with these oil companies for the mutual benefit of all.

    Ethics Reform and Transparency

    Ethics reform was the hallmark of Palin’s governorship. She was swept into office on a reform message in a state with a serious corruption problem. Alaska at the time was undergoing a federal investigation that culminated in the indictment of various corrupt lawmakers. Palin had made a name for herself as an ethics crusader when she chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservative Commission and blew the whistle on fellow commissioner and state GOP head Randy Ruedrich for doing party business on state time. This resulted in Ruedrich receiving a $12,000 fine—the largest civil fine for ethics in the state’s history. Alaskans respected the fact that Palin was not afraid of taking on the establishment of her own party.

    As governor, Palin fought for and signed sweeping bipartisan ethics legislation, which restricted lobbyists, improved disclosure laws, and improved executive and legislative branch ethics laws. In the face of corruption, she continued to take on her own party when it was necessary. She also increased transparency by releasing her oil tax bill to her constituents 17 days prior to the special legislative session, opening up natural gas pipeline deals to all potential parties, putting the state checkbook online, and not allowing lobbyists in her office.


    Palin forward funded education to allow districts greater flexibility, supported increased vocational training and early education funding, opened up opportunity to Alaskan students to participate in regional medical schools, and increased overall funding for special needs education by 175% (before she herself became the mother of son with special needs). Believing that the best reform was close to home, Palin wisely also chose to monitor rather than participate in national standards for education.

    Health Care

    Palin introduced health care transparency legislation that established an Alaska health care information office to give consumers factual information on quality and cost to help them make better-informed health care decisions. Recognizing that health care must be market-and business driven, rather than restricted by government, Palin proposed repeal of Certificate of Need—a layer of bureaucracy that prevents medical facility development. She established the Alaska Health Strategies Planning Council, reduced Medicaid assessments by 83%, and expanded Alaska’s SeniorCare benefits program for low-income seniors.

  • wodiej

    “Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor my eyes lofty. Neither do I concern myself with great matters, nor with things too profound for me.” Psalm 131:1

  • ZH100

     As Governor Palin has said many times, she advocates for an “all of the above” approach to energy independence which includes solar, wind, nuclear, and clean coal in addition to the more traditional oil, gas, and coal.

    She supported development of renewable energy sources, developing a plan to have 50% of Alaska’s energy to be produced from renewable sources by the year 2025.

    ‘Palin unveils state energy goals; 2025 GOAL: At least 50 percent of state’s power to be from alternative sources.’    (January , 2009)

    "Gov. Sarah Palin has crossed swords with conservation groups over petroleum drilling, but she earned nothing but praise Friday after announcing the most ambitious renewable energy goals in the nation. At a news conference announcing her statewide energy plan, Palin called for 50 percent of Alaska’s power to be generated by renewable resources by 2025."

    ‘Sarah Palin’s Goal Of 50% Renewable Energy Use In Alaska Signed Into Law’ (June , 2010)

    From the article:

    "One of the first things Barack Obama did, once he took office, was to announce a pretty ambitious goal of having the United States get 25 percent of it’s energy from renewable sources by the year 2025. To date, little if anything, has been done by the Obama regime to reach this goal.

    On January 21, 2009 (Obama’s first full day at work) Sarah Palin, writing in the Wall Street Journal, praised this initiative strongly, while reminding Obama that conventional sources of energy will always be needed. She also announced that she was working on the goal of having Alaska get a full 50 percent of it’s energy from renewables in that same 2025 time frame."

  • ZH100

    The 2010 election.

    Gov. Palin was the catalyst for the takeover of the House , twice as many Governships and lopsided Gop Statehouses during the 2010 election.

    ‘2010 Elections: The Palin Effect ‘ (By: bbila ,2010)

    From the article:

    "With that being said, Palin’s 71% endorsement success rate thus far—52 wins out of 73 declared races featuring Palin-endorsed candidates (eight additional races are undecided as of 1:30 p.m. on November 4)—is impressive, especially considering that she embraced a number of underdogs in traditionally blue states.

    Of particular importance is the fact that eighteen of the twenty candidates backed in Palin’s Take Back the 20 initiative have won their races (one race is undecided as of 1:30 p.m. on November 4). That’s a 90% success rate.

    When Mediaite, CBS, and NBC—despite some incomplete stats—are all in agreement that Palin had a great night, it just may be one for the books."

  • Pete Petretich

    Wow, great photos!

    • $26225604

      no. they are not.

  • Pete Petretich

    Btw, does anybody know anything about working for the FBI?

  • technopeasant

    10 random thoughts on last week’s NFL divisional games and the upcoming conference championship games:

    1) Just heard that of the 43 passes thrown by Peyton Manning against the Baltimore Ravens last Saturday only 4.7% of his passes (2) were attempted for more than 15 yards down the field.  And this percentage by far was the lowest in the NFL among the 8 starting QB’s who played on divisional Sunday.

    Peyton Manning is a first ballot Hall of Famer. For that to happen either Manning was restricted by  current injury (or previous injury to his neck) or hampered by the weather (it was brutally cold on the field forcing him to unaccustomedly wear a glove on both hands) or the Broncos coaching staff concocted the one of the worse offensive game plans in the history of the NFL for this to occur and prove that super-conservatism is alive and well, harboring too much fear for the Raven’s pass defense. By the way a month earlier in Baltimore, the Broncos prevailed 34-17.

    Yes, contrarians will argue the Broncos did score 35 points and led for most of the way and did take the game into double overtime but what this stat tells me is the Broncos were "playing not to lose rather than playing to win."

    And you would have thought that they took this strategy from the GOP presidential playbook.

    2) Joe Flacco, QB of the Baltimore Ravens can be compared to a home run hitter who swings for the fences consistently. He bats for a low batting average similar to Flacco having a low completion percentage (low 50’s) and strikes out quite often but when he connects and hits it out of the park (completes a long pass for a TD) he brings the fans and pundits out of their seats.

    3) As many of you know I am a Patriots fan, But if I were not and totally objective about Sunday’s game I would definitely feel that the Baltimore Ravens have as good a shot as they are ever going to have to go to the Super Bowl. Here’s why:

    a) Over the last 5 years since he started in the league in 2008, Joe Flacco has gone to the playoffs in each of those seasons and to boot have won at least one game in each of these playoff runs. And Flacco has played in 2 previous conference championship games. The law of averages says the Ravens should advance to the Super Bowl, having had 5 consecutive opportunities to do so.

    b) Up to last Sunday’s game against Houston, Tom Brady had gone 5 consecutive playoff games throwing at least one interception and he also has not gone two straight playoff games without throwing a pick since the 2004 playoff run. In his last five playoff games Flacco has thrown only 2 picks.

    c) The Ravens won the turnover margin by +2 in last year’s conference championship game against the Patriots and still lost. In addition Flacco outplayed Brady. The Ravens had the ball on offense 7 more minutes than the Pats offense did. If the Ravens do those three things again on Sunday the law of averages say the Ravens should prevail.

    d) Superstar Rob Gronkowski is out of the Patriots’ lineup due to injury.  

    4) Most pundits are not giving the Atlanta Falcons a chance to beat the SF 49ers. And it is these same pundits who gave the Baltimore Ravens little or no chance to beat the Denver Broncos in Denver last weekend.

    For the record the Atlanta Falcons finished with the #1 seed in the NFC and posted a 13-3 record and objectively going into the game on paper the disparity between the Falcons and the 49ers is not as pronounced as was perceived in the Ravens–Broncos matchup. And to boot the Falcons are playing at home. How soon we forget the red-hot Seattle Seahawks came into the Georgia dome last weekend and lost!

    I certainly give the Falcons a decent chance to beat the 49ers. Matt Ryan is a better QB than Joe Flacco. And Colin Kaepernick is no Peyton Manning.

    5) Just heard Michael Crabtree of the 49ers is being investigated in SF for an alleged sexual assault that supposedly took place after the game last weekend. Reminds me of the 1999 Super Bowl (1998 season) in which Falcons player Eugene Robinson got caught trying to pick up a hooker a couple of days before the game. The Falcons lost badly to the Broncos in that SB. Could we be seeing the same thing but in reverse regarding the Falcons?

    6) For all the talk of Ray Lewis’ farewell tour, more quietly, attracting less attention Sunday’s game against the 49ers may be Falcon’s tight end Tony Gonzalez’s last game in the NFL. This begs the question: Why aren’t the pundits discussing the possibility of the Falcons "playing for Tony" and lifting their games while this is exactly what they are doing in predicting the Ravens will play "on emotion" and upset the Pats.

    By the way both Lewis and Gonzalez are projected to be first-ballot hall of famers.

    7) A stat I pointed out earlier in the week that also may point to a Ravens’ victory. The home team in the AFC Championship has won the last 6 conference championship games. Since the 1970 merger this is longest streak in the AFC for home victories. In the NFC it is 7 straight home victors between 1980–1987. In other words the law of averages simply states the visiting team in the AFC is due to win this year.

    Having said that Tom Brady has never lost a conference championship game at home (4-0).

    8) I am convinced that the Baltimore Ravens have to be leading the game after both the half and three quarter mark to beat the Patriots (or at least tied).

    Again one of the most astonishing stats in sports: Tom Brady, at home in both regular season and playoff games during his 12 years as the starting QB for the Patriots, has never lost a game when the Pats have held the lead after the half or three quarter mark. In other words of the games the Pats have lost at home they were either tied or losing at these milestones in the game.

    Incidentially in last year’s game, the Pats led after the first half and the Ravens led after three quarters.

    9) Frankly I think the football pundits are not being objective when it comes to Colin Kaepernick. They rave so much about his game last week against the Green Bay Packers at home but completely overlook or discount Kaepernick’s woeful performance against the Seattle Seahawks at QWest field in Seattle in a hostile environment only a month ago. In case you don’t know QWest field is NOT a dome stadium and the Georgia dome is. I expect the GD to be even louder than Seattle and inside a dome it may even impact the 49ers even more.

    10) I know I have focused a lot on Tom Brady’s recent misfortunes in the playoffs. But the facts are if he wins on Sunday he will be the first starting QB to start 6 Super Bowls. He currently leads all starting QB’s in NFL playoff victories (17) and is #1 in winning percentage of QB’s who have started more than 10 playoff games (73.9).

    Will Tom Brady rise to the occasion on Sunday against a team (the Ravens) who have always given him problems?

    Will Joe Flacco continue to post a 100+ rating as he has done for the first two playoff games?

    The answer to those two questions will probably determine the outcome of this game?

    Obviously I’m picking the Pats to prevail, but honestly I could see it going the other way.

  • Pete Petretich

    Yes, Sarah really does still have more executive experience that Obama…

  • Jthom26837

    Good Morning Fellow Palinistas,

    I just read a very interesting article by Mr. Lloyd Marcus. I believe it’ll get your juices flowing this morning.


    • wodiej

      That is one hell of a GREAT article-thank you for sharing.  While some want to blame Romney for the loss to obama, the real blame goes to voters who wouldn’t support Palin.  

      • Audrey_I

        The mainstream media worked overtime to destroy Sarah Palin.  There needs to be an alternative to the mainstream media.  We need a reliable, alternative to the mainstream media that reaches all Americans.  Then we need to work to marginalize and destroy the media that has brought us Obama and the Ruling Class. 

        We presently have one political party and two factions.

        • ZH100

           "The mainstream media worked overtime to destroy Sarah Palin."

          Don’t forget Hollywood.

          Hollywood is an very influential opinion maker, especially among the youth.

        • wodiej

          The alternative at this point is to help make more voters well informed.  

    • RedDaveR

         I don’t agree with Marcus’ apparent conclusion that Gov. Palin is withdrawing from the public eye, but he does make some valid points.  If a new conservative leader emerges, why should we expect he/she to be treated differently than Gov. Palin has been? Conservatives must learn to stand up for their own, or else "Palinization" will happen again and again.

      • ZH100

         "I don’t agree with Marcus’ apparent conclusion that Gov. Palin is withdrawing from the public eye"


        "If a new conservative leader emerges, why should we expect he/she to be treated differently than Gov. Palin has been?"


      • conservativemama

        All the Left learned from what they did to Palin is that is worked, so yes of course they will do it again.  I agree with you.  And that will be the problem with Rubio.  He’s not ready for the attacks.  Cruz is.  West is.  But Rubio will be lulled into the McCain fantasy that he can become a media darling.  No more.  The Left is out for blood and they never stop.  As relentless as they come.

        If the GOP doesn’t understand that, they’re doomed.

      • AmazedOne1

        Here at C4P, we certainly hope that Sarah will continue to be the advocate of conservatism. However, even here, we have noticed that she has been quiet lately. We say she’s in hibernation, reloading, waiting till after the Iron Dog, etc. I hope we’re right and his conclusion about her withdrawal is wrong.

        • Jthom26837

           IMHO, I believe Sarah Palin has read the book ‘The 48 Laws Of Power.’ By Robert Greene. What she’s doing is following Law #16: Use Absence To Increase Respect And Honor. And Law #17: Keep Others In Suspended Terror: Cultivate An Air Of Unpredictability.’ She’s Cleverly performing those Laws to perfection I might add.

           I Stand With Sarah Palin.

          • Timothy Jacques

             Alinsky vs Greene    STEEL CAGE MATCH!!!!!

  • royroyo


  • wodiej

    obama’s re-election is warning God’s justice will not sleep forever

  • ZH100

     Ron Devito’s excellent list of Gov.Palin’s accomplishments.


    Master List of Governor Palin’s 2012 Accomplishments

    Master List of Governor Palin’s 2011 Accomplishments

    Master List of Governor Palin’s 2010 Accomplishments

    Master List of Governor Palin’s 2009 Accomplishments

    Gubernatorial Accomplishments 2006 – 2008

    Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 2003 – 2004

    City of Wasilla, Mayor 1996 – 2002

    Wasilla City Council 1992 – 1996

    KTUU Sportscasting 1987 – 1992

    Commercial Fishing

    Athletic Accomplishments

    Hunting and Subsistence Fishing

    Marriage and Family

  • ZH100


  • Jean_A

    Good morning, C4P!

    I stand with Sarah Palin.

  • technopeasant

    Over the course of my life I have struggled with one philosophical question, which is what degree of credence or credibility to give to a supposedly known fact, historical narrative or accepted theory when the facts, narrative or theory are called into question by contradictory evidence coming to light much later in time or during the present day. And once you bring the subject up for discussion, from a macro point of view how does our scrutiny affect our understanding of historical facts, narratives or theory?

    Or to put it in more simpler terms for those folks in Rio Linda, how keen should we be to reject or differently interpret our initial impression of an event or what we previously assumed to be true and travel down the road to further skepticism and cynicism, what impact will it have on our own physical and mental health going forward and finally how it will impact modern society when the revelation is unveiled that counters or refutes the legendary account.

    Or should we travel down this road at all. Should mankind decide to completely divorce the legend from the "new discovery" and focus entirely on what serves their agenda or should mankind constantly strive to challenge the assumptions of the past regardless of where it leads?

    For me the answer to that question will tell you a hell of a lot to whether that person is a liberal (socialist) or a conservative.

    A liberal will not allow sudden discovery or revelation to get in the way of promoting their agenda or undermine their authority, control or power.

    A conservative on the other hand is completely turned on by "the truth" regardless if it is self-damaging or counterproductive to one’s goals, purposes, desires, ambitions etc.

    Here are 10 ideas to ponder:

    a) Does or should one’s sexual orientation affect how the audience perceives an actor/actress’s performance in terms of seeing the performance before the revelation the actor is gay vs. seeing the performance after discovery the facts?

    Or a better question to ask in the 1950’s and 1960’s would the movie public have viewed Rock Hudson differently in his many romantic comedies with Doris Day if they had known at the time he was gay?

    To what degree should we judge any event, any success, any invention, any historical development orchestrated by an individual when we discover he or she was probably gay? Should it sully it?

    If a gay actor is playing a very sexy heterosexual male over a long period of time (like Rock Hudson was) could an argument be made this is one the greatest "acting" performances in the history of acting?

    And then one is led to question whether gay actors in general make better heterosexual lovers in movies or theater. 

    But finally an issue which I cannot intellectually dismiss: Do real life gays who take on heterosexual roles truly depict emotionally or mentally on screen or stage what a heterosexual male is going through or is what we see from them only a conception of what they think a heterosexual male feels emotionally and mentally making love to or going to bed with a woman? How authentic is their performance?

    I can see why many actors/actresses even in this modern age want to preserve the illusion.

    b) Should a sports’ legends accomplishments be tainted by news he or she was amoral or not really a good person, and how should we view the legend if we find out he occasionally cheated in the game or broke the rules? Should they be penalized for the error of their ways or their indiscretions?

    Should baseball players who we thought led clean lives be kept out of the Hall of Fame because of revelations coming to light they were terrible people which we did not know about before?

    Should all players who used performance enhancing drugs be kept out of the H of F and what if a player has already been inducted–should he be thrown out of the H of F?

    And in terms of the stats amassed by the player, how much weight do you give them? Do you give them less weight now after you have learned more about him?

    And bringing it to the NFL, what weight should Hall of Fame voters give to the Spygate scandal in determining whether Bill Belichick should be in the Hall? And should Ray Lewis be a first ballot hall of famer given he was once accused of murder?

    Should we consider the legend of Tiger Woods tainted because of what we found out about him after he ran his vehicle into a fire hydrant?

    c) Why are modern scientists and intellectuals so willing to still embrace the Theory of Evolution developed by Charles Darwin and promoted by Herbert Spencer when they possessed and promulgated scientific attitudes such as this:


    "In nearly all the inferior races the bones of the legs are smaller and shorter and the muscles are wanting in strength and development as compared to the civilized races."


    "The stronger-legged races have tended to become…dominant races; in the human species short legs are considered embryonic and characterize the infant stage…that legs are undeveloped is a sign of arrested growth."

    Scribners 1889 (both)

    In other words what impact should we give to other scientific theories advanced by scientists that clearly are off the wall or fallacious in terms of evaluating whether their more popular theories or ideas have as much merit as is normally thought?

    Is it improper to suggest that because Darwin was wrong in his evaluation of the races, that he may have been wrong about The Theory of Evolution?

    Should an individual adopting an improper conclusion, harboring a biased personal sentiment or bearing a misguided attitude be completely divorced from his claim to fame?

    If you talk to a Leftist, it doesn’t matter him one bit that Darwin was off the mark on other scientific matters or possessed the mind of a racist. The only thing that is important he was right about The Theory of Evolution.

    Imagine if the Theory of Evolution was being advanced now. Don’t you think it would be relevant to investigate the overall mindset and psychological makeup of the person coming to that conclusion?

    4) Should we reject the moral teaching in the Bible and accept that the Bible is the inspired Word of God if we fundamentally disagree with a certain doctrine that the Bible appears to support (wives submitting to their husbands) or there is an event that occurs that run counters to reality ("The sun stood still.")?

    Would characterizing Paul as a sexist put us more at ease or would the idea that Bible uses metaphorical language allay our concerns?

    And what degree of credibiity do we give historical Mormon leaders (Joseph Smith and Brigham Young) given what we have learned about them recently? And was the decision in 1978 by the Mormon head to allow Blacks to become a member of the priesthood divinely inspired or simply a socio-political decision?

    Should blind faith be advocated by any religion and embraced by any free thinking American? What happened to free will?

    5) Should we assume a politician has changed his stripes when we have found no evidence that he has?

    The classic case is whether we believe President Obama has given up his radical Marxist roots given that nobody has ever cited any example from his past that he did.

    In the case of Obama, the Left and the media pulled off a unique trick. In the movie The Usual Suspects there is a great line, "The greatest trick the devil perpetrated on mankind–the idea he doesn’t exist." Likewise, our enemies convinced us that the accusation were fatuous and silly because they completely disregarded it. In other words the public bought the idea that Obama was not a Communist because the Left and the media ignored the assertion. And to boot they demonized any conservatives who insisted on running with this narrative so that anyone who decided to claim it had any basis to be true was labelled a crackpot or a group which an individual would not want to be a member of.

    6) If a woman decides to marry a man and then between the engagement and wedding date finds out some new info on him that may be considered controversial or damaging, should she approach him with her discovery or revelation or should she rely on her previous judgment that he is worthy to be her mate?

    And once he answers her questions if she asks, should she trust him and assume he is not lying to her about his past? Should she investigate further?

    At what point should she call off the wedding?

    7) And assuming you have formed a terrible opinion on someone from history, what information would sway you to temper your hostility or antagonism towards that person?

    Should one be willing to be flexible in one’s attitudes towards certain human beings or should it be perceived as a virtue to remain stubborn and intransigent?

    Would a decision by a jury affect your personal attitude toward a defendant?

    Would the media mounting a campaign to resurrect a celebrity’s reputation affect the way you eventually feel about that individual?

    If you hate Sarah Palin, what piece of information would you need to temper your hate?

    8) If a famous criminal is later to discovered to be mentally ill or unstable with psychiatrists claiming he did not know what he was doing, would you in turn become more sympathetic towards the criminal and perhaps attempt to mitigate his infamous conduct?

    I have found it amazing and contradictory that so many liberal Americans are willing to give modern American criminals a break because of their background, environment, upbringing, possible child abuse, poverty etc. but are not willing to blunt their criticism of Adolf Hitler because of his own background, environment and upbringing that certainly shaped his attitudes.

    Is it because it is socially acceptable to be a bleeeding heart liberal to those consider disadvantaged but not socially acceptable to promote the idea that Hitler’s adult behavior stemmed from a poor childhood and should be considered mitigating circumstances?

    Are certain types of human beings always on the lookout for mitigating circumstances?

    Or should A=A as Aristotle purported always prevail or should we perhaps consider the possibility that the equation is flawed if we feel it is warranted?

    9) What weight should we give to the facts listed by a historian and what weight should we give to his/her interpretation of these facts?

    If we find out new information about a past event that contradicts the accepted historical narrative and even puts the main actors in the event in an unfavorable light, how readily should we dismiss the original narrative by the historian?

    From The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance:

    "When the legend becomes the fact, print the legend."

    And should we consider delving into the personal life of the historian or his resume in coming to a conclusion on how accurate his depiction of a historical event was?

    And should we evaluate a historical book based on what is included in it or should we evaluate a book based on what is not included or dealt with in its contents?

    And what degree of accuracy or bias do we ascribe to a historian’s opinion based on his other works or his political ideas or attitudes?

    10) And finally what credibility do we give to a work of art (TV, movies, theatre) etc. based on the actors supposedly doing research on their roles.

    Has anyone but myself ever questioned why so many actors and actresses make a huge point of telling the world that they did direct research into their character months ahead of time?

    Could actors be trying to convince us that they experienced firsthand what their character was going through so automatically we have to assume their performance in the role had few flaws? And could volunteering this info be a clever deception on the part of the actor to make us believe he is competent so we don’t question his competence or ability if the movie bombs at the box office or the critics pan his performance?

    And speaking of Hollywood and the majority of movie moguls being diehard Leftists, is it improper to question their output or its goals in terms of sending a didactic message to budding Leftists in their teens or just out of their teens?

    Would any thinking human being really believe Hollywood Leftists are going to promote conservative values in their movies? 

    "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

    Leftist writers, actors, directors and producers would argue they are accurately depicting reality. Yes they are: their own reality, which is the only reality they will ever acknowledge. To them nothing else matters or has merit. And when conservatives come to terms with their philosophy and mental bent they will able to compete better in the arena of ideas.

    • virginiagentleman1

      VERY thought provoking my friend. Well done!  VG

    • TexS2012

      IMO, far worse than anything you have listed would be finding out that the politician you have loved to the point of almost idolizing them would be to find out they were a phony, a fake. You’ve put your blood, sweat, tears and fortune in their hands only to wake up to a reality you’d never expect in a thousand years! I don’t know where you go from there. It would take some time and real soul searching

  • virginiagentleman1

    Good morning milords and miladies! 
    We lost power due to heavy snow Friday night about 11:30pm. It was beautiful to watch falling, but when the temps dropped into the teens, well, it got a bit chilly in the house. We got power back about 7:30 this morning, and the house is warming up nicely.

    Sitting huddled up in a quilt to ward off the cold gives one a chance to think over recent events without being influenced by tv or radio stories.
    Without power to light the night out here, it is pitch black until the moon shines through the cloud cover. Of course, as you might expect from me, I have night vision goggles.
    I would have thought that the deer would all be bedded down in the shelter of the deep woods, but appearently they had other ideas. The yard was full of the critters the last two nights. The field behind and below the house was not cut at the end of the warm weather season so there is lots of brown pasture grass and other goodies for them to browse on.

    There is an article on the menu page that states that the Second Amendment is what enables the other nine (original amendments). Read it if you get the chance.
    Where I live, a rifle or a high powered handgun can be used to hunt for food. Cities and towns, not so much.

    But more importantly, a weapon is YOUR last line of defence and protection whether you live in the deep country as I do, or in a city. If trouble is going down where I live, by the time the Sheriffs Department can get to my house, whatever the trouble was will be long over. That simply means that all they can do is ‘investigate’. They can’t STOP the trouble. Therefore, both the Boss and I are armed and practice shooting frequently. Not bragging but just stating a fact, both of us are crack shots. We hit what we aim at. Our Marine nephew lives next door. He’s a pretty good shot too! The Corps insists on it!

    In a town or city, a weapon is probably more usefull for defence, since the number of people is so large. Perfect practice makes perfect shots. Join a gun club or seek out a firing range. You won’t regret it.

    Lastly, the 2nd is your last and only guarentee of personal freedom. The Framers KNEW and WARNED us that a central government WOULD get out of control.  It is the nature of the beast! The Second is what has kept the government honest throughout most of our history. Yet, even with the Second, federal and state governments have committed outragious crimes against the citizens. The number of incidents are to numerous to list here.

    Beware. If Obama, the leftists, and republican enablers are successful in destroying the SECOND AMENDMENT, the rest of the Constitution will be rendered Null and Void. Why you may ask?
    Because my friends, if you are disarmed, how will you keep government at bay and your freedom intact? How will you as a citizen enforce the Constitution OVER government? If you as a citizen are disarmed, how will you protect your family from harm coming through your door, in WHATEVER form it takes?

    Thomas Jefferson said to tie down ambitious and overreaching men and governments with the chains of the Constitution. How does one do that if the Constitution is no more?

    • carmtom13

      I agree, your post was spot on. I have been busy and have not had the time to read for a few days. I hope things went well with your Doctors and your tests. Carm

      • virginiagentleman1

        Doing better then I thought I was Carm. Next step is a visit with the ‘gadget wizard’, ( that’s what his collegues call him!) Feb 19th. He will measure my heart for a defibulator and then we will set the date for its implantation. The gadget wizard will do the surgery.
        Only drawback for me is he will have to stop my heart just as my heart surgeon did. I’m told that the reason for stopping my heart is to ‘see’ if the defib works as advertised and restarts my heart!
        I’m starting to believe that these heart surgeons make a habit of stopping a heart! Bad habit!  lol  VG

        • carmtom13

          VG just got on and I want to tell you I know 2 people who have had that procedure. One is one of my Co workers and the other is a very good friend of mines husband. Both are doing very well. Very glad to hear you are doing better, its the good care you are getting from the Boss. Carm

    • Leroy Whitby

      Did you see the Lloyd Marcus article on Palin at The American Thinker?

      • c4pfan


      • virginiagentleman1

        Just now read it Leroy. Thanks for the tip my friend. Nothing in it to argue with. Yes, we do have exactly who we need as a conservative leader in Sarah Palin. Next step for her is the Oval Office, if she wants it. Most of us certainly want her to have it.  I know I do!  VG

    • Don

      VG, thanks for your response on yesterdays post. As for the "farm" where I took my training, it was not FBI, hehe. But "another government agency" which I’m not sure that I can reveal even now.

      Good to see you up and going this early in the day. I just got up and the sun is shining. I’m not used to that. lol

      I just looked at the clock and it’s not even noon yet. And I thought I was retired.

      One day we all can get together and I will buy you a drink and you can buy or fix me a cup of coffee.

      Just the opinion of a dumb ole (Natural Born Citizen) country boy.

  • raiderlou

    What are your opinions on the articles going around that in 2008 Sarah Palin stripped the Alaska State Defense Force of their guns?

    • Jean_A

      Would it have anything to do with some in the Tea Party calling for Gov. Palin to lead on the gun issue?

      You people are pathetic clowns.

      • raiderlou

        I don’t know the motive for the resurfacing of the articles. But my interest was in the opinions of those here on the action Sarah Palin took in 2008.

        • Jean_A

          I told you why.

          • raiderlou

            Nothing to do with the question, but thanks for your information anyway.

            • Jean_A

              Of course it has every thing to do with the question.

              • raiderlou

                Maybe I should rephrase the question. I’m not interested in why anyone would bring up the issue, their motives for bringing it up or even who is bringing it up. I couldn’t care less about them or the spin and bias they choose to put on it. I am interested in the issue itself and the facts surrounding it. What I am interested in are the opinions here on the issue itself and the action taken. That’s it.

                • Jean_A

                  There is no issue.  There is no there, there.

                  • Timothy Jacques

                     Hmmmmmmm…..none of these types of  "articles" on Christie or Jebbie…..but always on Palin……

                • MaMcGriz

                   You perhaps haven’t heard that concern trolls are still considered edible on this site, and as disappointing as it is to see how readily you find playmates here, with only golf mom calling your play, it’s always good to see groceries in grizzly country. 

                  • golfmom3

                    Thanks for the h/t, dear!

                    • MaMcGriz

                       You’re welcome, g-mom. Thanks for the clarity and for not buying the fried ice cream.

        • George

          If you read the original story in the ADN in 2008, needless to say, it puts a whole different slant on the story than the one implied in blog posts on leftie sites.

          • raiderlou

            I did, and also searched out more. The opinions of the members of the force as well as their website. They are a respected group of good people.

            • golfmom3

              They can buy their own guns, no one disarmed them.  Government no longer pays for their guns.  

              • Don

                That also means the government has no control over the use of the non-government arms. Good for them.

                Just the opinion of a dumb ole (Natural Born Citizen) country boy.

              • raiderlou

                Government never paid for their guns in the first place.

    • golfmom3

      You should have done your homework, dummy!  The ASDF was a relic pre-statehood.  Once Alaska became a state, the Alaska National Guard became the primary force; the ASDF was voluntary, ex-military — sort of like volunteer firefighters after a city has its own paid firefighters.  The elderly commander was running the force as though it was his own enterprise: firing without cause, not enough training, no real organization.  After a complaint was filed with the Governor’s office in 2007, an investigation was conducted by the state’s military and veterans affairs commissioner and concluded the ASDF had become a liability to the state especially if the state continued to issue weapons to this outfit.  The commander resigned, and members bellyached.

      Way to stick to Gov. Palin, LouLou.  Got to hand it to you, that scandal sure had teeth!  Lou-ser.

      • raiderlou

        I did do my homework.

        And aside from the name calling, you kind of did give your opinion on the issue itself, so thank you for that. That is what I was asking for.

        • golfmom3

          No, you really didn’t.  Had you done your homework, you would not have posited the question you did.  Our opinions don’t matter. Facts do.  I didn’t give you an opinion; I gave you a factual synopsis of contemporaneous reporting.  Had you done your homework you wouldn’t have posted on the topic.

          That kind of provocation is unnecessary and characteristic of sexist bullies who aim to minimize the accomplishments of a highly competent individual.  I’ve only seen you on here when you have some ridiculous item of "concern" — that fits the pattern of a "concern troll" a category of individual for whom I have NO respect.

          You’ve done your work. Now go away and quit whining about name calling.

        • Timothy Jacques

           raiderlou, you were given an answer why Palin did this….there were also liability issues.   The ADN article answers the question so now you’re only trying to pick a troll fight.

          This is not happening in a bubble….it’s a coordinated attack on multiple fronts.  My "Net Alert" Software is picking this topic up on numerous sites.  It’s just a way to smear her and give cover to Obama.

          The start of this article comes from Polticus USA whose motto is "Real Liberal Politics…No Corporate Money…No Masters"

      • AmazedOne1

        Just a small correction — the state didn’t issue the weapons. "They are not paid for training or equipment, investments that can run to $4,000 a person, several members said." more here:

        • golfmom3

          Well, I almost said that but then I thought I couldn’t assume that equipment = guns.  It was kind of fuzzy: "As a result, Campbell recommended to Gov. Sarah Palin that brigade members should no longer be armed.In a still-evolving mission shift, most force members will instead serve civil roles in support of the Alaska National Guard, Campbell said. The Guard is taking on MP duties under a new national mission, another major factor in the decision to disarm the brigade. Force members will likely provide support in engineering or security areas, but "not
          necessarily armed security" except for maybe a platoon in Valdez, Campbell said."

          I guessed the other way because the liability issue was brought up in the article based on the phrase "should no longer be armed".

          • raiderlou

            Your opinion was easily assumed from your comment. As the only person to actually give an opinion on the issue itself, thank you.

          • AmazedOne1

            I agree, it was fuzzy.

      • Don

        This is being plastered on FB too and the comments on the article are really nasty. Also, the comments are mostly not true.

        Just the opinion of a dumb ole (Natural Born Citizen) country boy.

    • ZH100

      raiderlou… related to anonlou?

    • PhilipJames

      I guess some people’s lives….  i.e.   raiderlou   are so useless and unfulfilled that they have nothing better to do than go around to various web sites and bitch, moan, complain, lie, whine and drop their mindless turds of wisdom trying to stir up other people.

      • raiderlou

        You are quite wrong, and I didn’t do any of those things.

    • lanahi

      "In 2009, a decision was made by then BG Thomas H. Katkus, Acting Commissioner/TAG, Dept. of Military and Veterans Affairs, State of Alaska, to diminish and to disarm the Alaska State Defense Force. BG Deborah McManus, CO AK ARNG, stated to the assembled members of the ASDF that they would be a "reserve of last resort with little likelihood of being called to State Active Duty" again.

      Gee, not EVERYTHING that goes on in Alaska was due to Palin, lol!

    • Timothy Jacques

       Pre-emptive smearing to clear the way for Christie and Jebbie

  • Isabel Matos

    If they called it Amnesty, nobody would buy it! Let not the smooth presentation fool ya! Marco has a way with words. The truth is simple. Immigration Reform is Code for Amnesty.

    Why is Rubio important? Because he is a heartbeat away from Jeb who is going to run in 2016.  This issue will hog up time, valuable time away from what concerns us as GOP VOters:  cleaning up the corruption in Washington and shrinking the size of government.  They are getting a head start on Jeb 2016 already, a testament to the strenght and power that a wag of a finger and a stroke of key Sarah has, that’s not even mentioning the POWER of her presence anywhere.

    So, I expressed my mission in 2013 was GOP reform and GOP voter reform (if Sarah does a third party which I think she wont, but if she does, that would be considered the ultimate GOP reform-its death! lOl but not so lOl!)  I am serious about this.. By now Rubio has sniffed so much RINO glue and weed he’s probably beyond the point of no return, but I still hope there is a crack to be made somewhere.  Wouldn’t it be great to see the GOP sellouts turn on each other like the under-the-bus throwers they all are. 

    Oh, yeah, good morning small and potent Palin army :)!!!!

    • $7566967

      Rubio is the biggest Trojan Horse I’ve ever seen,  I remember him saying things like, "The immigrants (illegal) are human beings, too!"  Who said they weren’t?  The folks at Rikers Island and San Quentin are human beings, as well, but just like the illegals, they’re all criminals!

      I also remember Rubio speaking at the RNC and saying that, "Barack Obama is not a bad person, OK!" What a condescending and stupid remark.  Obama is a diabolical and demagogic leader, straight out of the Napoleon and Stalin playbook.

      Just because he’s a Latino and a smooth talker, does not mean that he’s a man of character, virtue, reason, and substance.  He’s NEVER accomplished a single thing in his entire political career, yet everyone anoints him as a Second Coming because he’s handsome and can woo a crowd.

      Sound familiar?

      • Isabel Matos

        Im Hispanic.  I was even born in Cuba, which he wasn’t. He is using that to tug at people’s hearts, but he is erroneously pushing an agenda which is not about FREEDOM but about big government.  How in the heck are we supposed to provide for all these newcomers .. notice all the "infrastructure" talk.. well, that amounts to government programs there is no need for.

        Also, "compassionate" anything in front of conservatism is just a term used to make things personal.  When I came to this country, my parents sacrificed.  They didn’t get handouts.  Also, there was a group of children whose parents SACRIFICED by sending them alone on the famous "Peter Pan" flights.  No one should be using touchy-feely language where immigration is concerned.  You cannot be subjective with laws or law enforcement.  YOu have to maintain an objective, cool head to deal with these issues. It really turns my stomach to hear this nonsense.

        The fact is that since Bush 41 Republicans have made their candidacies about Personality and not Message.  And that is why we have had such lousy candidates. This lates is a good example of making things about feelings, not message.

        Thanks for the reply. I can stand up in front of a crowd (although I dont want to), too, and talk talk talk.  Without a teleprompter.  I did it on video.  It’s scary but heh.  It’s NOT a big deal.

    • Audrey_I

      Jeb and Rubio was not persuasive enough to get the Florida voters to support Romney.  That is loss of credibility in my book. 

      • Isabel Matos

        And the left are using them like tools and playing RUBIO like a violin by giving positive press. Rubio is disconnected from reality.  He is just not self-aware of how divisive an issue Immigration Reform is, and how useful and idiot he is, just like Romney was and McCain (sorry, but it’s true).  The left knew they were all losers.  Next LOSER:  a BUSH called JeB.  Dems would win 2016 again. Are you kidding?  Of course they will give Rubio all the air time he needs.

        He is also like in the movie "City Hall" selling his soul to the devil for a little vanity and fame "a rising star" makes the stars in his eyes gleam with joy..


  • generictrainee

    Jon Hunstman involved in chinese massive corporate merger fail.

    Caterpillar Punked By Chinese Fraud, To Write Off Half Of Q4 Earnings

    The Siwei deal came as part of Caterpillar’s larger ambitions in China. In early 2012, it added Jon Huntsman, the former U.S. ambassador to China, to its board of directors.
    The company, which already has 23 manufacturing facilities in China and four more under construction, said the Siwei episode would not change its strategy in the country."

  • SonOfOriginalTed

    Let’s not lose sight that the purpose of the debt limit was enacted by Congress in 1913 so that the then new Federal Reserve could not devalue the currency at the behest of the Federal Government, that is the Govt. buying its own debt to infinity — thus transferring everything from the private to public sector. We’ve passed that rubicon since no one really believes this debt will ever really be paid off, hence why even call it debt, just call it taking.

Open Thread

Governor Palin’s Tweets