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

    September 2011
    S M T W T F S
    « Aug   Oct »
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    252627282930  
  • Categories

  • Archives

  • __________________________________________
  • Top Posts & Pages

  • __________________________________________
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • __________________________________________

Archive for September 9th, 2011

Coulter, Ingraham, Christie and Obama

Posted by villagejack on September 9, 2011

What do these four people have in common?  They are all attorneys.  As individuals, most attorneys are very interesting and provocative, but because of their association with the legal profession, they are also in contact with people who tend to compromise their moral standards or are in fact, unethical or criminal. Lawyers are frequently involved with various public institutions to the exclusion of private business.  They see the free market enterprise system through the prism of the law.  They are enamored with the law being the vehicle that is all- important and not focusing on the creativity of the individuals that make this economy work.  Law is simply an adjunct to the free market capitalist system that helps the process.  It is not the force that actually creates the markets.  That is left up to the individual Americans whose entrepreneurial spirit guides them to want to be next Ford, Gates, or Jobes. Most do not achieve that goal, but it remains the reason the country is exceptional.

 

 If you are grounded in the legal profession as these people are, then you can only see the benefits of the law and not the incredible hindrances that are created by government, regardless of which party enacts the policies. Throw Karl Rove in the mix and you begin to see what Sarah is talking about. It’s the reason Obama has no political advisors on his staff from private industry.  A class of people who believe they are entitled.  Entitled to what? 

 

Why should they set the stage and determine who the winners are.  I truly like Coulter’s columns and will continue to read them but I will not take her ordaining a professional attorney/politician to be our next president and question the intelligence of Palin.   Is it any wonder Coulter, Ingraham and Rove can’t stand Palin, while adoring Christie?  Palin represents the entrepreneurial spirit of this country.  She is coming into her governing positions with the knowledge of what makes this economy drive the engine.  She did not come from a legal background.  Why is Reagan held to such high esteem by Americans?  Reagan, a sports writer and broadcaster (sound similar to the mama grizzly?) was a populist president who went around the entrenched government/corporate (mostly lawyers) and made his appeal directly to the average American.  Why,  he wasn’t even endorsed by the Republican hierarchy.  Palin is setting the stage for exactly the same kind of campaign.  Why,  she is not even endorsed by the Republican hierarchy!

 

 It is refreshing to see the column in the NYT by Anand Giridharadas stating what has been obvious to the Palin followers for three years. He writes that Sarah Palin does have ideas that are clear to the working men and women of this country.   Wait, is this intellectually challenged woman (LSM cliché) actually appealing to a majority of people that might get her elected?  Would it not be great to have a president go into the White House without owing a favor to a union, or a corporation, a lobbyist, a party boss, a self-important media personality, or anyone else except the Tea Party, who only wants the president to abide by the Constitution and balance the budget?  As Giridharadas clearly states, Sara’s ideas cross the political divide. Coulter, how do you respond to this challenge to your statements about her lack of intellectual curiosity?  Game on.

Advertisements

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

Palin’s ACES after 4 years = more tax revenue for Alaska

Posted by M.Joseph Sheppard At Palin4President2016 on September 9, 2011

 

Palin’s ACES after 4 years = more tax revenue for Alaska

  My Photo
    CONTRIBUTING EDITOR; LISA GILMER

 

Caribou herd migration near Prudhoe Bay, Alaska

I have run into strange criticism from Palin-haters recently.  They are upset about legislation she passed in 2007 in Alaska called ACES.  To these critics, ACES is “horrible” and the “worst” legislation “ever”.  From what I’ve read, critics are standing on very wobbly legs and apparently must  hate needy people relying on government assistance.  (I’ll get to that in a sec…)


Regarding why ACES critics are completely wrong, the best round up I found is from March 2011, Whitney Pritcher: part 1 here and part 2 here.


For this post, however, I want you ACES critics simply to think about people in the State of Alaska -> the needy people and those on welfare or any type of government assistance.


For starters, in general, I personally am against able bodied men and women to be on the dole at all.  However, incapable, elderly, sick and needy do need a safety net.  I have a heart and so do most conservatives.  A safety net is currently there for those in need in productive and wealthy societies.  However, those who CAN work (doing ANYTHING) – SHOULD work.  That said: every state has people dependent on the government to survive. 


News flash:  state government doesn’t produce anything.  So where does state government get (most) money?  Tax revenues.

Caribou graze on the tundra by the Prudhoe Bay oil refinery, Alaska

In 2009 and 2010, the Alaska Health and Human Services department spent about $2,000,000 dollars on the following:



A visual breakdown of how funds were spent below with the majority on Health Care Services.  More state revenue = more funds for those in need…  My point?
More state revenue = good.  Less revenue = bad.





This leads me to the big question of today: where does Alaska get its MAJORITY of tax revenue from?  Let’s go to the source shall we.  From the “Oil and Gas Production Tax Status Report to the legislature Alaska Department of Revenue” January 18, 2011: 


“The State of Alaska depends heavily on the oil industry, with more than 80% of its unrestricted revenue coming from oil taxes and royalties.”


Hey ACES critic, let that sink in for a minute.  80% of unrestricted revenue comes from oil taxes and royalties.  


Oil and gas production in Alaska = revenue = taxes.  GOT IT?  From the same Jan 2011 report:


“State revenues under PPT and ACES exceeded the amount that would have been received under ELF for each of the four fiscal years since implementation of a net profits tax.”


The current legislation (ACES) Sarah Palin implemented generates more taxes and revenue for Alaskans compared to its predecessor.  Here is a visual:

from the state of Alaska report here


bear on pipeline near Prudhoe Bay refinery, Alaska

Out of work but need an Oil, Petrol or Refinery job in Prudhoe Bay right now?  CH2M Hill is hiring.

map of Prudhoe Bay



Alaska’s January 2011 report does also say production in 2010 was down a bit, but from April 2010, how were things at Miller Energy?  “Miller’s CEO, Scott Boruff, has described his company as one of the fastest growing that no one knows about.


Boruff said Wednesday that Obama’s new domestic oil strategy opens the door for Miller Energy to secure more drilling permits in Alaska.


“We’ve got an open door now to drill,” Boruff said. “It’s exciting.”


The company disclosed March 15 that its asset value is more than $492 million, including oil and natural gas reserves valued at $372 million based on oil selling for $61.18 per barrel and gas at $4.75 per million cubic feet.


The company said the increase in asset value is a direct result of the December acquisition of Pacific Energy Resources assets through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy auction in which Miller bought onshore and offshore production facilities, an offshore oil and gas drilling platform, leases on more than 600,000 acres of land and other infrastructure.


The Pacific Energy property had included abandoned production facilities off the coast of California with significant environmental liability that scared away potential investors, according to Miller Energy. Miller was able to buy the Pacific Energy assets when the U.S. Bankruptcy Court separated the California and Alaska properties.


Last week, the company announced third quarter earnings of $271.9 million, or $9.51 per fully diluted share, for the period ending Jan. 31 and revenue of $1.1 million for the period.”


… Perhaps Miller is hiring?  They are GROWING!  Updates on Miller include:


March 28, 2011:  Miller Energy Resources Initiates Operations to Restart Production from its Osprey Platform in Alaska


June 13, 2011:   “Miller Energy Resources Announces $100 Million Credit Facility and the Successful Redevelopment of the RU-1 Well in Alaska


and from September 09, 2011:


Miller Energy Resources (“Miller”) (NYSE: MILL) today reported its results for the first quarter ended July 31, 2011. The Company reported revenues grew 102% to a record $8.9 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2012 compared with $4.4 million in the first quarter of the prior fiscal year. Net loss for the first quarter of fiscal 2012 was $182,680, or $0.00 per diluted share, and improved from a loss of $1.1 million, or $0.04 per diluted share, in the first quarter of fiscal 2011.


“Our first quarter revenues more than doubled since last year due to new oil wells that we reworked in Alaska,” stated Scott Boruff, CEO of Miller Energy Resources. “We expect to accelerate our redevelopment efforts on the Osprey platform in the Cook Inlet of Alaska during the second half of fiscal 2012 as our new drilling rig comes online. We anticipate the new drilling rig to be delivered later this month and our crews are preparing to deploy it as soon as possible.”


Well, good for Miller.  Sure sounds like they are doing well… and any tax revenue generated under ACES right NOW will benefit Alaskans…

Miller Energy’s Osprey oil platform in Cook Inlet off the coast of Alaska



If you care about needy people in Alaska then you should be happy ACES is in place generating more tax revenue like it has been for the past 4 years.  Also, p.s., Governor Parnell is in charge.  If you have problems with current Alaskan legislation, take it up with himAlaska.  More from Whitney P:


Governor Parnell is not the only one with donors who may have a vested interested in changes to ACES and have ties to the corrupt oil taxation processes of the past. Rep. Anna Fairclough’s, who headed up the HB 110 efforts, greatest percentage of 2010 election fundingcame from energy and natural resource industry including BP and ConoccoPhillips. BP and ConoccoPhillips spoke before the House Resource committee in February to advocate for the proposed changes to ACES. Another proponent of this bill is Rep. Mike Hawker,who is no friend of Governor Palin and is one of the charter members of the Corrupt B*****s Club (CBC), the name corrupt and boastful legislators gave to themselves because of their embrace of their own corruption. Hawker, in addition to Rep.Chenault, were two legislators who voted for HB 110 and who received tens of thousands in campaign donations from VECO executives. Hawker and Chenaultvoted for Governor Murkowski’s corruption tainted PPT and against Governor Palin’s ACES. Suffice it to say, the CBC is still kickin’ in Alaska politics, perhaps now with some new inductees.


HB 110, touted by Governor Parnell and supported by a majority of Alaskan House members, does not appropriately address the criticism of ACES’s progressivity, does not deal with the volatility of oil prices, and is likely to reduce state revenue by hundreds of millions of dollars. Beyond that, the proponents of this bill have a history of engaging in crony capitalism, corruption, and unethical behavior.While it is unlikely that Senate version of the bill is unlikely to pass, Governor Parnell supports changes to ACES, and there is the potential for such a bill to be taken up again next year. These are the very things that Governor Palin has fought against her entire political career. Governor Palin has called out the unethical behavior of Alaska GOP chair Randy Ruedrich when she was an oil and gas commissioner. She implemented corruption free ACES project that was passed in a transparent manner without the outside influence of oil companies. She championed the AGIA pipeline project that was negotiated in a transparent manner. She has called out the Obama administration on their pervasive crony capitalism.”


Oh yeah and by the way, from Mike’s America, who’s to blame for high gas prices? 
Pick one:
1. Oil Companies
2. Democrats
The answer is here…

ORIGINAL POST AT:M.JOSEPH SHEPPARD’S “A POINT OF VIEW”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Governor Palin on "America Live" with Megyn Kelly…

Posted by Ron Devito on September 9, 2011

Part 1

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Part 2

Vodpod videos no longer available.

 

As published at SarahPAC: Governor Palin on "America Live" with Megyn Kelly…

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Sarah Palin builds a bridge across the political divide

Posted by joshpainter on September 9, 2011

– by Josh Painter
*
Look up into the night sky for a moon of an unusual hue tonight, because another New York Times op-ed writer has discovered that Sarah Palin does indeed have substance, and she may not be the far right wing idealogue the left has been claiming she is for the past three years. Such Damascus Road revelations only occur at the Gray Lady once every blue moon.

Anand Giridharadas begins his commentary by admitting that liberals are woefully unprepared to recognize “something intelligent and wise and fresh about the present American condition” when Gov. Palin says it. Consequently, they don’t pay much attention to anything she has to say, nor is it likely that they read her policy statements on her Facebook Notes page. But the weekend Tea Party rally in Indianola, Iowa was enough of a high profile event that while most of his media colleagues were focused on the horse race, the governor’s actual remarks delivered there managed to catch Giridharadas’ attention:

She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).

In supporting her first point, about the permanent political class, she attacked both parties’ tendency to talk of spending cuts while spending more and more; to stoke public anxiety about a credit downgrade, but take a vacation anyway; to arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth. She observed that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States happen to be suburbs of the nation’s capital.

Her second point, about money in politics, helped to explain the first. The permanent class stays in power because it positions itself between two deep troughs: the money spent by the government and the money spent by big companies to secure decisions from government that help them make more money.

[…]

Because her party has agitated for the wholesale deregulation of money in politics and the unshackling of lobbyists, these will be heard in some quarters as sacrilegious words.

Ms. Palin’s third point was more striking still: in contrast to the sweeping paeans to capitalism and the free market delivered by the Republican presidential candidates whose ranks she has yet to join, she sought to make a distinction between good capitalists and bad ones. The good ones, in her telling, are those small businesses that take risks and sink and swim in the churning market; the bad ones are well-connected megacorporations that live off bailouts, dodge taxes and profit terrifically while creating no jobs.

Strangely, she was saying things that liberals might like, if not for Ms. Palin’s having said them.

Giridharadas has a wondrous Captain Obvious moment with his realization that “Ms. Palin may be hinting at a new political alignment that would pit a vigorous localism against a kind of national-global institutionalism.” Imagine his complete bewilderment when Giridharadas puts two and two together and realizes that, yes, this is precisely what the TEA Party movement is about.

At Legal Insurrection, William A. Jacobson comments:

A severe injustice has been perpetrated on the American people not by the vile derangement directed at Palin by the mainstream media, left-blogosphere and establishment conservative[s], but by the closing of their collective minds.

[…]

This probably will not signal a sea change in media coverage of Palin, or among conservative pundits. Liberals and conservatives alike have been played for fools by their media and their parties.

But hopefully it is a starting point of the recognition that Palin stands alone among major political figures in the United States seeking a transformation of the country consistent with its founding principles, not against them, principles which used to appeal to liberals. Palin’s anti-statist anti-crony capitalism message has the power to reach across parties, which is why that message gets buried in Palin Derangement Syndrome.

With Palin, liberals will not get their nanny state, but that nanny state is disappearing by economic necessity anyway. But they also will not get a crushing corporatist/unionist state serving the interests of the politically well-connected, which is where we are heading rapidly, and there is no offender worse than Barack Obama.

Oddly enough, Sarah Palin may be the one liberals have been waiting for.

What strikes us is that Sarah Palin is staking out positions which will significantly broaden her appeal. No, she’s not going after the liberals Professor Jacobson writes about. She would never win them over no matter how hard she tried. Rather, it is the key demographic of swing voters that Gov. Palin has her eye on, and likely the moderates in her own party are also in her field of vision. This is unusual because traditionally, Republicans swing wide to the right in the primary phases of the election cycle, then tack hard back to the center for the general election contest.

But Sarah Palin said that she would run an unconventional campaign, and nothing could be more unconventional than blazing a new trail though the wilderness of a presidential campaign. Part of this is born of necessity, as three years of attacks on Gov. Palin by the left and its compliant media have obscured her appeal to the center — blue collar Democrats, independents and moderate Republicans. She needs these critical voting blocks. If she can convince her party that she will be more than competitive in the general election, then she can secure the GOP presidential nomination.

Stephen Bannon’s documentary “The Undefeated” was only the opening salvo of what may turn out to be the most innovative presidential campaign ever conducted. The film reminds viewers why Gov. Palin was chosen for the second spot on John McCain’s ticket. She is a reformer who, at least before the McCain campaign used her as their attack dog, was wildly popular with Alaskans from across the entire political spectrum. Her recent Facebook op-ed reaching out to the union rank and file is another step in the process of appealing to the political center.

Notice that Sarah Palin, who governed her state from the center right, is building new roads through that same territory, while Rick Perry has chosen the well-worn path that runs along the right edge of the GOP base. But Perry, who has the occasional tendency to be a loose cannon, may eventually find himself the victim of his own rhetorical volleys. Gov. Palin apparently sees another political figure as her real competition for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination. Mitt Romney, who has been playing it safe in the center, may not even realize that a bulldozer is headed his way with Sarah Palin in the driver’s seat.

Cross-posted from Texans for Sarah Palin

– JP

Posted in 2012, Sarah Palin | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

A huge opening for Sarah Palin

Posted by Roderic Deane on September 9, 2011

The debate at the Reagan Library the other night was very telling. With one exception (thanks Newt!) the on-stage candidates dutifully responded to a host of biased and leading questions from the likes of NBC’s Brian Williams and the guy from Politico (I forget his name and don’t want to invest energy in looking it up).

Although the debate was hosted by the Reagan Library and staged with the tacit approval of Reagan’s presumed political heirs, it was flawed. Why would the Reagan Library allow two left-leaning news organizations to taint Ronald Reagan’s legacy by providing them with sponsorship for the event? I would rather see the GOP candidates stand on hay bales in rural America and have questions posed by community newspapers! The underlying agenda of NBC and Politico was obvious and absurd! We could learn more about policy positions and personalities if the debate candidates were provided an honest, no-nonsense forum to articulate their positions, without the under-handed agenda of the mainstream media.

In a word, the Reagan Library debate was a farce. It was obvious from the start that Perry and Romney were targeted by the moderators. In addition, I felt that other candidates were given short shrift in their ability to talk about their positions and beliefs. Of course, the exceptions were Ron Paul and John Huntsman, but I digress.

There is a massive effort by the mainstream media to run to the forefront and “agree” to sponsor a Republican debate. Their motives are now obvious: trivialize the debate and steer the debaters into an internecine war.

Sarah Palin has seen through the farce of these debates. By delaying her announcement as a candidate, she has bolstered her appeal in absentia. Brilliant, but so common-sense! The mainstream media has already signaled their bias, but yet the announced candidates are scrambling to gain the attention of those networks. Why? Why?

Sarah Palin is well-served by waiting until the end of September or even the middle of October to declare her candidacy. By then, the internecine war amongst the GOP candidates will be wearing thin on the electorate. The voters will perceive those candidates as “more of the same”. They’ll be looking for something else.

Sarah is playing the media and existing GOP field like a fiddle in the Charlie Daniels Band. She’s just waiting to jump up on a hickory stump and fiddle for the gold. Man, do I ever want to be there for THAT event!

Cross-posted from Roderic Deane

Posted in 2012, Sarah Palin | Tagged: , , | 5 Comments »

Throwing Stones At Glass Houses

Posted by Morgan on September 9, 2011

Cross-posted from Hoosiers For Sarah Palin:

This past Tuesday night, I found out Ann Coulter lives in a glass house.

When speaking to Laura Ingraham on The O’Reilly Factor, Ms. Coulter called for Sarah to make up her mind about running for President or not, referred to her as the “Obama of the Tea Party”, and castigated her followers, which includes yours truly, as if we were some kind of rabid dog snapping back at anything we see as an attack or threat.  Well, where oh where do I begin?

The thing of note about Ms. Coulter in regards to 2012 is the fact she supports New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for the top job.  The only problem is Governor Christie has said NO to a 2012 run, and not just once or twice, but dozens (if not hundreds) of times.  Neither the Governor nor his people have even hinted at the remote possibility of contemplating a run, yet Ms. Coulter doesn’t seem to have noticed that little obstacle, all the while thinking Sarah should decide now whether to run or not.

In a larger context, the comments, connected with another set of statements made by Ms. Coulter, have made me question her logic.  Running for the Presidency is a step down for Sarah, says Ms. Coulter, yet a run for the U.S. Senate from Arizona isn’t?  Does that make any sense to you at all?  Another reason for me to question the logic of Ms. Coulter is her calling Sarah the Obama of the Tea Party and criticizing me and other Palinistas as being somehow too intolerant of the attacks and insults aimed at Sarah by pundits and politicians.

Where does she get off calling Sarah “the Obama of the Tea Party”?  Because Palinistas like myself simply believe she’s the best candidate out there?  Contrary to what Ms. Coulter believes, we who support Sarah Palin do not think of her as some kind of superwoman or messianic figure.  The reason I support Sarah Palin has always been because of her record as a public official, her stances on the issues and the content of her character.  In other words, I and other Palinistas believe Sarah is the best possible candidate for President in 2012.  And when it comes to defending Sarah against the attacks and insults, our purpose has been quite simple: to straighten the record about her and correct the absurd claims brought up over the past three years.  Ms. Coulter apparently thinks that’s going overboard, which makes me think she’s blind as well as illogical.

Who Ms. Coulter chooses to support is her choice, and who she chooses to dislike, no matter how inane, is her choice as well, but I’d sooner suspect her of being a foolish optimist who thinks the candidate of her choosing is some kind of messianic figure.

Correction (12:13 PM EDT): Got the day of the interview wrong; my apologies.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »