Sarah Palin Information Blog

Sarah Palin Web Brigade

  • Upcoming Palin Events

  • Sarah Palin’s Endorsees

  • Sarah Palin Channel

  • Amazing America

  • The Undefeated

  • ‘Stars Earn Stripes’

  • ‘Game Change’ Lies Exposed

  • Good Tidings and Great Joy: Protecting the Heart of Christmas

  • Our Sarah: Made in Alaska

  • America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag

  • Going Rogue: An American Life

  • Other Sarah Palin Info Sources

  • Login/RSS

  • Governor Palin on Twitter

  • @SarahPalinUSA

  • Governor Palin on Facebook

  • SarahPAC Notes

  • RSS SarahPAC Notes

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • SPWB on Facebook

  • SPWB on Twitter

  • @SarahPalinLinks

    Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

  • Join the SPWB Twibe!

  • Posts by Date

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • __________________________________________
  • Top Posts & Pages

  • __________________________________________
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • __________________________________________

Archive for July 2nd, 2010

Joe Miller: THE only conservative choice for Alaska

Posted by Ron Devito on July 2, 2010

The following letter from US Senate candidate Joe Miller delineates the stark differences between Lisa Murkowski and Miller, both of whom are running on the GOP ticket. Governor Palin endorsed Joe Miller, because he is a true Reagan Conservative. US for Palin followed suit and endorsed Joe Miller’s campaign.

Lisa Murkowski is a RINO. This letter, provided courtesy of Tracey Porreca explains why in great detail.

June 27, 2010

Dear Fellow Republicans:

Recently the Murkowski campaign circulated an email through the Alaska Republican Party asserting that “political operatives are mischaracterizing Lisa’s record [and] some of these claims are outright lies.” We wanted to assure Party members, and the Murkowski camp, that our campaign has not engaged in such behavior. We decided to look into the charges, and here is what we found. It turns out that they were responding to emails being circulated by concerned citizens acting of their own accord. They were not being directed to do anything by Joe Miller for US Senate. Some of the material being circulated may have originated with us, but we were unable to decipher what material may have come from us, and what did not, since the specifics of what the Murkowski campaign was responding to is still somewhat in doubt.

However, we would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight as to what it is that we are saying. It is clear to us that by any objective measure, Senator Murkowski is not a conservative and her record will bear that out. Her campaign has insisted that “Lisa is well known for her conservative voting record.” Rather than engage in a “he said – she said” moment, let’s take a look at what the conservatives inside the beltway have concluded, based upon her voting record and their observation.

The American Conservative Union (Lifetime) – 70.19%
Freedom Works – 50%
Human Events – Top Five RINO’s in the United States Senate
National Taxpayer’s Union (Lifetime) – 63%
Citizens Against Government Waste (Lifetime) – 54%
Senate Conservatives Fund (2008) – 50%
Eagle Forum – 63%
American Family Association – 33%
Family Research Council – 55%

The aforementioned letter states, “She [Murkowski] recently led efforts to stop the massive power-grab by the EPA which President Obama threatened to Veto.” The Senator’s EPA Amendment is well-rehearsed and we applaud her for her attempt to stop this naked power grab, but we should be clear about what the Amendment would, and would not, have done. Following is Senator Murkowski’s own statement about her EPA Amendment delivered to The Council on Competitiveness’ National Energy Summit and International Dialogue on September 23, 2009:

“Since my amendment has stirred a bit of controversy, I want to take a second to ‘clear the air’. My amendment would not stop this process forever – it would simply give Congress a year to debate climate policies and determine the best approach for reducing emissions. Given that no climate bill would take effect before 2012, my amendment would not slow down or detract from the overall process. And given that almost everyone involved in the climate debate prefers legislation to regulation, I’m hopeful that it will draw enough votes to pass. I am equally hopeful that the climate debate, without the cloud of economically harmful EPA regulations hanging over it, can move forwards toward a bill that can pass the Senate. I want my colleagues and constituents to know that I’m serious about climate change . . .”

Further, it has been asserted that “[Senator Murkowski] has an A+ rating from the NRA.” We would point out that the Senator has demonstrated marked improvement in this area, considering her D rating with the NRA while in the Alaska State House, but she is still labeled a “pro-gun compromiser” by Gun Owners of America.

As to the Senator’s opposition to tax increases, we would not deny that she has opposed some tax increases, but has certainly not opposed them across the board. She voted against the 2008 Bush Tax Rebates, against multiple points of order requiring a super-majority to raise taxes, voted in favor of tobacco tax increases, and is currently entertaining the possibility of a new carbon tax on emissions.

It has also been asserted that the Senator has voted to fully repeal, and “unequivocally supports the repeal of Obama Care.” But it should be pointed out that the “repeal” vote took place before the reconciliation bill actually passed. Five days after the reconciliation bill passed, the Senator said “repealing [Obamacare] is not the answer in my opinion . . .” You can view, or read it, here: (Feds overreaching on health care, energy, Murkowski says). It should not be difficult to see why we are somewhat confused as to where she really stands on the issue.

As to the claim that “Senator Lisa Murkowski opposes Big Government, Government Spending, Government Bailouts, Government Takeover, and Deficit Spending,” we can only refer you to the record.

Voting for the largest new entitlement program in a generation (Medicare, Part D), in addition to unwarranted federal health care expansions (SCHIP/CHIPRA) that even the big-spending President George W. Bush vetoed on the grounds that it was “a move toward socialized medicine,” is hardly an effective way to prove your opposition to Big Government.

Voting against the majority of your Republican colleagues on six excessive Appropriations packages just in the last year is not a convincing argument against Government Spending.

Voting for TARP (Big Bank and Wall Street) bailouts, voting to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and voting to protect the Obama Administration’s plan for a $108B slush fund for International bailouts does not make a persuasive case for opposition to Government Bailouts. It should also be also be pointed out that the Senator’s campaign operatives would have us applaud her for attempting to clean up her own mess (TARP). One might say, ‘she actually voted for it . . . before she voted against it.’ Does she really get credit for a failed attempt to fix what she broke herself? Really?

Without even going further, which could be done at some length, the aforementioned votes prove conclusively that the Senator is not serious about curbing deficit spending.

On the illegal immigration front, it is an ineluctable fact that the Senator voted for Amnesty in 2006, and against a border security amendment taken in December of 2009 that would have required the southern border fence (physical barrier, not a virtual fence that is virtually porous) to be finished by December 2010. If the Senator is such an advocate for the conservative position on illegal immigration, why did she vote for the amnesty bill in 2006 and vote to take up the bill again in 2007? Why did she have to be strong-armed into voting no on cloture in 2007? Why has US Border Control only given her a 33% score for her stance on border issues?

And finally, “as Alaska’s US Senator, Lisa Murkowski opposes the use of federal funds for abortions.” While we accuse nobody of lying, this statement simply does not accord with her record. We need go no further than the Anchorage Daily News last week, where it was reported that 662 abortions were funded through Denali Kid Care: (KidCare funded 664 ‘medically necessary’ abortions in ’09). That is the Senator’s CHIPRA vote at work.

She has voted no less than four times for repeal, or against reinstatement, of the “Mexico City Policy” put in place by President Reagan to bar Federal dollars from foreign non-governmental organizations that provide or promote abortions.

I would also point to Senator Murkowski’s unequivocal statement in voting for a sense of the Senate Amendment that reads as follows:

“It is the sense of the Senate that–

the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade

was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right;

and such decision should not be overturned.”

The Senator has been named a Wish List Star. The Wish List is a pro-choice organization whose mission is stated as follows: “The WISH List raises funds to identify, support and elect pro-choice Republican women.” You can visit the website here: The WISH List.

While one can argue about votes, we would encourage inquiring minds to consult our website where there are links to many of Senator Murkowski’s votes. Feel free to contact the campaign; we would be happy to assist you with information you might need to make an informed decision on this crucial race.

While we understand that tensions are high in an election cycle, it is incumbent upon us all to take a deep breath and look at the facts. This is not finally about personalities, it is about the future of the greatest nation on earth. We are committed to running a clean campaign. We invite the Senator to debate the issues, and we will do our part to keep it civil.

All the Best,

Joe Miller Campaign for US Senate

(907) 929-9563

Paid for by Joe Miller for US Senate • P.O. Box 72838, Fairbanks , AK 99707

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Conservative New Media Further Exposes Palin Protesters

Posted by Adrienne Ross on July 2, 2010

After last night’s post contrasting the light of pro-Palin patriots with the anger of anti-Palin protesters in California when the Governor visited to help raise money for CSU Stanislaus, I was contacted by Paul Villarreal of Conservative New Media who did the video that you see in the post. He read the article on C4P and wanted to shed further light. Without the need to overtly call out the protesters’ foolishness, the interviewer certainly captured it, and easily captured, also, the civility and patriotism of Governor Palin’s supporters who were well-able to articulate the reasons they stand so vehemently in her corner.

I will let Paul speak for himself. He wrote:

Hi, this is Paul F. Villarreal of Conservative New Media (CNM) and I asked Adrienne Ross if I could add a few words to her excellent write-up here of what took place on the campus of CSU Stanislaus during Sarah’s Palin’s very successful visit. Adrienne graciously accepted and so I want to share with the C4P readers a bit more alleged information that came to our attention following the shooting of the video posted here as well as some thoughts on the tactics being used by the anti-Palin protesters at Stanislaus and where we have seen such methods previously and how to spot and counteract them.

On the Tuesday following Sarah’s visit, John co-hosted the Dave Diamond radio program on KFIV 1360 in Modesto, California (very close to Turlock, where Sarah spoke). During this stint, John was told by both the third man in the booth as well as a caller who had attended the Palin speech and also interviewed the Palin protesters that at least one group among those who had gathered to spew their vitriol toward Sarah were members of a presumably local Teamsters union.

I cannot verify this information independently at this time. The caller who interviewed the protesters himself said that the supposed Teamsters told him this information directly, and that the alleged Teamster members were let out of work early on Friday with the explicit understanding that they were to head down straight from work and protest Palin.

For the purposes of the rest of my comments, I will assume that this information is true, and that a core chunk of those who seemingly mindlessly ranted against Sarah, “the rich” and other strawmen at Stanislaus on Friday were, indeed, union members.

The Teamsters are a notoriously corrupt outfit with deep historical ties to disgraced criminal Jimmy Hoffa as well as the ethically-compromised city of Chicago.

What stuck out most, though, in watching the footage were the tactics of what I will presume are the young men who are union members some time around the middle of the video. Their aggressiveness — at first appearing illogical but then seeming to fit the profile of the strategic Saul Alinsky disciple — reminded both John and I, and probably many C4P readers, of other Obama-friendly hatchet men from the 2008 campaign.

For several years now, CNM has come under sustained assault from Obama-friendly astroturfers and left-wing flaks. We are thoroughly familiar with their methods, including those of the “goon squad” groups which seemed to constitute a core of the anti-Palin protesters.

In my opinion, the methods being used by the presumed young Teamster union men in the video fit a very specific profile of agitators and bullies. These are the kinds of people and tactics, I feel, which were employed when Kenneth Gladney was beaten up in Missouri by apparent SEIU members. These are the kinds of methods which were used against average Americans who opposed ObamaCare and voiced their concerns at town hall meetings, and finally, these are the kinds of people and means which have marked the left’s hysterical campaign attempting to marginalize Sarah Palin and make her permanently “off limits” to most Americans.

The hallmark of these agitators is their rabid, almost incoherent, chanting and demeanor. The goal is to elicit an emotional response both from fellow protesters and from the opponent, in this case the pro-Palin crowd outside the Stanislaus event.

To this end, initiating mindless chants such as “Eat the rich!” is not the work of unsophisticated protesters but is, instead, a very targeted tactic intended to draw out the anger and hatred of the anti-Palin side and also seek to provoke a kind-of fear response in the pro-Palin protesters. It is the supposed lack of coherence of the chant, that is, which is designed to make the pro-Palin crowd come to a kind of helpless psychological response along the lines of “Wow, these people are so angry and full of rage that even though they are rambling idiotic phrases, I guess they really feel passionately about hating Sarah Palin and I definitely don’t want to mess with them. Maybe I should just kind of back off here and kind of accept this Palin hate. I don’t want any kind of confrontation.”

This technique is often referred to as the “Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt” method. CNM actually made a simple video about this some time ago which you can watch here and you can read more about the FUD approach towards engagement and interpersonal dynamics here.

In watching and re-watching the footage, I am convinced that the young men at the heart of the anti-Palin vitriol are, in fact, union members and I am also fairly certain that the tactics which they used fit into the Saul Alinsky/FUD playbook.

You will never see these kinds of hate purveyors of the left featured in traditional LSM outlets. Sad to say, many media personalities, I feel, secretly appreciate these goon squads because their tactics, as the young pro-Palin woman in the video mentions, work. The many members of the media who detest Palin and support Obama, I believe, appreciate the “clearing out” function which shady outfits like the Teamsters provide because that makes the enactment of the left’s radical agenda that much easier to achieve.

For those who support Palin, however, and even just for non-ideological Americans who want to see politics rise above the sum total of advertising methods and partisan pop-psychology hackery such as the FUD method being used by Saul Alinsky types, it is essential to know who your adversary is and just what kind of tactics are being employed. The would-be bully standing across from you at a Palin rally might look and sound like a naive Neanderthal, but it is our experience that they are often anything but, and their methods have to be countered.

I believe that the men in the video which Adrienne posted are a good representation of what Sarah and her supporters will face from now until Sarah is potentially elected President, should she run, in 2012. The left knows they must not allow Sarah any room to breathe, so to speak, and so they will continue to mobilize their most-extreme elements in a desperate scorched-earth campaign to take down Sarah at any cost.

It is our responsibility, as Palin supporters and patriots, to meet such people out on the political battlefield–and to defeat them as often and as widely as we can, in peaceful and concerted ways.

Thank you again, Adrienne and C4P, for allowing me to share my thoughts on this footage and event, and I hope everyone here has a terrific Independence Day Weekend.

Paul F. Villarreal
Conservative New Media

We’re in a battle against an enemy that wants to annihilate. The only way to win is to know what we’re dealing with and expose those tactics time and time again. Governor Palin’s supporters will not be ignorant of the despicable devices used against her. I thank Mr. Villarreal and CNM for being among the good guys who stand for truth.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »