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 March 30th, 2011

Facebook Czar?

Posted by Dr. Fay on March 30, 2011

In an article at Alaskans4Palin, Tracey Porreca has alerted us that Robert Gibbs is in talks with Facebook management about joining their staff as a senior executive.  She cogently states:

Don’t fool yourself into thinking Mr. Gibbs is doing this for the common good. So why then – why would he leave a position where he had the ear of the entire nation (via our lamestream media) and free reign to run amuck over free speech? I don’t believe he’s left the white house at all. I believe the white house and president Obama still have full control over Mr. Gibbs.

[…]

I find it more than ironic that the very medium that Sarah Palin has used to relay her message is the one that a senior white house official, after leaving the white house, is now being considered for as a senior executive.

[…]

Gibbs is also reportedly planning on helping with Obama’s re-election campaign (see here). Do you seriously think he won’t use a position at facebook to assist his buddy in his bid for re-election? There is a bigger agenda here, and I believe the white house is looking to take control of facebook and Sarah Palin’s message, via positioning Gibbs as a senior executive.

For a President who is already seeking a kill-switch for the Internet to have campaign staff in a strategic position at Facebook is very alarming.  Where would be the uproar if Michael Glassner joined the Facebook management staff?   The Washington Post reports that  former Obama White House staffers have also taken key positions at Google and Twitter.  These developments should be of great concern to the American people and to conservatives in particular.

We’ve watched as Obama’s organization has invaded Alaska politics, first with Troopergate and later with Pipelinegate.   A Time for Choosing as well as Conservatives for Palin have done a good job of connecting the dots between Obama and Soros and the attacks against Governor Palin by operatives  within Alaska and elsewhere.

And now Facebook, from which Governor Palin has launched some of her most effective attacks on Obama’s errant policy?  Facebook, which Governor Palin has used to bypass the bias of the lamestream media to get her message out unfiltered?  Alarm bells should be going off all over the Internet.

Governor Palin has been the strongest and clearest voice against Obama’s destructive policies.  She is our best hope for removing Obama and his radical czars from the White House before they destroy our Republic.  As Governor Palin has said, 2012 can’t come soon enough!

For anyone who would like to protest the addition of Robert Gibbs to Facebok staff, here is the available contact information for Facebook:

Facebook
Palo Alto, CA
Unites States
650-543-4800 (www.ecorporateoffices.com)
650-853-1300 (www.linkedin.com)

http://www.linkedin.com/answers/professional-development/professional-networking/PRO_PNT/341405-5500541

See also:

Advertisements

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Bill Kristol Walks Back His Criticism of Sarah Palin in His Interview with Benyamin Korn

Posted by Dr. Fay on March 30, 2011

In this excellent article at Jews for Sarah.com, Benyamin Korn recounts his interview with Bill Kristol, in which Kristol walked back his recent criticism of Governor Palin.  Mr. Korn’s forgiving attitude concerning Kristol’s mistake is commendable.  (Listen to the interview here.) 

William Kristol walks back his criticism of Sarah Palin

Posted On March 30 , 2011

A page from the Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin political journal

Benyamin Korn

It certainly was not in search of any controversy that I’d invited back to my fledgling Jewish talk radio show one of my American political idols. William Kristol was perhaps the first notable “Jew for Sarah Palin;” he had endorsed her for the GOP vice presidential pick in the spring of 2008, months ahead of the pack, and pushed for her selection by John McCain. In his well-respected Weekly Standard, Kristol had lauded the Alaska governor’s resolute campaigns against corruption and government waste, her stellar popularity ratings, her evident love for Israel, her infectious populist style.

Palin aside, Kristol carries forward a giant legacy in American Jewish life; his father, the sociologist Irving Kristol, was co-creator along with Commentary Magazine editor Norman Podhoretz, of the originally Jewish neo-conservative movement, a dynamic intellectual force which had played no small part in five GOP presidential victories over 30 years. And Kristol the son, ever gracious, had boosted my radio program with his nationally-known authority, from its very inception in September of last year.

Even after the failure of McCain-Palin 2008, through all of incumbent vice presidential nominee’s trial by hell-fire from the Democratic attack machine and the “journo-list” fueled media campaigns against her – leading to her resignation from the Alaska governor’s office – Kristol had calmly stayed the course of Palin advocacy. So it was with considerable shock that I read – just a day after he’d accepted my invitation to return to the Philadelphia airwaves on “Jewish Independent Talk Radio” – the headline screaming across the banner of CBSNews.com: “Onetime booster Bill Kristol sours on Sarah Palin.”

In a Q & A session– following a debate at Vanderbilt University on economic policy with Arianna Huffington, moderated by Politico’s Ben Smith – Kristol had answered a question about Palin’s presidential viability thusly: “[She is] is “unlikely to be the Republican nominee, and to be honest I think she probably shouldn’t be the Republican nominee for president.” Moreover, Kristol had opined a month earlier that: “I thought she had a real chance to take the lead on a few policy issues, do a little more in terms of framing the policy agenda. I don’t think she’s done that.” And now he was coming on my show, where I’d wanted and expected him to defend Palin. What was I to do?

I decided to take a page from Sarah’s playbook. “Don’t retreat when you’re on solid ground.” I’d respectfully challenge the pundit’s prediction about Palin’s candidacy. I’d prepare talking points to refudiate his claim about the Gov’s policy positions, or lack thereof. I challenge him to reassess his write-off of Palin’s Presidential viability. I’d stand my ground.

To my great surprise, and relief, Kristol’s manner on my program was almost apologetic. As I wrote in a quick note to the wonderful Palin blogger community, my comrades-in-arms:

Kristol came on and basically refudiatedwhat he’s said at Vanderbilt, saying maybe he misread things because she hasn’t been at the many conferences he attends, maybe he has too much of an inside-the-beltway mentality, that he remains a great admirer of hers (which he’d said at Vanderbilt), and he wants her to be engaged in our political life. 

He asked me if I thought she were running. I said yes, definitely. He asked why I thought so. So I said, for starters because a month ago she hired a senior veteran of 3 GOP presidential tickets to run SarahPac. He said, that’s a very good point. 

I said she has not been trooping around the country giving speeches since her book tour and that she had good reason to take a break after all she’d done [and with such great success] leading up to Nov. 2010, to be with her family, and to prepare. I said when most politicians say they want to be with their families, it means they need an excuse to get out of D.C., but when Sarah Palin says it, it’s because she means it. And he said, well that’s true, too. 

I also recounted something she’s said in her India Today Conclave speech. She said there is a scene from India [of Mother Theresa] on the wall in her house that she looked at while writing her speech. Imagine her telling this very high-falutin’ crowd of Indians that she wrote the speech in her kitchen. Most pols don’t write their own speeches, and even if they did most would never let on they’d written it in their kitchen. Most of the Indians in that audience never enter a kitchen because they have slews of servants. But when Sarah says it, you know it’s true, and you admire her all the more.

My friends in the Palin blogger community are pretty angry with Bill Kristol. I’m not. At least not over his comments re: Sarah Palin. Sarah’s unorthodox political style, her aversion to “inside-the-Beltway schmoozing,” “insider-trading,” and all the other usual accoutrements of political game-playing are delightful to her millions of ardent political supporters, but confusing to those whose lives revolve around politics-as-usual. That doesn’t make them bad people. It just means that even as courageous and visionary a supporter of hers as Mr. Kristol occasionally doesn’t get it right. And it is to this that I also attribute much of the criticism of the “alert Alaskan” (in Seth Lipsky’s wonderful phrase) emanating from the conservative commentariat of late.

Many present and potential Palin-for-President supporters ask me if she will be able to overcome all of the negativity surrounding her. This is a fair question, one that I imagine we all ask, and even she asks of herself. One answer comes to mind from the songbook of Chassidic Reggae star Matisyahu, in his theme song for the Winter 2010 Olympic Games, “One Day” –

Sometimes in my tears I drown

But I never let it get me down

‘Cause when negativity surrounds

I know one day it’ll all turn around

In Chassidic thought, we are commanded not to be depressed, because it interferes with our ability to serve the Almighty.

So in contemplating all the negativity around Sarah Palin, I think back to my early studies of communication theory on attitude change. Basically, there are two models. One is the process of gradual erosion, of repetition, in which attitudes change over time in response to repeated challenges of messages, challenges the audience can already apprehend. Through this method, Gov. Palin has already achieved great things, if we consider how much more public respect she is accorded, how many policy issues now bear her imprint, today as compared with a year ago. Even people today who may not like her message take her quite seriously. The other method of attitude change is the sudden breakthrough, the epiphany, in which all at once a completely different way of looking at things takes hold. And in this Sarah Palin is a master of political communication. Think “death panels.” Think “how’s that hopey-changey stuff workin’ out for you?” Think (last week in the Holy Land), “Why is Israel apologizing?”

