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

    December 2017
    S M T W T F S
    « Jan    
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  
  • Categories

  • Archives

  • __________________________________________
  • Top Posts & Pages

  • __________________________________________
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • __________________________________________

Archive for the ‘Wildlife’ Category

So much for the ‘shoots wolves from helicopters’ myth

Posted by joshpainter on June 11, 2011

– by Josh Painter
*
Some left wing bloggers may be starting to realize that the Palin emails they fought relentlessly to have released are not the silver bullets they had hoped for to use to destroy the object of their hatred. Information contained in the documents, in fact, provides contradictory evidence to one of the many myths they have perpetuated about Sarah Palin.

The emails shatter the mythological image of a bloodthirsty Sarah Palin, assault rifle in hand, maniacally pursing Alaskan wolves from the skid of a black helicopter, fiendishly laughing as she slaughters the poor creatures. Lefty bloggers have been pushing that one for years. But, according to the liberal Washington Post, the emails prove otherwise:

The governor told her fish and game commissioner in blunt terms that she opposed using state helicopters to hunt wolves and preferred paying private hunters.

“We have to act quickly on this as predators are acting quickly and rural families face ridiculous situation of being forced to import more beef instead of feeding their families our healthy staple of alaskan game. Nonsense. Unacceptable – and not on my watch,” she said.

Her source of information? “Todd interviewed buddies who live out there… Some confirmation that state intervention isn’t first choice w/the locals,” Palin said.”We need to incentivize here,” including providing money for trappers.

Governor Palin did indeed strongly support predator control, and she clearly favored paying hunters a bounty to keep the wolf population in check, but the image of her personally shooting the predators from aircraft has finally been shot down. The emails also show that her motivation for keeping the wolf population at manageable levels was her concern for the welfare of Alaska’s rural families who depend so heavily on caribou and moose, the wolves’ prey, for food and warm clothing.

Another email demonstrates Gov. Palin’s opposition to hunting bears in the McNeil River Bear Sanctuary:

“I am a hunter. I grew up hunting – some of my best memories growing up are of hunting with my dad to help feel (sic) our freezer. I want Alaskans to have access to wildlife…BUT – he’s asking if I support hunting the bears in the sanctuary? No, I don’t… I don’t know any Alaskans who do support hunting the McNeil bears that frequent the viewing area. Many Alaskan and Outside visitors view these animals on the McNeil river, within the sanctuary, and, as my parents have reported back after their viewing trip, it’s a once-in-a-lifetime experience to see such beauty on that river.”

Ashley Judd, please pick up the red phone. It’s Defenders of Wildlife on the line, and they’re in panic mode.

Cross-posted from Texas for Sarah Palin

– JP

Advertisements

Posted in Alaska, Defenders of Wildlife, e-mail, Sarah Palin, Wildlife, wolves | 1 Comment »

RGJ: Sarah Palin speech raises $200K for Safari Club in Reno

Posted by joshpainter on January 30, 2011

– by Josh Painter
*
Some 2,000 formally-dressed members of the Safari Club International, after paying $100 each for what the Gazette-Journal billed as “Reno’s hottest ticket,” crowded into the Peppermill Resort Spa Casino’s Tuscany Ballroom Saturday night to hear Sarah Palin speak of the importance of protecting the environment and how Hunting and fishing are part of the American “heritage” and the nation’s “exceptionalism”:

“Don’t retreat, stand tall,” Palin told the crowd as she emphasized the importance of “responsible conservation.”

Palin also spoke of Second Amendment rights.

“We need to keep tabs on what the White House is telling us,” she also said.

She later said Americans would need to “count on Congress,” where the GOP regained control of the U.S. House of Representatives in November’s election.

But Palin emphasized the importance of local governments in setting policy.

“The best (management) is local” not “bureaucrats thousand of miles away” in Washington making the decisions, she said, drawing on her experience as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, before becoming that state’s governor.

[…]

Political science professor Fred Lokken of Truckee Meadows Community College said he considers Palin’s Safari Club appearance a “coup” for Reno and an “excellent” move for her.

“It’s always been a who’s who of some of the prominent conservative Republicans, so frankly for her either to get the invite or be able to wrangle the invite, it really helps her as she tries to position for 2012 and after,” he said. “This is one of the places to the seen.”

Palin’s visit will carry momentum beyond Reno since the Safari Club event draws visitors from afar, many of them wealthy.

[…]

“Being able to come to a group like this (gives) some street cred that might help her to sort of reestablish or bolster her efforts at building a campaign for 2012,” Lokken said. “It’s a guns rights place. They are huge in the Second Amendment. Her whole connection to Alaska probably makes her one of the most logical people they have had in years.”

[More]

Smith predicted that in a few months, Gov. Palin will be seen and heard again in Nevada at “Republican headquarters.”

Cross-posted from Texas for Sarah Palin

– JP

Posted in common sense, Environment, Sarah Palin, speaking engagements, Wildlife | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Journey to the Center of Ted Nugent’s Mind

Posted by Jackie Siciliano on December 4, 2010

In Episode 4 of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” (to be aired on TLC Sunday at 9:00 p.m. Eastern), Sarah and her father Chuck Heath travel north to hunt caribou so that they may fill the family freezer.

I am constantly amazed at people who don’t understand where their food comes from. Somehow, some way, they have managed to allow themselves to believe that the meat they consume magically comes into a grocery store carefully wrapped in cellophane along with some plastic parsley garnishing the borders that separate the beef from the pork. Oh, and let’s not forget about the pretty lights and dyes used to make the “magical meat” more attractive.

Yes, people still hunt and they use the meat to stock their freezer for family meals. (I know, this concept is foreign to most of us.) This meat, and I love Sarah Palin’s description, is “healthy organic protein” which can be used to make the meat dishes we are familiar with although most of us would use ground beef or ground turkey/chicken . Examples are caribou burgers, caribou meatloaf and even caribou empanadas! ~Jackie~

From http://www.spalaska.com:
Join us this Sunday at 8/7c for a special episode of Talk Back featuring the Motor City Madman himself, Ted Nugent. We’re taking a journey into the center of Ted Nugent’s mind to discover his thoughts on hunting in Sarah Palin’s Alaska.

More

Posted in Alaska, Sarah Palin, Wildlife | 1 Comment »

Sarah Palin’s WaPo Op-Ed On Climate Change 3rd Most Read Of The Year

Posted by Gary P Jackson on December 12, 2009

An Op-Ed Sarah Palin wrote for the Washington Post, that appeared in the July 14, 2009 edition, entitled The Cap and Tax Dead End, turns out to be the third most read Op-Ed of 2009. The most recent Op-Ed Sarah penned for the august daily, which appeared this past Wednesday, December 9th, entitled Copenhagen’s Political Science, clocks in at the 21st most read.

Obviously that’s sort of big news, or at least a significant piece of trivia, as WaPo runs thousands of Op-Eds yearly. This obviously says that when Sarah speaks, people listen, and when Sarah writes, people read. Of course, supporters know that already, and her record shattering books sales, and 1.1 million Facebook supporters that read her every note, certainly attest to Sarah’s ability to draw readers in and hold their attention.

As you may remember, when Sarah wrote the Op-Ed in July, the left went berserk, and trotted out known climate scientist, John F.Kerry, who served in Vietnam, to deliver a meager rebuttal, which of course was an epic fail.

This latest Op-Ed though has the entire left all wee-wee’d up! As you know, Sarah has taken on the biggest liar in the whole global warming scam, Al Gore, as well as demanding, for a second time, that Obama take a pass on Copenhagen. This of course has the usual suspects losing their minds, while they perform mental and verbal gymnastics trying to justify their pagan beliefs, in the wake of the global warming hoax being exposed to the general public, with more proof coming out daily.

What is remarkable though, are the attacks on the Washington Post itself, for even running Sarah’s Op-Eds! Deliciously, Greg Sargent of the WaPo’s own Plum Line blog, is in high dudgeon and full cross burning mode over this:

Sarah Palin’s Copenhagen-Bashing Op-Ed One Of Most Read WaPo Opinion Pieces Of The Year

Here’s a dispiriting postscript to the massive flap over The Washington Post’s decision to publish an Op ed by Sarah Palin on climate change, a piece that has been widely criticized as riddled with falsehoods.

I’m told by the paper’s insiders that her piece was one of the most-read WaPo opinion pieces of the year, coming in 21st in page views out of literally hundreds of opinion articles. An earlier Palin Op ed in the paper on the same topic was the third most read of the year.

A lot of this is probably driven by heavy outside linkage. But still, the fact that Sarah Palin, of all people, is able to command such attention for her views on the science of climate change, of all things, is kind of amazing.

To be clear, I’m not defending the decision to run the piece. I wouldn’t have run it. I’m just pointing out the undeniable fact that the woman’s name gets people clicking. Until people stop clicking, Palin and her views will continue to get attention.

Don’t you just love the “loving” and “tolerant” left? We were laughing ourselves silly when we read this in the early hours of the morning. The consensus among friends, and hey if consensus is good enough for science……Anyhow, we were all asking ourselves if these people really don’t see just how much like Nazis they sound like.

Remember when the left was spreading lies about Sarah “banning books?” You know, the list that was going around that had books on it that weren’t even written yet, when she was Mayor of Wasilla, and supposedly banning them? Yeah, that one!

Remember how insane the left went over this “book banning” hoax? Remember how “evil” they thought Sarah was for “banning books?” You know censorship man. It was almost as insane as they go over the global warming hoax. Hmmm, the left sure believes in a lot of hoaxes. Wouldn’t that basically make “progressives” supremely gullible?

But I digress.

These people cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas, so their answer is to always attempt to silence the competition. It’s truly all they’ve got.

Notice how Mr Sargent starts off by being “dispirited?” Well, he should be. Sarah Palin is single-handedly exposing their nonsensical lives, and beliefs. Sarah is single-handedly putting the brakes on their crazy ideas for “fundamentally remaking America.” Sarah is a force of nature they cannot stop!

Then, Mr Sargent goes into full Alinsky mode by saying her piece was “widely criticized as riddled with falsehoods.” Widely criticized by who? What are the falsehoods? Who knows! The reader is left to their own faith, or lack thereof, in Mr Sargent. The old “trust me, it just is” ploy.

Yeah, let’s trust a guy who runs around screaming like his hair is on fire and telling you “don’t read this, don’t listen to the bad lady!” Yeah… for sane people, that means: “I might ought to take a look at what this guy doesn’t want me to see. It might just be something!

What’s hilarious is Mr Sargent’s incredulity at the fact people would read, and take stock in, something written by “Little Old Sarah Palin from Wasilla.”

This is where I always just stop and shake my head. You wonder if these so-called journalists are capable of doing even the most basic of research on their subjects, or if they just sit around in an echo chamber believing their own BS.

So let me ask Mr Sargent this: Just why WOULD the public want to listen to a woman who is a lifelong environmentalist and conservationist? Why WOULD the public want to listen to a woman who was her state’s chief energy and environmental regulator, in an energy rich, and environmentally conscious state, and a woman, who as Governor, chaired an multi-state agency that was also tasked with both energy regulation as well as environmentally sound practices?

Why WOULD the public want to listen to Sarah Palin, who as AOGCC chair, IOGCC chair, and Governor, has a stellar record is safeguarding Alaska’s environment, and holding violators of policy accountable? Why indeed would anyone want to listen to her about subjects concerning the environment!

As remarkable as the fact that Sarah’s Op-Eds are well read and taken seriously by millions is, the real story here is just how totally sad the “progressives” have become. Their little world view is being shattered. Their narrow-mindedness has been exposed to the world.

Most people in America are fair minded. Even when someone is saying things we don’t believe in, we give them the opportunity to speak. In fact, our right to speak is guaranteed by the very first amendment to our Constitution. It’s the very first right in the Bill of Rights, a set of rules that restrict what government can do, a restraint on government from infringing our God given rights. Men have died protecting these rights.

Only those without real ideas and real solutions want to silence others. Only those who rely on tricks and falsehoods run around screaming “the debate is over” and saying idiotic things like “the science is settled” right in the middle of the revelations that prove, without a doubt, that global warming is a hoax and a scam!

This, of course, applies to everything the left does, not just their scheme on “climate change.” The left is just as wee-wee’ed up over Sarah Palin, and many others, who dare try and stop them from destroying health care in America, and usurping our Constitution.

I have a thought for the radical left: How about instead of thumbing through your well worn copy of Saul Alinsky’s Rules, in an attempt to smear others, you actually come up with real and plausible ideas! How about you stop living in your land of fantasy and theory, and join the real world!

That’s where Sarah Palin, and the rest of us live.

Posted in al gore, Alaska, Barracuda, cap and tax, character assassination, Energy, Energy Independence, Environment, Facebook, freedom in America, freedom of speech, global warming, Going Rogue, Governor Palin, Governor Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin Web Brigade, Wildlife | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

It’s On…Sarah Palin vs Al Gore: Lets have A Debate!

Posted by Gary P Jackson on December 9, 2009

Sarah Palin has a solid, hard hitting Op-Ed in today’s edition of the Washington Post. Once again, in light of the fact this global warming hoax has been exposed, she demands Obama to boycott Copenhagen.

From WaPo:

Copenhagen’s Political Science

By Sarah Palin

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.

Climate-gate,” as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle — the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won’t change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.

The e-mails reveal that leading climate “experts” deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What’s more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.

This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I’ve always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of “climate change impacts” was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska’s economy and the nation’s, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.

Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits — not pursuing a political agenda. That’s not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate — far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska’s communities and infrastructure.

But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can’t say with assurance that man’s activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen — which actually allow them to increase their emissions — President Obama’s proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign). That’s not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress’s cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people.

In fact, we’re not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia’s Parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold.

In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a “deal.” Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats’ cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs — particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen

Sarah references this video in her piece. We’ve posted it before, but frankly it needs to be played all day, every day, as long as this global warming hoax is still being shoved down our throats:

Now, the Clown Prince of all of this, the most unabashed liar in history, Al Gore is weighing in. Remember now, Al Gore has already turned his little scam into a personal bank in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and if cap and trade passes, stands to make billions.

Nothing wrong with making money….unless it comes from the destruction of the world’s economies and enslaves the entire world’s population, and denies all peoples freedom and liberty. At that point, there’s something very, very wrong.

Readers know exactly where I stand. I think Gore, Obama, and absolutely everyone pushing this lie should at minimum be jailed for the rest of their lives. They are committing treason. These policies will not only destroy the United States, they will destroy the world.

You know, if Gore actually lived the lifestyle he wants to force you into, it might be something, but well, this guy is the biggest hypocrite alive today.

As Newsbusters Noel Sheppard reported a while back:

Hypocrisy Update: Al Gore’s Home Uses 20 Times the Energy of Average American’s

In another classic example of liberals telling Americans to “Do As I Say, Not As I Do,” Dr. Global Warming Himself, aka Al Gore, has been identified by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research as talking a good game about energy conservation while not walking the walk.

In a press release published Monday just hours after the conclusion of the Academy Awards, the “independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization” reported (emphasis mine throughout, h/t Drudge): “Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.”

The release marvelously continued:

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).”

Lest we not forget that in his celluloid tribute to junk science, “the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.”

As a frame of reference, “[t]he average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy.”

By contrast, in 2006, Dr. Global Warming “devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.”

The release elaborated:

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Yet, the really delicious hypocrisy was still to come: “Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.”

Isn’t that just ducky? This charlatan goes around the world telling people that they need to conserve energy to save the planet, and his consumption increased by almost 14 percent.

What a crock! As a result, the press release aptly concluded:

As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In the immortal words of Our Gang’s Farina, you said a mouthful.

UPDATE (Ken Shepherd | 2/27/2007, 09:12 EST): The Anchoress has a good critique at her site, where she notes that President Bush’s Crawford ranch is and has been eco-friendlier than Gore’s mansion for years, although the press rarely if ever give the president credit for that.

Now bear in mind this home is just one of four that he owns. Again, nothing wrong with owning four homes or four thousand homes, but when you are going around hysterically screaming like a rabid hyena that the “earth is on fire” and demand people return to a 13th century lifestyle, well, then there are some things that need explaining.

Also, while Gore preaches that the internal combustion engine is the “greatest threat to mankind,” the guy flies on a Gulfstream private jet everywhere. Nothing wrong with that either, for most people.

I imagine every unapologetic capitalist has dreamed of reaching the level of success that allows you to travel by private jet. But most of us are not crooks, liars, and/or deranged! The Gulfstream is a fine luxury aircraft. It is also the least fuel efficient private jet one can own!

And this is from a guy who is screaming that the world is en fuego!

Andrea Mitchell over at MSNBC reports this:

In an interview that will air on MSNBC at 1:00 pm ET today, Al Gore rebutted Sarah Palin’s Washington Post op-ed and Facebook postings that question the science on climate change given the “Climate-gate” controversy.

In response, Gore said that “the deniers are persisting in an era of unreality. The entire North Polar icecap is disappearing before our eyes… What do they think is happening?

He said we’ve seen record storms, droughts, fires — and the effects taking place are exactly as predicted by these scientists for years.

Asked about Palin’s charge on Facebook that these are “doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood,” Gore replied that the scientific community has worked on this issue for 20 years. “It’s a principle in physics. It’s like gravity. It exists.”

Gore attributed the partisan divide (in recent Pew polls) over climate change in part to the fact that people believed to be the leadership of the modern Republican Party has adopted a global-warming-denier attitude. He said that 100% of the people who changed their opinion about global warming are conservative, adding that climate change should be a bipartisan issue like it used to be. He cited Lindsey Graham as one example of a Republican leader who accepts the science.

When asked about President Obama’s proposal for Copenhagen being even less than the Clinton-Gore proposal for Kyoto in 1997, the former vice president said. “It’s weaker than it should be, but it’s a crucial first step.” Gore added that Obama — with whom he met on Monday — shouldn’t be expected to make commitments beyond what Congress is willing to do.

And was it a mistake to do health care first, since climate change is now delayed in the Senate? Gore responded that “hindsight is 20/20.” If they had known that health care would take this long maybe they would have made different calculations, Gore said. But he noted that Obama has consistently made climate change one of his top priorities.

But: “I would always like to see more done.”

As usual, pretty much everything out of the Goreacle’s mouth, from the word hello, is a lie. The Polar Ice caps are not melting. Once can look at any number of polls, and guess what, belief in the global warming hoax is at an all time low. And when asked about priorities, people always place “climate change” dead last as things they care about.

From Newsmax:

Belief in Global Warming at All-Time Low — BEFORE Climategate

A new poll reveals that the percentage of Americans who believe carbon dioxide emissions will cause global warming has dropped dramatically in recent years.

And that poll by Harris Interactive was conducted between Nov. 2 and 11 — before the so-called “climategate” controversy erupted, calling into question the validity of some of the science supporting manmade global warming.

The poll found that the percentage of American who believe in global warming has dropped from 75 percent in 2001 and 71 percent in 2007 to just 51 percent.

At the same time, the percentage of those who do not believe in global warming has risen from 19 percent in 2001 and 23 percent in 2007 to 29 percent today, and the percentage who are unsure has climbed from 6 percent to 21 percent since 2001.

The 51 percent who believe emissions will cause climate change is by far the lowest number recorded in any Harris Poll since we started asking this question 12 years ago,” Harris Interactive disclosed.

Opinions differed sharply along party lines — 73 percent of Democrats believe in manmade global warming, compared to 28 percent of Republicans and 49 percent of Independents.

As for the upcoming international conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, only 28 percent of those polled knew that the main topic to be discussed is global warming and climate change. Nearly 10 percent said the economic crisis would be the topic, while smaller numbers cited nuclear weapons, health and epidemics, terrorism, international trade, or drugs.

Six days after the poll closed, on Nov. 17, someone hacked a server used by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, and disseminated more than a thousand e-mails and other documents.

Climate change skeptics charge that the e-mails show collusion by climate scientists to skew scientific information in favor of manmade global warming.

The leaked documents “show that prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of manmade global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data, plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing, and concealed apparently buggy computer code from being disclosed under the Freedom of Information law,” CBS News reported.

One climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research was quoted as saying: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

This is bound to be time for a nice video break!

I wrote yesterday about the lunacy of all of this, and referenced the previous climate hysteria over “global cooling” and the coming ice age that alarmists were running around like Chicken Littles about in the 1970’s.

Forbes Magazine’s Gary Sutton also touches on this and the poor quality of climate research:

The Fiction Of Climate Science

Why the climatologists get it wrong.

Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed “the coming ice age.”

Random House dutifully printed “THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age.” This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported “many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age.”

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: “During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age.”

You can’t blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed’s mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today’s scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work.

In 2002 I stood in a room of the Smithsonian. One entire wall charted the cooling of our globe over the last 60 million years. This was no straight line. The curve had two steep dips followed by leveling. There were no significant warming periods. Smithsonian scientists inscribed it across some 20 feet of plaster, with timelines.

Last year, I went back. That fresco is painted over. The same curve hides behind smoked glass, shrunk to three feet but showing the same cooling trend. Hey, why should the Smithsonian put its tax-free status at risk? If the politicians decide to whip up public fear in a different direction, get with it, oh ye subsidized servants. Downplay that embarrassing old chart and maybe nobody will notice.

Sorry, I noticed.

It’s the job of elected officials to whip up panic. They then get re-elected. Their supporters fall in line.

Al Gore thought he might ride his global warming crusade back toward the White House. If you saw his movie, which opened showing cattle on his farm, you start to understand how shallow this is. The United Nations says that cattle, farting and belching methane, create more global warming than all the SUVs in the world. Even more laughably, Al and his camera crew flew first class for that film, consuming 50% more jet fuel per seat-mile than coach fliers, while his Tennessee mansion sucks as much carbon as 20 average homes.

His PR folks say he’s “carbon neutral” due to some trades. I’m unsure of how that works, but, maybe there’s a tribe in the Sudan that cannot have a campfire for the next hundred years to cover Al’s energy gluttony. I’m just not sophisticated enough to know how that stuff works. But I do understand he flies a private jet when the camera crew is gone.

The fall of Saigon in the ’70s may have distracted the shrill pronouncements about the imminent ice age. Science’s prediction of “A full-blown, 10,000 year ice age,” came from its March 1, 1975 issue. The Christian Science Monitor observed that armadillos were retreating south from Nebraska to escape the “global cooling” in its Aug. 27, 1974 issue.

That armadillo caveat seems reminiscent of today’s tales of polar bears drowning due to glaciers disappearing.

While scientists march to the drumbeat of grant money, at least trees don’t lie. Their growth rings show what’s happened no matter which philosophy is in power. Tree rings show a mini ice age in Europe about the time Stradivarius crafted his violins. Chilled Alpine Spruce gave him tighter wood so the instruments sang with a new purity. But England had to give up the wines that the Romans cultivated while our globe cooled, switching from grapes to colder weather grains and learning to take comfort with beer, whisky and ales.

Yet many centuries earlier, during a global warming, Greenland was green. And so it stayed and was settled by Vikings for generations until global cooling came along. Leif Ericsson even made it to Newfoundland. His shallow draft boats, perfect for sailing and rowing up rivers to conquer villages, wouldn’t have stood a chance against a baby iceberg.

Those sustained temperature swings, all before the evil economic benefits of oil consumption, suggest there are factors at work besides humans.

Today, as I peck out these words, the weather channel is broadcasting views of a freakish and early snow falling on Dallas. The Iowa state extension service reports that the record corn crop expected this year will have unusually large kernels, thanks to “relatively cool August and September temperatures.” And on Jan. 16, 2007, NPR went politically incorrect, briefly, by reporting that “An unusually harsh winter frost, the worst in 20 years, killed much of the California citrus, avocados and flower crops.”

To be fair, those reports are short-term swings. But the longer term changes are no more compelling, unless you include the ice ages, and then, perhaps, the panic attempts of the 1970s were right. Is it possible that if we put more CO2 in the air, we’d forestall the next ice age?

I can ask “outrageous” questions like that because I’m not dependent upon government money for my livelihood. From the witch doctors of old to the elected officials today, scaring the bejesus out of the populace maintains their status.

Sadly, the public just learned that our scientific community hid data and censored critics. Maybe the feds should drop this crusade and focus on our health care crisis. They should, of course, ignore the life insurance statistics that show every class of American and both genders are living longer than ever. That’s another inconvenient fact.

Think about this a minute. Some of the very same “scientists,” and geniuses in Congress and Big Government, who are screaming we must “do something or else” over this global warming hoax, are these same brain surgeons who were telling the world 30 years ago that the whole world wold look like Alaska! (As in really, really cold!)

I seem to remember these loons back then were talking about ways to actually send up soot and other particles into the atmosphere to “insulate the world.” These people have been certifiably insane for a long, long time!

I’m actually glad to see Gore respond to Sarah. Al Gore is notorious for never debating anyone, or answering any kind of questions about his lies. Sarah Palin on the other hand is known for taking people head on. You know that she will now respond to Gore, just as she has others who have questioned her.

Sarah has famously taken up residence in the president’s head after just destroying him on health care. So much so that he is addressing her while giving joint addresses to Congress and the nation! If she can do that to our “brilliant” president. What can she do to Al Gore?

Personally, I’d love to see a televised debate. Texas energy billionaire T. Boone Pickens has offered to debate Gore on numerous occasions, even to the point of offering up millions of dollars for charity, to no avail.

I envision a live pay-per-view event between the Goreacle and the ‘Cuda!

As I see it: You have a known, and serious, environmentalist who is grounded in reality and common sense. A woman who has dealt with both energy and the environment as her state’s chief regulator, and has an exemplary record.

A Governor who lead the nation in setting a path for her state to get 50 percent of it’s energy renewable sources by 2025. Exactly double the figure that Barack Obama proposed, but has done absolutely nothing to actually make anything happen, to move his proposal along.

A citizen who has a genuine love for the land. A genuine love for nature.

Then you have Al Gore, a Divinity school drop out who score barely passing grades in math and science. A total hack and hypocrite at every level.

At best, Al Gore is a loon, and actually believes the nonsense that he is peddling. But more likely, he’s like every other corrupt democrat/communist in America. Like Obama and his buddies at the Chicago Climate Exchange, and everyone else pushing things like cap and trade, Gore is set to make billions of dollars, off of this hoax!

That makes Al Gore a crook. A crook who makes Bernie Madoff look like a saint!

I read a comment yesterday that sums up “global warming” or “climate change” as well as it can be done. Global warming is the “pet rock” of the 21st Century. A big scam!

A big honking scam!

So let’s have a pay-per-view debate!

Let’s see the Arctic Fox take on the Goreacle. Take all of the millions of dollars it will raise and donate the money to charities that benefit our brave men and women in the military!

Some smart promoter needs to make this happen!

My money is on Sarah Palin!

Posted in al gore, Barracuda, big government, cap and tax, Climategate, ECONOMY, Energy, Energy Independence, Environment, freedom in America, global warming, Going Rogue, government control, Governor Palin, Governor Sarah Palin, Obama, Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin Web Brigade, Wildlife | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Barack Obama’s Dr. Death Cuts And Runs When Confronted About His Nazi-Like Death Panels, And Other Bedtime Stories About Czars!

Posted by Gary P Jackson on September 8, 2009

In the above video, panelists warn of the revival of eugenics under Barack Obama’s government health care takeover, through the denial of care to millions who would be judged not fit to live, just as in Nazi Germany.

Historian Anton Chaitkin does a wonderful job of exposing Dr. Death, who then realizes he has other business to attend to, and bails out before he really has to answer the allegations. As you heard on the tape, another unidentified attendee tries to ask a question about Dr. Death’s support of assisted suicide, which is quickly brushed aside.

Dr. Death, is basically a coward! If you are going to have the sort of disturbing notions this guy has, then you should be made to sit and defend them. But I guess it’s hard to defend the indefensible.

A few weeks back Sarah Palin introduced the nation to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Barack Obama’s “health adviser” and brother of White House Chief-of-Staff, Rahm Emanuel. In other words, Dr. Death.

When Sarah coined the term “death panels” she had Dr. Death in mind.

Now it’s been fun watching democrat/communists and ignorant Republicans scramble and try to say there are no “death panels.” Or even more hilarious, try and claim the so-called “end of life counseling” wasn’t a “death panel” but a good thing. Hell, I’ve even seen politicians and people that I actually thought had a half a brain go down this road. Very disappointing, but at least it helped me learn who not to worry about listening to any more!

You see Sarah Palin, and others, never mentioned “end of life counseling “or said it was a bad thing. As some of the left wing correctly noted (yes, I know, there truly IS a first time for everything) Sarah herself had passed a resolution as Governor of Alaska urging seniors to talk to their doctors and family about end of life decisions, and living wills. Of course, these weren’t to be government mandated programs, she was merely wanting to make sure seniors know these services were available through doctors and attorneys.

Oh the democrat/communists had Sarah now. They had her with the strawberries!

Well, not quite. You see unlike most of the media, and pretty much all of the politicians, on both sides, Sarah had actually done her homework on Obama, and his radical friends. Remember that warning she gave you about who Obama was “palin’ around with?” Well, as we have seen with Van Jones, Jeff Jones, Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd, Dr Death, and God only knows how many more, violent terrorist Bill Ayers was just the tip of a very large iceberg!

What we now know about Dr Death is that he, like many of Obama’s so-called Czars, is an absolute loon. I mean crazy, insane, perhaps psychotic. Dr Death is one of the main characters, in what would be a horribly cheesy SciFi movie, if he didn’t actually have the full attention of the President of the United States!

I know some of our more gentle readers get a bit weak in the knees when we start talking Nazis and the Obama administration, but other than early 20th Century American “progressives” who were very strong believers in eugenics, nothing and no one else can compare the group of truly evil men and woman that Obama has chosen to advise him on his Obamacare fiasco, as well as other misadventures he has planned.

Dr Death has been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Here are some of the various thoughts Dr Death has expressed regarding the administration of health care:

Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely ‘lipstick’ cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change.

(Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008)

Savings,, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, “as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others”

(Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008)

Yeah, you heard that right. Dr. Death thinks that other doctors should just blow off their sacred Hippocratic Oath, for the “greater good!” I mean why give quality care to the old people, who worked all of their lives and made American the great nation it is, when someone younger might benefit more!

Dr. Death wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else. “Social justice” is a communist code phrase that basically means income or wealth distribution.

All of a sudden old Joe-the-Plumber isn’t looking so stupid anymore, is he! He too tried to warn America about Obama and his desire the “spread the wealth.”

Emanuel believes that “communitarianism” should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia”

(Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. ’96)

Translation: Don’t give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson’s or a child with cerebral palsy. Or children with Downs Syndrome. Gee, no wonder Sarah Palin doesn’t think very highly of this guy!

Here is how this obviously disturbed man justifies this:

Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years”

(Lancet, Jan. 31)

Now, did you follow that nonsense?

Basically he is saying that because you might have benefitted from superior health care when you 25, you are no longer entitled to it at age 65, because, well, you benefitted from it when you were 25!

Most 25 year olds are indestructible, at least in their own mind! Unless they are indeed disabled, which would doom them to those “death panels,” 25 year olds don’t need a lot of maintenance! Only a severe injury would normally see a healthy 25 year old needing a great deal of medical care and attention.

On the other hand, at 65, a productive member of society, someone who worked all of their adult life, and more than likely even as a youngster, will indeed need more medical care. I’m a long way from 65, but I’m also well past 25, and I can testify that as we get older, we find the need for more care!

Now in the sane world, the one we live in, someone at age 65, a person who helped make America the greatest nation on earth, someone who contributed a lifetime to working hard, rasing a family, and in the words of the communist, contributed to the “greater good”, doesn’t deserve to be forgotten, left to suffer from ailments that are easily treatable in America, and have been for decades, simply so someone else can have treatment.

Communism is evil in all of it’s forms. It is immoral for the government to steal money from those who earn the money and create society, and give it to those who don’t. If wealth distribution is evil, then what can we say of arbitrary health care re-distribution?

As communism and socialism are simply different sides of the same coin, I find this quote quite appropriate:

Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. It’s inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Sir Winston Churchill

Dr Death believes in the so-called Complete Lives System. He has written:

Because none of the currently used systems satisfy all ethical requirements for just allocation, we propose an alternative:

Youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value..… When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated … the complete lives system is least vulnerable to corruption. Age can be established quickly and accurately from identity documents. Prognosis allocation encourages physicians to improve patients’ health, unlike the perverse incentives to sicken patients or misrepresent health that the sickest-first allocation creates.

A summary from Lancet:

Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classified into four categories: treating people equally, favouring the worst-off, maximising total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness. No single principle is sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined into multiprinciple allocation systems. We evaluate three systems: the United Network for Organ Sharing points systems, quality-adjusted life-years, and disability-adjusted life-years. We recommend an alternative system—the complete lives system—which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles.

Another way to break it down:

Treating People Equally

1. Lottery

2. First-come, first served

Prioritization

1. Sickest first

2. Youngest first

Utilitarianism

1. Saving the most lives

2. Saving the most life-years

3. Saving the most socially useful

4. Reciprocity (paying back people who have ‘contributed’, such as organ donors)

If you have been following the news, you’ll know that some provinces in Canada already have monthly lotteries to assign patients to doctors. How’s that for establishing a death panel!

Lest you think Dr Death is the only disturbing person advising Obama, fear not, he has literally dozens of these loons ready, willing, and able to play the lead role in this bad horror flick!

Let’s look at Cass Sunstein, Obama’s “Regulation’s Czar.” Now this guy will be turned loose on almost every facet of American life and allowed to force feed you his wild schemes.

One of Sunstein’s notions is that your organs do not belong to you, and that at your death, the state should be able to harvest your organs, for use elsewhere. Now on the one hand, it’s not like you will be needing them or anything, but there are First Amendment issues here. Issues about freedom of religion. Some religions simply do not condone the desecration of the human body at death.

In the book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, And Happiness, Sunstein laments that the main reason people don’t donate their organs is that they don’t choose to do so.

Evidently, for democrat/communists, it’s “hands off my body” when they want to murder babies, and most feel it is wrong, but “let me at ‘em” when they want to snatch your body parts!

Funny, the pro-death abortion proponents are constantly screaming about “freedom of choice.” Can someone please explain to me just how a democrat/communist’s brain processes that sort of logic?

One thing about it, between these death panels, assisted suicide lovers, and baby killers, one can really and truthfully state that the democrat/communist party is nothing more than a death cult that also wants to steal your hard earned money to do insane and unproductive things with!

Again, this would be fun to watch if it was just a bad movie, and you were kicked back drinking an adult beverage and laughing at these people. Unfortunately, all of this bunch has the sympathetic ear of the President of the United States!

Oh, and by the way, stealing your organs isn’t even CLOSE to being the most insane thing Cass Sunstein believes!

Not even close!

Like the Nazis before them, the current crop of democrat/communists that surround Obama are “nature freaks.” And I don’t mean like someone who enjoys hanging out in the great outdoors I’m talking freaks!

In 2002 Our man Sunstein said this:

“Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian-like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients’ behalf.”

That’s right, this guy who Obama wants to put in charge of regulating pretty much everything you do, thinks animals should be able to sue humans! In another time this moron would be locked in a padded cell until he achieved room temperature!

I might remind you that Sunstein is a Harvard “legal scholar.” Reason number 11,347 to never send your kids to an Ivy League school, hire anyone who has even been to one, and for the love of all that is holy, never, ever vote for someone who went to one!

But wait, there’s more!

Now I won’t bore you with Van Jones, the radical cop hating racist, self avowed communist, and 9/11 truther. Thanks to Glenn Beck, this guy has been sent packing, back to being an obscure, hate filled nobody. But he too is an other example of the sort that Obama loves to surround himself with.

No, I want to talk to you about Obama’s science Czar.

John Holdren is one of those really crazy people who sit around all day and fret about overpopulation. But, thankfully, this one has just the plan. This loon actually believes he can make the case that our Constitution would allow the state to force women to have abortions if they had more than the officially sanctioned number of children people like him, and Barack Obama, deem proper!

Holdren has also favored forced sterilization or forced contraception. He wrote this:

Of course, a government might require only implantation of the contraceptive capsule, leaving its removal to the individual’s discretion but requiring reimplantation after childbirth. Since having a child would require positive action (removal of the capsule), many more births would be prevented than in the reverse situation.

This guy has all sorts of schemes in his pointy Ivy League educated head. One of his brilliant ideas was to put sterilization chemicals in the nation’s drink water.

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development.

To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the oposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

Again, there is no sign of such an agent on the horizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in our opinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though this plan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures that might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalize children.

This sort of thing brings us back to the discussion of eugenics, and the above video. In the early 20th Century, eugenics were all the rage in America. All of the so-called intellectuals were enamored by the notion. One of the really prominent practitioners of this thought was Margaret Sanger. Sanger, who had ties to the Klan, founded Planned Parenthood as a way to rid the world of unwanted and undesirable children. She was naturally keen on aborting black babies, and this is truly one of the darkest legacies of the democrat/communist party. It is estimated that as many as 50 million black babies have been murdered by abortion over the decades.

Sanger, and her contemporaries were of great interest to Adolf Hitler, which of course, brings us full circle, and back to the Nazis. It was the American “progressive” movement that inspired Hitler with is idea for the Holocaust.

Now just in case you think these totally out of the mainstream and completely insane ideas do not reflect those of Barack Obama, allow me to point out that Obama supports infanticide. This is a truly barbaric act that is practiced when another barbaric act, late term abortion, is botched.

Basically, this ritual is practiced when an abortion mill doctor performs a late term abortion, but somehow botches the procedure and the baby survives, or, as normal humans call it, is born.

What is allowed to happen in these cases, is the new born baby is placed on a shelf, or in some dark closet until he or she perishes. It’s as inhumane as it comes. If only he or she was a puppy, Cass Sunstein would allow the baby to sue!

Now Obama is famous in the Illinois Senate for one thing, and one thing only, and that’s holding the record for voting “present” more than anything else. And yet, he managed to come out of his comma and vote against “born alive” legislation that would have outlawed this inhuman practice every time a bill would come up for a vote. You can learn more here.

Here’s the bottom line, Dr Death, Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, Barack Obama, and a whole cast of dozens more of these whacked-out Czars like them, have control of this nation. These Czars are illegal and unconstitutional. We must demand their removal. Every last one of them.

But you need to remember that these people want complete and total control of health care in America. And if you think that people who are in favor of forced sterilization, or forced organ harvesting don’t already have death panels ready to decide whether or not you are “worthy” of health care, then you have another thing coming.

Get off the couch, get in the game. Get involved and come together with like minded folks around you. Go to a tea party. Join the 9/12 Project. But get involved and don’t let up until all of these illegal and unconstitutional Czars have been sent packing. Don’t let up until Obama and the democrat/communists drop Obamacare and it is dead for good!

Then work as hard as you ever have in your life to help vote all of these people out of office in 2010 and 2012!

Then we can get real health care reform.

Here’s a final video to help you ponder all of this a bit from our friends at Joe Dan Media:

Posted in Barracuda, big government, Children with Special Needs, Conservative, Conservative of 2008, Conservative of the Year, D. C., Down Syndrome, ECONOMY, Environment, Faith, Family, GOP, government control, Governor Sarah Palin, healthcare, influential people, Internet Activism, Media, moderate, nationalization, Obama, Obamacare, President, Pro-life, right to life, RNC, Sarah Palin, special needs, special needs children, stimulus, veterans, Washington, Wildlife, Woman | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Sarah Palin, The World’s Greatest: A Tribute

Posted by Gary P Jackson on August 17, 2009

Sarah Palin scored a great victory for the American people this past week, while putting Barack Obama and the entire democrat/communist party on the defensive. Obama was even forced to postpone his vacation and attempt to save his liberty and freedom stealing Obamacare fiasco!

While Palin eloquently issued simple, but powerful, statements on the evils of Obamacare, Obama himself held townhall meetings where he had to have planted guests posing as regular Americans to throw him softball questions that he couldn’t even answer correctly.

Obama, who sounded confused, disjointed, and rambling not only failed to counter Sarah Palin’s strong charges, but dug himself a bigger hole with the American people, further destroying the little credibility he has with America’s citizenry.

It was an incredible victory for America, and for Sarah Palin.

Note to the GOP, this is how you defeat Barack Obama’s swift march to communism! You take Obama head on, and you never stop!

The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto, wrote simply: Palin Wins.

Others singing Sarah’s praises , include Robert A George from NBC”s San Fransisco’s affiliate who cautions the non-believers to take heed, as Sarah Palin is still the GOP’s superstar.

On the heels of all of this, Seth Adam Smith, one of our friends at Conservatives4Palin brings us this great video as a tribute to an amazing woman, Sarah Palin.

Posted in 2012, Alaska, Alaska Fund Trust, Alaska Trust Fund, Alaskan Foreign Policy, Alaskan Wildlife, ancestry, Barracuda, big government, bureaucratic, Children with Special Needs, Conservative, Conservative of 2008, Conservative of the Year, D. C., Down Syndrome, ECONOMY, Energy, Energy Independence, Environment, establishment, Faith, Family, freedom of speech, fundraising, GOP, GOP / Conservative, Governor Sarah Palin, grassroots, Internet Activism, Iron Dog, National, National Defense, President, reform, Republican, RNC, Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin Web Brigade, SarahPAC, special needs, special needs children, sports, Todd Palin, USA., Vice President, Wasilla, Wildlife, Woman | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Palin and the Wolves

Posted by Sarah Palin Web Brigade on April 19, 2009

Palin and the Wolves

As a VP candidate, Alaska’s governor was attacked for the state’s aerial hunting program. But the partisan bickering belies a complex and longstanding debate.

Howl of the wild: Depending on your point of view, gray wolves like this one are emblems of unspoiled wilderness or dangerous pests

Steven Kazlowski / Science Faction-Corbis

Howl of the wild: Depending on your point of view, gray wolves like this one are emblems of unspoiled wilderness or dangerous pests.    

By Amanda Coyne | Newsweek Web Exclusive

Apr 10, 2009

Deep in Alaska‘s interior, Fortymile Country is what you visualize when you think of the nation’s 49th state: rugged, cold and heartbreakingly lonely, a feeling heightened by the occasional howl of a wolf. But there was another sound in the area last weekend: the whir of a helicopter, carrying a steady-handed state employee looking to target those wolves in the sights of his 12-gauge shotgun. This time the hunters came back empty-handed, but last month they killed 84 wolves in the area.

Alaska’s controversial program, designed to cull the state’s wolf population, captured America’s attention last year when detractors gleefully hung it around vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin‘s neck as an example of, well, something. Unsportsmanlike conduct? Unladylike behavior? A taste for blood? No matter—the criticism gave Palin supporters another reason to shout “attagirl” to “give ’em hell” Sarah. What do urban and suburban folks in the lower 48 states know about life in the wilderness, anyway? Michael Goldfarb, Sen. John McCain’s former campaign spokesperson, went so far as to call the program “political gold” for the plucky VP candidate. 

As the punditocracy chatters about a possible 2012 Palin presidential bid, the annual aerial hunt is likely to keep its wings. But behind the political whirligig is a complex conservation debate that has split Alaskans, hunters, scientists and the state and federal governments—since long before Palin came onto the scene.

At the top of the food chain, humans and wolves have a historical adversarial relationship. In Alaska, both compete for caribou and moose, which the state says gray wolves are depleting. The state says it is home to roughly 800,000 caribou, 200,000 moose and between 7,000 and 11,000 wolves—more than the entire continental U.S., which has a total of about 6,000 wolves. For the past five years, Alaska has had a fairly intensive predator-control program in six areas that make up about 9 percent of the state, mostly involving private hunters and small planes. The program has killed fewer than 300 wolves a year, and though the target this year was 460, state officials expect to again get only about 300. Private trappers and hunters take another 1,100 or so wolves annually.

When Alaska first joined the union, the federal government paid bounties in a failed effort to essentially wipe the animals out, and shooting from aircraft by private individuals goes back for decades. Today the state says it uses more scientific methods to manage all its wildlife. Under a state law enacted in 1994, the Alaska Board of Game (appointed by the governor) is required to “identify … important [wild] food sources for Alaskans, and to insure that these populations remain large enough to allow for adequate and sustained harvest.” To protect wild game, the board can restrict hunting seasons, improve habitat and control predators (including wolves and bears).

A hunter who loves her moose-meat chili, Palin recently issued a statement in response to critics: “Alaskans depend on wildlife for food and cultural practices which can’t be sustained when predators are allowed to decimate moose and caribou populations.” Patrick Valkenburg, deputy commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, says, “Sarah Palin is a realhero to the hunters.” Alaska sells about 98,000 hunting licenses a year to its roughly 700,000 residents, but even some of those hunters believe the aerial wolf program is at best unsportsmanlike. (Another 14,000 out-of-state licenses are issued annually.) Some say it’s a system designed to create overhunting. “The role of the hunter is grounded in conservation and stewardship and respect for the land and animals, not in extreme plans to ‘grow more caribou’ at any and all costs,” says Mark Richards, from the Alaska chapter of a group called Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.

Some critics say the state is being far more aggressive under Palin, who took office in 2006. Vic Van Ballenberghe, a wildlife biologist and a former Board of Game member appointed by Democratic Gov. Tony Knowles, says Palin has “turned loose an army” against predators. The board also recently approved the killing of more than 900 bears in order to boost moose and caribou, and the gassing of orphaned wolf pups in their densafter the adults have been killed, claiming that it’s more humane than leaving them to fend for themselves.

While sparing orphaned animals the pain and suffering of starvation might be the humane thing to do, it also hands the animal-rights crowd a gift on a silver platter. The activist group Defenders of Wildlife highlighted the gassing of “defenseless wolf pups and their families” on a Web site soliciting donations. The organization recently released a gruesome video of a wolf being chased and killed by a low-flying propeller plane in the Alaska hinterland, in which actress Ashley Judd says, “It is time to stop Sarah Palin.”

Wade Willis, a wildlife biologist who works for the Defenders, claims that the state really wants “unlimited commercial consumption” of game. “They want to artificially turn Alaska into a game farm, into one big hunting ground,” he says. “It’s a gamble based on a far-right political agenda, not on science.”

“Absolute baloney,” says Valkenburg, the Fish and Game deputy commissioner, who was appointed by the governor last year.”It seems that people who don’t like Palin are using this as a way to attack her, and raise money. And the people who don’t like the predator-control program are using Palin as a way to attack it.” Valkenburg says that groups like Defenders of Wildlife “shop around for people who are philosophically opposed to the program and with Ph.D.s next to their names. These are people who have never even been to Alaska. It’s absolutely absurd.”Pointing out that the predator-control program is required by a law enacted before the current governor was elected, Valkenburg says it protects a way of life important to many Alaskans, including Native American populations. “Further,” he says, “why not produce food locally instead of importing food? We have a naturally functioning ecosystem that you can manage to produce food locally. Why not do that? Why not think globally and act locally?”

Valkenburg adds that if state biologists do it right, if they use all the means at their disposal to kill lots of wolves now, they’ll be able to act less aggressively later. But other biologists fear the result will be a never-ending predator-control program that will ultimately alter the delicate balance that holds predator and prey in check. Wildlife biologists around the country have sent letters and petitions to the Board of Game, disputing the state’s claims about the reasons for declining moose populations, pointing to overhunting and other natural factors like weather conditions. And some think the state has overstated the numbers of wolves in any given area.

Through hunting and trapping, the state says its goal is to kill about 300of the 400 wolves it believes were in the Fortymile area at the beginning of the fall season, leaving one to two wolves per 1,000 square kilometers. But Greg Dudgeon, superintendent of the federal Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve, which borders Fortymile, says no one has a good count of the wolf population, or an ideal wolf-to-prey number. Federal biologists have been collaring, monitoring and studying wolf packs in the preserve, which has been run by the National Park Service since 1993, and have conducted extensive surveys on wolf populations in the area—leading them to believe that there are closer to 300 wolves in Fortymile.

But Dudgeon’s main concern is that wolves from his preserve are moving into Fortymile, where they could be shot by state employees. As the culling program continues, wolves from the national preserve may migrate to Fortymile because there’s less competition and more food. “Nature abhors a vacuum,” Dudgeon says, “and wolves are great at filling that vacuum.”

This season’s program will wrap up in a few days. The hunters will stop their aerial assault, and the wolves will get a break. But come next year the state is likely to be in the air again, looking for wolves. And guess who will be back on the airwaves, bashing Palin?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/193370/page/1

 

 

Posted in 2012, Alaska, Alaskan Wildlife, Conservative, Governor Sarah Palin, media bias, President, Sarah Palin, Wildlife, wolves | 2 Comments »

Bearing Up

Posted by Sarah Palin Web Brigade on February 22, 2009

 
By SARAH PALIN
Published: January 5, 2008
Juneau, Alaska
 

ABOUT the closest most Americans will ever get to a polar bear are those cute, cuddly animated images that smiled at us while dancing around, pitching soft drinks on TV and movie screens this holiday season.

This is unfortunate, because polar bears are magnificent animals, not cartoon characters. They are worthy of our utmost efforts to protect them and their Arctic habitat. But adding polar bears to the nation’s list of endangered species, as some are now proposing, should not be part of those efforts.

To help ensure that polar bears are around for centuries to come, Alaska (about a fifth of the world’s 25,000 polar bears roam in and around the state) has conducted research and worked closely with the federal government to protect them. We have a ban on most hunting — only Alaska Native subsistence families can hunt polar bears — and measures to protect denning areas and prevent harassment of the bears. We are also participating in international efforts aimed at preserving polar bear populations worldwide.

This month, the secretary of the interior is expected to rule on whether polar bears should be listed under the Endangered Species Act. I strongly believe that adding them to the list is the wrong move at this time. My decision is based on a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts.

The Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group, has argued that global warming and the reduction of polar ice severely threatens the bears’ habitat and their existence. In fact, there is insufficient evidence that polar bears are in danger of becoming extinct within the foreseeable future — the trigger for protection under the Endangered Species Act. And there is no evidence that polar bears are being mismanaged through existing international agreements and the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act.

The state takes very seriously its job of protecting polar bears and their habitat and is well aware of the problems caused by climate change. But we know our efforts will take more than protecting what we have — we must also learn what we don’t know. That’s why state biologists are studying the health of polar bear populations and their habitat.

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

We’re not against protecting plants and animals under the Endangered Species Act. Alaska has supported listings of other species, like the Aleutian Canada goose. The law worked as it should — under its protection the population of the geese rebounded so much that they were taken off the list of endangered and threatened species in 2001.

Listing the goose — then taking it off — was based on science. The possible listing of a healthy species like the polar bear would be based on uncertain modeling of possible effects. This is simply not justified.

What is justified is worldwide concern over the proven effects of climate change.

The Center for Biological Diversity, which petitioned for the polar bear to be protected, wants the listing to force the government to either stop or severely limit any public or private action that produces, or even allows, the production of greenhouse gases. But the Endangered Species Act is not the correct tool to address climate change — the act itself actually prohibits any consideration of broader issues.

Such limits should be adopted through an open process in which environmental issues are weighed against economic and social needs, and where scientists debate and present information that policy makers need to make the best decisions.

Americans should become involved in the issue of climate change by offering suggestions for constructive action to their state governments. But listing the polar bear as threatened is the wrong way to get to the right answer.

Sarah Palin, a Republican, is the governor of Alaska.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/opinion/05palin.html

Bookmark and Share

Posted in Alaskan Wildlife, Governor Sarah Palin, Media, Uncategorized, Wildlife | 1 Comment »