We should all read and re-read the Gov’s recent Facebook post about standing up to media bias. It is a classic statement for our movement.

I do not blame anyone for being upset with Bill Kristol’s ill-considered remarks at Vanderbilt. The man made a mistake. But he was big enough to come onto my little radio program and admit it. That, to my mind, is the essence of our Judeo-Christian culture. Repentance. Honest self-appraisal; the willingness to admit errors, correct them, and move forward. I admire him for it.

But next we’ll have to get to the collapse of the neo-conservative movement in regard to their garlands of praise for the “democracy” they see breaking out across the Arab world, and their timidity in confronting Obama’s catastrophic foreign policy. Stay tuned.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

WSJ Political Diary: Sarah Stateswoman

Posted by joshpainter on March 30, 2011

– by Josh Painter
*
Abheek Bhattacharya, Asia-based editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal, opines in WSJ’s Political Diary that Gov. Palin hit the right notes in her recent speech in New Delhi by discussing the values that U.S. and India hold in common:

Sarah Palin did a fine job bolstering her foreign-policy credentials in a speech in New Delhi this month. She hit the right notes discussing the common democratic values and the similar geopolitical outlook that tie the U.S. with India. And she hailed New Delhi economic reforms that were launched 20 years ago and have deepened the bond.

“The relationship between our countries could shape the course of the next century, tilting it in the direction of free people and free markets,” she said.

The former Alaska governor also addressed how free-market reforms could inform energy policy.

[…]

The other side of her vision involves developing the natural resources in America that regulations, like bans on offshore drilling, have “stymied.” In a time of high unemployment and high inflation, unlocking the country’s mineral wealth can both create jobs and provide larger supplies of oil and gas to ease high energy prices.

[More]

h/t: Benyamin Korn

Cross-posted from Texas for Sarah Palin

– JP

Posted in Energy, Sarah Palin | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Sarah Palin Sets The Media Straight On Alaska’s Film Production Tax Credit

Posted by Gary P Jackson on March 30, 2011

By Gary P Jackson

For Sarah Palin, setting the corrupt media straight is a full time job. The latest lie has to do with tax credits the producers of Sarah Palin’s Alaska received. Sarah issued this statement: [emphasis mine]

Goodness, cleaning up the sloppiness of reporters could be a full time job. In response to The Daily Caller’s online inquiry, I gave them a statement that the writer buried on his story’s second page (which most people won’t even notice – I didn’t even notice it) after he spent the first page completely spinning a situation to give the impression that Alaska’s film production tax credit legislation was somehow solely my idea hatched up to benefit the Palins years before I was ever involved in a documentary series on TLC/Discovery Channel. Here’s setting the record straight: As Governor, I signed into law a popular bipartisan bill that was crafted and passed by others and has resulted in numerous Alaska-based productions that are airing today. The only alternative to signing the legislature’s work product would have been for me to veto their legislation, which would have been useless. Besides all that, their legislation worked.

This bill was not some secret big government agenda. These Alaskan legislators just wanted Alaska to be able to compete with the many other states that offer similar incentives. As I noted in my statement (which was curiously buried by The Daily Caller – whose editor-in-chief was recently called on the carpet for publicly using a degrading term to describe women), I can’t speak for the film tax credit programs in other states, but the program in Alaska has been effective. The bipartisan legislation I signed into law in 2008 was borne out of elected lawmakers’ frustration with the fact that shows and films about Alaska were mostly filmed elsewhere. They wanted to incentivize production companies to film in Alaska instead of Canada, Washington state, or Maine. Their bill worked, and as the legislation’s supporters will testify, the state’s economy enjoys the benefits of having this production money circulating right here at home. It was so successful that state lawmakers now want to renew the film production tax credits for another ten years.

Keep in mind that we don’t have a state income tax, state sales tax, or state property tax in Alaska. Our state government is predominately funded by oil and gas revenue. Essentially we are using revenue generated from the development of Alaska’s natural resources in order to diversify our economy and create jobs beyond just resource development. Not only does this help promote a new film industry in Alaska, it obviously also has the added benefit of encouraging our tourism industry. These shows and films about Alaska act as perfect tourist advertisements for our state. People come here to experience what they see on the shows filmed here. The dramatic increase in Alaska-based television shows and films are testament to the fact that this legislation worked, and it’s exciting to see our state showcased and appreciated. There has been more film productions here than ever before, and the economic benefit of filming here exceeds the tax credit.

And another point missed by this reporter: apparently The Daily Caller’s conspiracy theory must be that I did all of this not even to benefit myself but Mark Burnett Productions. As I tried to explain to the writer at The Daily Caller, if you believe in this bizarre scenario then why not ask the sponsors, drafters, and supporters of this legislation that would boost job creation if they crafted this bill years ago in order to benefit Sarah Palin.

Any suggestion that I somehow did something wrong by signing this legislation is ridiculous. The accusation hinges on the notion that I signed the legislation into law knowing that it would personally benefit me. That’s totally absurd. It wasn’t even my bill, and obviously I had no intention of benefiting from it when I signed it into law in 2008 because I had no idea I would be involved in a documentary series years later. If you’re going to accuse me of benefiting from legislation I signed into law, why stop there?

Go ahead and accuse me of “benefiting” from the legislation my administration actually did craft – like for example, our oil and gas evaluation legislation (ACES).

You could say I “benefited” from it in the sense that due to ACES the state where I live (Alaska) now enjoys a $12 billion surplus. In fact, you could say that as an Alaskan, I benefited from all of the legislation I championed or signed as governor – just as every Alaskan benefited.

As I also tried to tell the reporter, it’s also a false accusation to suggest that signing this bipartisan bill somehow goes against my position on the proper role of government. I’ve said many times that government can play an appropriate role in incentivizing business, creating infrastructure, and leveling the playing field to foster competition so the market picks winners and losers, instead of bureaucrats burdening businesses and picking winners and losers.

Again, I can’t speak for what other states do, but Alaska’s film production tax credit program was an effective way to incentivize a new industry that would diversify our economy. It worked.

The lawmakers’ successful legislation fit Alaska’s economy, as our economy is quite unique from other states’ due to our oil and gas revenue. Perhaps it would behoove people to learn much more about the 49th state’s young economy before making broad accusations about the efficacy of business programs. People who live in ivory towers don’t understand the real world where governors and lawmakers actually have to fight to attract business and jobs to their states.

One final thought: having to set the record straight on my Facebook page yet again is further proof that the media can’t be trusted even to print a statement in a manner that people can read.

– Sarah Palin

You know the detractors of Sarah Palin are getting desperate when this is all they have left to bang her over the head with.

Anyone who watches TLC, the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, and National Geographic knows the tax credits that were created during Sarah’s time as Governor are working like a charm. You have shows like The Deadliest Catch on Discovery, Ice Road truckers and Axe Men on the History Channel, and Alaska State Troopers on National Geographic, just to name a few. These shows, and others, have brought the magnificent state of Alaska into the world’s living room. No doubt it’s helped the local economies, as production crews spend money, and helped the state’s tourism business.

Before this was done, many shows about Alaska were filmed elsewhere. As Sarah points out, Canada and Washington have been used as stand-ins for Alaska. Most famously, the 1990’s hit television show Northern Exposure, which starred Janine Turner and Rob Morrow. The Golden Globe winning series was set in the fictional town Cicely, Alaska, but was actually filmed in Roslyn, Washington.

Many cities and states have film commissions that offer tax incentives to production companies. There is a lot of filming in and around Austin, Texas, for example. There is a vibrant film industry in the city because of the credits offers.

Hollywood was built on it. New York City has a film commission. And lest you think this isn’t necessary, one needs to remember that a lot of TV shows, especially those set in eastern cities, have been filmed in Canada, where it’s cheaper to film, and the government not only offers tax credits, but often cash incentives as well. Which brings us to the next point, tax credits [or tax exemptions, if you will] are not monies paid out, but simply tax monies not collected.

These incentives work. They attract filmmakers to Alaska. [or wherever they are offered] In turn, these filmmakers, their cast and crew, spend money in the local economy. And of course, in the case of the sort of shows coming out of Alaska, most definitely attract tourists.

The small tax credit the production company that created Sarah Palin’s Alaska received is chump change considering the advertising benefit the state’s tourism bureau received.

In world of sports marketing there is a firm called Joyce Julius & Associates. Their focus is analyzing the number of “impressions” someone watching an event gets of a sponsor’s product. This is especially effective in NASCAR and NHRA Drag Racing.

JJ&A looks at how many times a viewer is exposed to the sponsor’s product, and even grades the quality of the exposure. Time on the air, placement of the sponsor’s logo, and other criteria is used. JJ&A will then write detailed reports for the sponsors, who use these reports to evaluate whether or not they are getting their money’s worth from their marketing partnership with any given team.

When you look at the nine episodes of Sarah Palin’s Alaska, and add up the total high quality impressions of Alaska’s natural beauty the viewer was treated to, I’d say the state of Alaska come out way ahead. The same can’t be said for Tucker Carlson and his rag, The Daily Caller.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Palin sets the record straight regarding Alaska’s film tax credit

Posted by loricalabrese on March 30, 2011

Rumors are swirling that the announcement of a Sarah Palin 2012 presidential run may possibly come on the Anchorage-based Bob & Mark In the Morning Show April 1. Whether this is true we don’t know, but if Palin does hit the campaign trail, we do know that the investigative reports into any scandalous behavior will be at an all-time high. Just this week, recent investigative reports are focusing on the fact that Palin’s TLC reality show, “Sarah Palin’s Alaska,” received a $1.2 million subsidy from the state of Alaska and some are claiming this could be problematic for the potential candidate.

The Anchorage Daily News first reported the story in February, but after an analyst at the Tax Foundation posted a blurb on the group’s blog linking to the piece Tuesday, many critics have come forth spinning the situation to give the impression that Alaska’s film production tax credit legislation was somehow solely Palin’s idea hatched up to benefit the Palin’s years before she was ever involved in a documentary series on TLC/Discovery Channel.

The whole notion is ridiculous and Sarah Palin took to her Facebook page on Wednesday to set the record straight.

Palin said, “This bill was not some secret big government agenda. These Alaskan legislators just wanted Alaska to be able to compete with the many other states that offer similar incentives.”

In fact, 43 states have some sort of film industry tax credit. Film tax credits are credited with creating jobs, economic activity, and tax revenue for states, as well as bringing a little glamour to some states that aren’t accustomed to the spotlight and as Palin states, Alaska’ economy is quite unique from other states’ due to their oil and gas revenue.

Palin said, “I can’t speak for the film tax credit programs in other states, but the program in Alaska has been effective. The bipartisan legislation I signed into law in 2008 was borne out of elected lawmakers’ frustration with the fact that shows and films about Alaska were mostly filmed elsewhere. They wanted to incentivize production companies to film in Alaska instead of Canada, Washington state, or Maine. Their bill worked, and as the legislation’s supporters will testify, the state’s economy enjoys the benefits of having this production money circulating right here at home. It was so successful that state lawmakers now want to renew the film production tax credits for another ten years.”

Palin pointed out that Alaska doesn’t have a state income tax, state sales tax, or state property tax. Alaska’s state government is predominately funded by oil and gas revenue, so they’re trying to diversify their economy and create jobs beyond just resource development.

“The dramatic increase in Alaska-based television shows and films are testament to the fact that this legislation worked, and it’s exciting to see our state showcased and appreciated. There has been more film productions here than ever before, and the economic benefit of filming here exceeds the tax credit,” Palin continued.

Yes, many states are debating the effectiveness of their film tax credit, but each state is different and the bottom line is that everything Palin has done is legal. The accusation hinges on the notion that Palin signed the legislation into law knowing that it would personally benefit her.

Palin said, “That’s totally absurd. It wasn’t even my bill, and obviously I had no intention of benefiting from it when I signed it into law in 2008 because I had no idea I would be involved in a documentary series years later. If you’re going to accuse me of benefiting from legislation I signed into law, why stop there? Go ahead and accuse me of “benefiting” from the legislation my administration actually did craft – like for example, our oil and gas evaluation legislation (ACES). You could say I “benefited” from it in the sense that due to ACES the state where I live (Alaska) now enjoys a $12 billion surplus. In fact, you could say that as an Alaskan, I benefited from all of the legislation I championed or signed as governor – just as every Alaskan benefited.”

Kathy Dunn, the ATIA marketing director, told the Associated Press that any and all Alaska press benefits the state.

“Obviously, any time you put Alaska in front of people, no matter the context, it’s a good thing,” Dunn said. “Exposure is always good.”

Alaska visitor numbers increased in 2010 and are expected to continue to grow in 2011.

The first season of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” is now available for pre-order.
—–

As published on Examiner.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Setting the Record Straight on State’s Film Production Tax…

Posted by Ron Devito on March 30, 2011

Governor Palin today posted on Facebook:

Goodness, cleaning up the sloppiness of reporters could be a full time job. In response to The Daily Caller’s online inquiry, I gave them a statement that the writer buried on his story’s second page (which most people won’t even notice – I didn’t even notice it) after he spent the first page completely spinning a situation to give the impression that Alaska’s film production tax credit legislation was somehow solely my idea hatched up to benefit the Palins years before I was ever involved in a documentary series on TLC/Discovery Channel. Here’s setting the record straight: As Governor, I signed into law a popular bipartisan bill that was crafted and passed by others and has resulted in numerous Alaska-based productions that are airing today. The only alternative to signing the legislature’s work product would have been for me to veto their legislation, which would have been useless. Besides all that, their legislation worked.

This bill was not some secret big government agenda. These Alaskan legislators just wanted Alaska to be able to compete with the many other states that offer similar incentives. As I noted in my statement (which was curiously buried by The Daily Caller – whose editor-in-chief was recently called on the carpet for publicly using a degrading term to describe women), I can’t speak for the film tax credit programs in other states, but the program in Alaska has been effective. The bipartisan legislation I signed into law in 2008 was borne out of elected lawmakers’ frustration with the fact that shows and films about Alaska were mostly filmed elsewhere. They wanted to incentivize production companies to film in Alaska instead of Canada, Washington state, or Maine. Their bill worked, and as the legislation’s supporters will testify, the state’s economy enjoys the benefits of having this production money circulating right here at home. It was so successful that state lawmakers now want to renew the film production tax credits for another ten years. Keep in mind that we don’t have a state income tax, state sales tax, or state property tax in Alaska. Our state government is predominately funded by oil and gas revenue. Essentially we are using revenue generated from the development of Alaska’s natural resources in order to diversify our economy and create jobs beyond just resource development. Not only does this help promote a new film industry in Alaska, it obviously also has the added benefit of encouraging our tourism industry. These shows and films about Alaska act as perfect tourist advertisements for our state. People come here to experience what they see on the shows filmed here. The dramatic increase in Alaska-based television shows and films are testament to the fact that this legislation worked, and it’s exciting to see our state showcased and appreciated. There has been more film productions here than ever before, and the economic benefit of filming here exceeds the tax credit.

And another point missed by this reporter: apparently The Daily Caller’s conspiracy theory must be that I did all of this not even to benefit myself but Mark Burnett Productions. As I tried to explain to the writer at The Daily Caller, if you believe in this bizarre scenario then why not ask the sponsors, drafters, and supporters of this legislation that would boost job creation if they crafted this bill years ago in order to benefit Sarah Palin. Any suggestion that I somehow did something wrong by signing this legislation is ridiculous. The accusation hinges on the notion that I signed the legislation into law knowing that it would personally benefit me. That’s totally absurd. It wasn’t even my bill, and obviously I had no intention of benefiting from it when I signed it into law in 2008 because I had no idea I would be involved in a documentary series years later. If you’re going to accuse me of benefiting from legislation I signed into law, why stop there? Go ahead and accuse me of “benefiting” from the legislation my administration actually did craft – like for example, our oil and gas evaluation legislation (ACES). You could say I “benefited” from it in the sense that due to ACES the state where I live (Alaska) now enjoys a $12 billion surplus. In fact, you could say that as an Alaskan, I benefited from all of the legislation I championed or signed as governor – just as every Alaskan benefited.

As I also tried to tell the reporter, it’s also a false accusation to suggest that signing this bipartisan bill somehow goes against my position on the proper role of government. I’ve said many times that government can play an appropriate role in incentivizing business, creating infrastructure, and leveling the playing field to foster competition so the market picks winners and losers, instead of bureaucrats burdening businesses and picking winners and losers. Again, I can’t speak for what other states do, but Alaska’s film production tax credit program was an effective way to incentivize a new industry that would diversify our economy. It worked. The lawmakers’ successful legislation fit Alaska’s economy, as our economy is quite unique from other states’ due to our oil and gas revenue. Perhaps it would behoove people to learn much more about the 49th state’s young economy before making broad accusations about the efficacy of business programs. People who live in ivory towers don’t understand the real world where governors and lawmakers actually have to fight to attract business and jobs to their states.

One final thought: having to set the record straight on my Facebook page yet again is further proof that the media can’t be trusted even to print a statement in a manner that people can read.

– Sarah Palin

Retrieved from: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150142191023435.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

FLASHBACK: What We Were Saying One Year Ago About Obama’s…

Posted by Ron Devito on March 30, 2011

Governor Palin today posted on Facebook:

It’s unbelievable (literally) the rhetoric coming from President Obama today. This is coming from he who is manipulating the U.S. energy supply. President Obama is once again giving lip service to a “new energy proposal”; but let’s remember the last time he trotted out a “new energy proposal” – nearly a year ago to the day. The main difference is today we have $4 a gallon gas in some places in the country. This is no accident. This administration is not a passive observer to the trends that have inflated oil prices to dangerous levels. His war on domestic oil and gas exploration and production has caused us pain at the pump, endangered our already sluggish economic recovery, and threatened our national security. Through a process of what candidate Obama once called “gradual adjustment,” American consumers have seen prices at the pump rise 67 percent since he took office. Meanwhile, the vast undeveloped reserves that could help to keep prices at the pump affordable remain locked up because of President Obama’s deliberate unwillingness to drill here and drill now. We’re subsidizing offshore drilling in Brazil and purchasing energy from them, instead of drilling ourselves and keeping those dollars circulating in our own economy to generate jobs here. The President said today, “There are no quick fixes.” He’s been in office for nearly three years now, and he’s about to launch his $1 billion re-election campaign. When can we expect any “fixes” from him? How high does the price of energy have to go?

So, here’s a little flashback to what I wrote on March 31, 2010, at National Review Online’s The Corner:

Many Americans fear that President Obama’s new energy proposal is once again “all talk and no real action,” this time in an effort to shore up fading support for the Democrats’ job-killing cap-and-trade (a.k.a. cap-and-tax) proposals. Behind the rhetoric lie new drilling bans and leasing delays; soon to follow are burdensome new environmental regulations. Instead of “drill, baby, drill,” the more you look into this the more you realize it’s “stall, baby, stall.”

Today the president said he’ll “consider potential areas for development in the mid and south Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, while studying and protecting sensitive areas in the Arctic.” As the former governor of one of America’s largest energy-producing states, a state oil and gas commissioner, and chair of the nation’s Interstate Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, I’ve seen plenty of such studies. What we need is action — action that results in the job growth and revenue that a robust drilling policy could provide. And let’s not forget that while Interior Department bureaucrats continue to hold up actual offshore drilling from taking place, Russia is moving full steam ahead on Arctic drilling, and China, Russia, and Venezuela are buying leases off the coast of Cuba.

As an Alaskan, I’m especially disheartened by the new ban on drilling in parts of the 49th state and the cancellation of lease sales in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. These areas contain rich oil and gas reserves whose development is key to our country’s energy security. As I told Secretary Salazar last April, “Arctic exploration and development is a slow, demanding process. Delays or major restrictions in accessing these resources for environmentally responsible development are not in the national interest or the interests of the State of Alaska.”

Since I wrote the above, we have even more evidence of the President’s anti-drilling agenda. We have the moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico as well as the de-facto moratorium in the Arctic. We have his 2012 budget that proposes to eliminate several vital oil and natural gas production tax incentives. We have his anti-drilling regulatory policies that have stymied responsible development. And the list goes on. The President says that we can’t “drill” our way out of the problem. But we can’t drive our cars on solar shingles either. We have to live in the real world where we must continue to develop the conventional resources that we actually use right now to fuel our economy as we continue to look for a renewable source of energy. If we are looking for an affordable, environmentally friendly, and abundant domestic source of energy, why not turn to our own domestic supply of natural gas? Whether we use it to power natural-gas cars or to run natural-gas power plants that charge electric cars, natural gas is an ideal “bridge fuel” to a future when more renewable sources are available, affordable, and economically viable on their own. It’s a lot more viable than subsidizing boondoggles like these inefficient electric cars that no one wants. I’m all for electric cars if you can develop one I can actually use in Alaska, where you can drive hundreds of miles without seeing many people, let alone many electrical sockets. But these electric and hybrid cars are not a quick fix because we still need an energy source to power them. That’s why I like natural gas, but we still have to drill for natural gas, and this administration doesn’t like drilling or apparently the jobs that come with responsible oil and natural gas development. They don’t have a coherent energy policy. They have piecemeal ideas for subsidizing impractical pet “green” projects.

I have always been in favor of an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy independence, but “all-of-the-above” means conventional resource development too. It means a coherent, practical, and forward-looking energy policy. I wish the President would understand this. The good news is there is nothing wrong with America’s energy policy that another good old-fashion election can’t solve. 2012 is just around the corner.

– Sarah Palin

Retrieved from: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150142243663435.

– Posted using BlogPress from my Palin-Powered iPhone

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Can Barbour Win In 2012? Computer Says No But Yes To Palin

Posted by M.Joseph Sheppard At Palin4President2016 on March 30, 2011

That great friend of the conservative movement Jonathan Martin at the fair and balanced (especially when Palin is involved) site Politico has an article up which  has this weeks media swoon presidential candidate Haley Barbour in focus.


It has a “my people want to speak to your people” slant advising that representatives of Barbour are seeking out representatives of Mike Huckabee to see if they can get Huckabee,should he not run to endorse Barbour. This has been picked up by Hot Air who do their analysis of  it might play out  in the primary elections in South Carolina and Iowa.


Fair enough, the scenario’s are possible should this come to pass-even though it appears Huckabee’s people have denied there is dialogue, But for arguments sake, and of course anything can happen, what might a possible electoral college map look like about midnight on election night? Before examining that it might be useful to consider the comments,which are of course partisan, at Hot Air which they preface with this comment “Haley Barbour figures out way to alienate entire conservative blogosphere.”


There follows comments about staying at home, how all Barbour  needs is a white suit and a cigar and Boss Hog would be running, DOA  and, well you can read them for yourself. I can’t imagine what the left Blogosphere would make of a Barbour candidacy, much less the late night comedians, but if he is the GOP’s choice so be it.


I think the map below is a fair representation of what I believe might be the maximum result, given normal circumstances, for Barbour. He wins the entire south including the vital states of North Carolina, Florida and Virginia. If any of those were lost then Republicans might as well turn off their television around 8 p.m. or so. After that the absolute key to the election, as it was for John Kerry, is Ohio.


If Ohio is lost the election is lost. To me Barbour would be one of the least likely of the GOP candidates with a realistic chance of ,getting the nomination, who could appeal to the blue collar northern working class in Ohio, especially any Blacks, who might have been otherwise  persuaded to vote Republican. This, even with a Northerner as his VP-Pawlenty for example.


Even in the best case scenario I can find, if Colorado is added to a Barbour score, along with Iowa, he still wouldn’t win. Stretching matters to their ultimate, if he won Iowa, Colorado and Nevada it would result in a tie in the electoral college. 


To me a Palin candidacy would have the best chance of taking Ohio (she would not even need Colorado) and with a VP from Florida-West or Rubio (who would shore up her Southwest Hispanic vote as well) she would have a good chance of taking the three key states of Florida/North Carolina/Virginia. 


Any dreams of Wisconsin/Michigan/Minnesota going to the GOP may have been dealt an irreversible blow by the industrial unrest in the area, whereas it has been lower key in Ohio. This might affect consideration of Pawlenty’s chances too.

Linked to Hot Air
Original Post At: M. Joseph Sheppard’s “A Point Of View”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Milbank Puzzled By The Obama Doctrine Resorts To Palin Derangement Syndrome Again

Posted by M.Joseph Sheppard At Palin4President2016 on March 30, 2011

Like so many on the left who are now having to defend a president who is involved in a new war, or “kinetic action” Dana Milbank of “Palin moratorium month” fame struggles with how to respond to what the left spent years attacking the Bush administration for.


At least Kuchinich and a few others are being true to their beliefs and some of the far left “progressive’ blogs like Crooks&Liars commentators have walked away from Obama but the Washpost and Beltway denizens are struggling-poor them.


Here is Milbank on President Obama and the newly minted “Obama doctrine” which Jon Stewart lampooned in a devastating contrast with JFK’s “Fight any foe” speech

“And it’s true that after the good versus evil, binary logic of the Bush years — you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists — Obama’s answer is vague and unsatisfying.
On the other hand, maybe the lack of a fixed doctrine isn’t such a bad thing. Being doctrinaire, after all, got the last guy into quite a bit of trouble. Everybody knew what the Bush doctrine was — at least, everybody but Sarah Palin (“in what respect, Charlie?”). 
Hello??  Everybody knew what the “Bush doctrine” was? Not according to Bill O’Reilly “there is no precise definition of the Bush doctrine”
But that doesn’t matter, in the Lefts thrashing about trying to defend something they have railed against they have hit on the diversion they think will remove the stain of hypocrisy-attack Sarah Palin.It is interesting that he finds her “newsworthy” again which was the standard set for mentioning her name after the “moratorium”. 
And, for goodness sake, she mispronounced “skirmish.” That alone is enough to justify for them the actions of  this president who got the nomination by having voted against the Iraq war whilst Clinton voted for it and is now involved in three wars.
If this war turns out badly in conception and action,especially if  there is loss of American lives then attacking Palin whilst defending president Obama will hold only one side open to ridicule-and it won’t be the Palin side. In the meantime perhaps Milbank should seek professional help for  his returning PDS.

Original Post at: M.Joseph Shepard’s “A Point Of View”

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »