Sarah Palin’s Cancer Screening Concerns, Death Panels Alive And Doing Fine In The UK

Cancer is a vicious killer, and one that hits home for me, having lost my dad at an early age, and several close friends to the dreaded disease. The good news about cancer though, is through innovation and research, by top scientists, survival rates have soared.

One of the really important developments that have lead directly to more cancer survivors is early detection through screenings. But if the communists in Congress, and Obama have their way, this will come to a grinding halt.

You see, screening costs money. Not only do those tests cost money, but so do the follow up tests as well treatments. Many cancer treatments are highly successful, but highly expensive, as well.

One thing we know, for sure, when the federal government unconstitutionally takes over health care, there will be a finite amount of money to be spent on caring for the sick. To make these dollars stretch, expensive treatments and many tests will have to be stopped, or postponed. Decisions to do this will be made by unelected and unaccountable boards of so-called experts, or as Sarah Palin has labeled them, death panels.

These “experts” won’t necessarily all be doctors, but they will be bean counters.

We’re seeing a couple of issues already, and ObamaCare hasn’t even passed. The first is in breast cancer screening. The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force has made the recommendation that we no longer do mammograms at age 40. It is their idea that 50 is the proper age to start, and those self exams? Forget about ‘em!

From Breast Cancer.com:

The standard schedule of starting screening mammograms at age 40 may soon change, and breast cancer prevention strategies would be improved, according to the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. Women may not begin to have screening mammograms until they are 50, and they may cease doing breast self-exams altogether, if the newest guidelines for breast cancer screening from the USPSTF are widely adopted. In Canada and the United Kingdom, 50 is already the age at which screening mammography is begun. These new guidelines may have an impact on what health insurance providers will pay for.

The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force, a branch of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has updated its recommendations for breast cancer screening. After using computer simulation models to project the results of different screening strategies, the task force said that they recommend the changes because they want to cut down on the “harms” and risks of testing, which they believe do not outweigh the benefits. They cite too many false positives, unnecessary biopsies, anxiety, or in short, overdiagnosis. Their November 2009 guidelines suggest:

* Women between 40 and 49 years old should not be having routine screening mammograms. Instead, they say that women should make an informed decision about screening mammography before 50, and weigh their potential risks and benefits with their doctors.

* Women who are 50 to 74 years old should be having a screening mammogram every other year, because the risk for breast cancer increases as you age.

* Women over 74 years old are not given specific guidelines about routine screening mammography – as their risk of death from heart disease and other ailments is greater than from breast cancer.

* Women of any age should not be taught to do breast self-exams, but BSE is not forbidden.

* Clinical breast exams will not be required before screening mammograms, because CBE appears to add no benefit to the information gained from a mammogram.

In 2002, the USPSTF guidelines for breast cancer screening stated that women 40 and older should have annual mammograms to screen for breast cancer. The American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute have also agreed on screening mammograms for women ages 40 to 70. The The American Cancer Society will maintain their recommendation to start screening mammograms at age 40.

Mammography is not a perfect tool and neither is a breast self-exam. But it seems odd to take away these two tools, which we have been told are important, for women aged 40 – 49. This same battle has been fought before, in the mid-1990s. It was resolved by 1997, when the National Cancer Institute agreed to support mammograms for women in their forties.

In an editorial published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Dr. Karla Kerlikowske says that the focus should shift from screening and early detection to breast cancer prevention interventions. But for this to be effective, Dr. Kerlikowske says that we need a better risk model, more research on prevention, and standards “for routinely assessing risk factors, calculating breast cancer risk, and reporting risk to women and providers in an easily understandable format.” Couldn’t we wait, until more research has been done, before we change screening guidelines? Won’t women be more at risk for ten years of their lives, if they are not having a mammogram and doing their self-exams?

This sentence hit me like a ton of bricks, just because of the wording:

Women of any age should not be taught to do breast self-exams, but BSE is not forbidden.

Are you kidding me? “BSE” stands for breast self examination. And this government death panel is telling women they shouldn’t learn how to do them, but are not “forbidden” from learning how and doing them. How generous of them.

That one word, “forbidden,” when talking about what one can and cannot do with their own body, in the privacy of their own home, tells you all you need to know about the entire process that is coming down the pike, and the mentality of those who will sit in judgement on these death panels.

You will notice too, that in making this recommendation, this death panel references the UK and Canada as their model of inspiration. Two counties that have such great health care, because of government control, that those who can, leave the country for treatment of anything more complex than a head cold.

From Deroy Murdock at National Review Online:

Compare America’s system with Canada’s and Great Britain’s. The latter are single-payer, universal health-care programs in which medical treatment is free at the point of service (Yay!), although citizens eventually pay for it through higher taxes (Boo!).

According to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data, there were 26.6 MRI machines in the U.S. per million people in 2004. In Canada, there were 4.9 such devices, while Britain enjoyed 5. For every 100,000 Americans, 2006 saw 436.8 receive angioplasties. Among Canadians, that figure was 135.9, while only 93.2 Britons per 100,000 got that cardiac procedure.

Maybe that’s why, among American men, heart-attack deaths in 2004 stood at 53.8 per 100,000. In Canada, 58.3 men per 100,000 died of cardiac arrest, while coronaries buried 69.5 of every 100,000 British males.

The fatality rate for breast cancer, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis and Lancet Oncology, is 25 percent in the U.S., 28 percent in Canada, and 46 percent in Great Britain.

Among those diagnosed with prostate cancer, 19 percent die of the disease in America. In Canada, 25 percent of such patients succumb to this disease. And in Great Britain — an Anglophone NATO member and America’s closest ally — prostate cancer kills 57 percent of those who contract it. That is triple the American fatality rate.

Here’s an interesting chart, for those who like charts:

………………………………………….US……… Canada………..UK…………..

CT Scanners.(per 1MIL)……………………32.2………..10.7…….…….7

MRI machhine(per 1MIL)…………………..26.6………….4.9……….….5

Angioplasties(per100K)……………………..436.8………135.9……….93.2

Bypasses(per100K)……………………………84.5………..72.7…..…..43.4

Male Heart MI death(per 100K)………………53.8…..…..58.3………..96.5

Female Heart MI death(per100K)……………29.5……….28.1.…..…..33.4

Breast Cancer fatality%)……………………..25…………28……………46

Prostate Cancer fatality(%)………………….19…..…….25….………..57

Male all cancer fatality(%)……………………33.7………47…………..56

Female all cancer fatality(%)…………………37.1……..42……………44.2

Notice, there is a serious lack of medical equipment in Canada and the UK, specifically, MRI machines and CT scanners, equipment that American hospitals use extensively on a daily basis to save lives.

You will also notice that breast cancer is slightly more likely to kill you in Canada, and probably will kill you in jolly old England. And if you are a guy, you really don’t want to live in either Canada or the UK. In the UK prostate cancer is death sentence for most.

Sarah has weighed in again on this craziness, as now the death panels are recommending changes in other screenings:

Cancer Screenings – Rational Advice or Rationed Care?

Today at 1:10am

It was a breath of fresh air to finally hear the Democrats admit to their health care bill as “a lot of show and tell and razzmatazz,” (see Democrat talking points, in reference to my book). At least now we’re all on the same page when discussing the problems with their monstrous government health care “reform” plan.

Now, tonight, more disconcerting news – the New York Times reports of new guidelines to scale back cervical cancer screenings. The recommendation from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists comes on the heels of another recommendation to limit breast cancer screenings with mammograms. There are many questions unanswered for me, but one which immediately comes to mind is whether costs have anything to do with these recommendations. The current health care debate elicits great concern because of its introduction of socialized medicine in America and the inevitable rationed care. We need to carefully watch this debate as it coincides with Capitol Hill’s debate and determine whether we are witnessing the early stages of that rationed care before the Senate bill is rushed through as well.

Another question is why these women-focused cancers are seemingly receiving substandard attention at a time when proactive health and fitness should be the message. Every woman should encourage rigorous debate to ensure that our collective voices are heard. We are paying attention to Washington’s health care proposals, and we want to hear what helps patients the most.

We need answers: Is early screening not saving lives? Why do doctors’ groups disagree? Did costs play any role in these decisions to change the recommendations on breast and cervical cancer screenings? We need assurances that everything we’ve heard this week about fewer tests for women’s cancers is a result of patient-focused research and providing the best care for the right reasons, and not because of bureaucratic pressure to control costs.

Obviously the first thought that comes to mind when hearing of these new recommendations from bureaucratic panels is “rationed care.” It’s fair – and healthy – to ask if that’s what Washington has in mind with a government-controlled takeover of a health care system.

– Sarah Palin

The rationing of health care is the only way ObamaCare will work. Again, there will be a finite amount of money budgeted to the nation’s health care. Our “benevolent leaders” will “generously allow” only a certain amount of the money they confiscate from us to actually be used to keep us in good health.

I mean, look, some of this money is desperately needed for more important projects, like keeping ACORN and SEIU in the “community organizing” business. How else will the

democrat/communists keep the glorious people’s revolution alive?

I promised you more still on death panels. (Like this ain’t enough!) Here’s an alarming report from the BBC:

Liver cancer drug ‘too expensive’

A drug that can prolong the lives of patients with advanced liver cancer has been rejected for use in the NHS in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) said the cost of Nexavar – about £3,000 a month – was “simply too high”.

But Macmillan Cancer Support said the decision was “a scandal”.

More than 3,000 people are diagnosed with liver cancer every year in the UK and their prognosis is generally poor.

Only about 20% of patients are alive one year after diagnosis, dropping to just 5% after five years.

‘Disappointed’

Campaigner Kate Spall, who won the right to have two months of treatment for her mother, Pamela Northcott, in 2007, said it had prolonged her life by four-and-a-half “precious” months.

It had allowed her 58-year-old mother, from Dyserth in Denbighshire, “closure” and “peace”, she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“The problem in Mum’s case is it took a year for me to fight for the treatment, so we’ll never know how well she could have done,” she said.

Prof Jonathan Waxman: “I’m very unhappy about the way these decisions are made”

“We had extra time, which was very precious to us all, her symptoms were helped greatly. And, more importantly, for Mum it was a case of getting some closure and peace.

“The psychological feeling when a group of people decide that you cannot have a treatment that can help you is really devastating.”

Cancer Research UK’s chief clinician Peter Johnson said the decision was “enormously frustrating” because there was no doubt about the drug’s effectiveness.

He said: “There’s no alternative treatment and there are no other places for people to go. It is expensive, but the only issue is cost and the number of patients affected are quite few – there’s probably only six or seven hundred patients a year.”

Nexavar – also known as sorafenib – had already been rejected in Scotland, despite studies showing it could extend the life of a liver cancer patient by up to six months.

‘Devastating disease’

The Scottish Medicines Consortium ruled that “the manufacturer’s justification of the treatment’s cost in relation to its benefit was not sufficient to gain acceptance”.

Andrew Dillon, chief executive of NICE, agreed: “The price being asked by [the manufacturer] Bayer is simply too high to justify using NHS money which could be spent on better value cancer treatments.”

And the group’s clinical and public health director, Peter Littlejohns, added the drug was considered “just too expensive” by its advisory committees.

Nexavar is routinely offered to cancer patients elsewhere in the world, and Mike Hobday, head of campaigns at Macmillan Cancer Support, said he was “extremely disappointed” at NICE’s decision.

“It is a scandal that the only licensed drug proven to significantly prolong the lives of people with this devastating disease has been rejected, leaving them with no treatment options,” he said.

Alison Rogers, chief executive of the British Liver Trust, said: “The decision to reject a treatment for advanced liver cancer is a huge blow for patients.

“This is a treatment to extend life for people where all other options have run out.

“It is particularly hard for people with liver cancer given that treatments for many other advanced cancers have been given the green light by NICE.

“People with liver disease often face stigma and discrimination and sadly this decision feels like a further disadvantage to them.”

Earlier this year, a government review of end-of-life treatment said NICE should give extra weight to drugs that could extend a patient’s life.

The Department of Health said NICE was not ignoring that recommendation, but the NHS could not just pay for any drug at any cost.

The UK is a very totalitarian system when it comes to patient care. The system also strips it’s citizens of many basic liberties and freedoms we take for granted in America. As I wrote in an earlier piece, not only do they have death panels in the UK, these government monstrosities have evolved into what I am calling “lifestyle panels.”

I had included this from the Brussels Journal:

Kerry Robertson, 17, and Mark McDougall, 25, haven’t broken any law. But they are on the run from the authorities, and from their home in Dunfermline, Scotland.

Less than eight weeks ago the couple were excitedly planning their wedding. They had booked church ceremony for the 5th of September, a Saturday. She had already chosen and bought her wedding dress. They had bought the rings, and invited 20 guests. Two days before the big day, however, social services told them that their wedding would have to be cancelled. Fife Council wrote a letter, objecting to the marriage, to Dunfermline Register Office, who consequently refused to marry the couple.

Social services claim Kerry cannot understand what marriage means, because she has learning difficulties. They are mild, it seems. She is able to read and write, and is going to college to “catch up.” Her partner Mark told the Daily Mail: “‘I didn’t even know she had learning difficulties until we’d been dating for two months.”

Kerry is 29 weeks pregnant – with a boy they have named Ben. “Although Ben isn’t born yet,” Kerry says, “I already love my baby and know I will be a good mum. Mark and I talk to him inside me every day and tell him we love him. We’ve already bought him clothes and my cousin, who recently had a baby, has handed down a beautiful crib for him.”

Social services say that Kerry – a college student – isn’t intelligent enough to bring up her child with Mark. They plan to allow the couple only a few hours with Ben after he is born. Then Ben will be taken from Kerry and Mark, and placed with foster parents.

I went on to add:

Let’s think about this for a minute.

Here are a couple of young kids in love. They were excited and planning a nice wedding, when all of a sudden, a Big Government drone steps in and through their own “expertise” decides they are not fit to be parents because the girl is a little “slow.”

Under those guidelines, if adopted in America, would Barack Obama be allowed to keep his kids? I mean this is the guy that thought he had traveled to 57 states on the campaign, and had 1 or 2 to go. Would that make Obama a little “slow” in the eyes of the almighty bureaucrat?

Can you imagine?

My point? Allowing the government control over anything can be dangerous, even for the most noble of reasons. It’s why our founders wrote a Constitution that was design to allow the several states and all citizens, great freedoms, while restraining the federal government. In the past 100 years we have seen a rapid shift to the exact opposite, as “progressives” both democrat/communists and Republicans have grabbed more control, and wrestled many freedoms from the several states, and the American citizen.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

____Ronald Reagan

All of these new “recommendations” that are suddenly coming down from these faceless panels are the canary in the coal mine for what is to come if we allow Obama and his radical communist agenda to succeed., if we allow ObamaCare to become law.

This is can all be stopped, but you must be willing to put every single ounce of effort you can muster to achieve that goal. We are at war in this nation. Oh, it’s not a shooting war, but it is a war nonetheless. We are war with radical communists who want to “fundamentally change” America into something it was never meant to be.

It’s a failed prescription. Communism, socialism, Statism, whatever “ism” you want to call this evil, has destroyed nations world wide every time it has been tried. Just because this group of radicals think they are the ones smart enough to make it work doesn’t make it so!

The surest way to lose most, if not all, of your most fundamental freedoms and rights is to allow the Obama regime to continue along this path of certain destruction.

As I write this on an early Friday afternoon, I realize the U.S. Senate is about to vote on a 2000 plus page piece of liberty destroying garbage that absolutely no one has read, or understands.

This multi-trillion dollar affair will raise taxes, destroy our quality of health care, and give the government powers that will, for all practical purposes, void our Constitution, completely usurp it.

Speaking of the Constitution, it only took four sheets of paper to write the most significant and enduring political document in the history all mankind. Our Constitution is the envy of the world, and the absolute blueprint for the freedom of all mankind. Four sheets of paper.

By contrast, the lunacy that is our current radical communist controlled Congress, has produced bills in the House and Senate of a combined total of nearly 4100 pages. Incredible.

Here’s a good time to remind everyone the words of the Great Ronald Reagan on the dangers of allowing these radicals to take over our lives through health care. This is from the successful Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against socialized medicine in 1961:

Isn’t it time that all of America listens to one of our greatest leaders in history?

You can read more about the horrors in Canada and the United Kingdom here and here.

Sarah Palin To Barack Obama: We Must Win In Afghanistan!

Late this afternoon Sarah Palin issued this statement urging Barack Obama to get his act together on the war in Afghanistan:

We Must Win in Afghanistan

Today at 4:57pm

For two years as a candidate, Senator Obama called for more resources for the war in Afghanistan and warned about the consequences of failure. As President, he announced a comprehensive new counterinsurgency strategy and handpicked the right general to execute it. Now General McChrystal is asking for additional troops to implement the strategy announced by President Obama in March. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers in harm’s way in Afghanistan right now. We owe it to all those brave Americans serving in uniform to give them the tools they need to complete their mission.

We can win in Afghanistan by helping the Afghans build a stable representative state able to defend itself. And we must do what it takes to prevail. The stakes are very high. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Afghanistan, and if we are not successful there, al Qaeda will once again find a safe haven, the Taliban will impose its cruelty on the Afghan people, and Pakistan will be less stable.

Our allies and our adversaries are watching to see if we have the staying power to protect our interests in Afghanistan. I recently joined a group of Americans in urging President Obama to devote the resources necessary in Afghanistan and pledged to support him if he made the right decision. Now is not the time for cold feet, second thoughts, or indecision — it is the time to act as commander-in-chief and approve the troops so clearly needed in Afghanistan.

– Sarah Palin

Short, sweet, and to the point. These are the times that test the metal of a man. (or woman) We have brave man and women in harms way. We are losing these brave souls because their Commander-in-Chief is a weak leader with absolutely zero executive experience. Well, Mr President, this is not the U.S. Senate, and you cannot vote “present” here!

We cannot lose this war. The entire world already sees Obama is an incredibly weak leader. Friends and foes alike are openly laughing at Obama. Even the French! Every signal Obama sends to the world says weakness.

This is an administration that can’t bring itself to call these devils “terrorists,” for God’s sake! This is an administration that has dropped the “war on terror” terminology. We can no longer call attacks “acts of terrorism” they are “man made disasters.” This is an administration that is now reading captured terrorists Miranda rights like they were arrested at Wal-Mart shoplifting!

As we wrote earlier, Obama is even embarrassed to use the word “victory!”

We have even learned that Obama had only spoken to his Commanding General once in 70 days!

We have men dying in battle, and yet, Obama has only talked to his HAND PICKED Commanding General in the field once before last week! And that was during Obama’s mission for his Chicago buddies to Copenhagen.

That’s right, we have multiple domestic problems, sky high unemployment, a failed $1 trillion “stimulus package”, the world wants to drop the dollar as the standard currency, and we are fighting two wars, and yet, Obama has time to spend, and well over a million taxpayer dollars, to not only ship the First Lady and the Oprah over to Copenhagen, but take a second plane over for himself, with Chuck Schumer, and a host of Chicago hopefuls to further embarrass America on the world stage. Obama’s “look at me” dog and pony show was just pathetic, and maybe the only transparent thing he has done since taking office!

I mean even a blind man could see this was nothing more than Obama trying to bring in a bunch of money to line the pockets of his corrupt Chicago friends. This thing would have seen corruption on a biblical scale!

But, Obama, our great “Commander-in-Chief” was gracious enough to find a whole twenty-five minutes to speak with General McChrystal on the trip back. How nice.

Obama is working night and day, using every resource available to the White House in order to pass his unconstitutional ObamaCare fiasco, something that America has loudly rejected as a whole. But is dragging his feet on something that is actually important to the nation, and the rest of the world.

Now we all know why Obama wants ObamaCare. It totally usurps the Constitution, totally destroys states’ rights, and goes a long way toward setting up an all powerful centralized government. A communist state. This has been the left’s dream since before FDR!

Americans do not want this, they want Obama and Congress to stop the nonsense, throw the entire thing in the trash, and start over, using common sense.

America also wants to win these wars!

Let’s forget, for a moment, what a loss would do to the United States, as far as legitimacy as a leader in the world. The world’s only true super power. Let’s also not forget that a loss would be the biggest recruiting tool for al Qaeda and the Taliban one could imagine.

Remember, the folks who make these groups up were also responsible for defeating the mighty Soviet Union. If we lose this war, the fragile Afghan government will fall, and you’ll have chaos and a breeding ground for terrorists on a scale the world has never known.

Oh, and don’t forget, Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons, could easily fall as well. Wouldn’t that be terrific!

Forget all of that for a moment.

If we lose this war, America’s legacy won’t just be a terrorist controlled super state, with nuclear weapons. OK, that will be part of America’s legacy, but the real legacy for Barack Obama, and America will be the human rights disaster. Before America liberated the Afghan people, the Taliban ruled with an iron fist.

Now I know “progressives” lose their mind if you even mention God in public, in America, and equate it to some mediaeval torture! This percieved horror by the left is nothing compared to what the Taliban, and al Qaeda do. These people really are the religious fanatics, the made up caricatures, the left has conjured up of Christians.

The Taliban and al Qaeda accept no deviation, by anyone, from their perverted version of Islam. You don’t comply, you die! Now one would think, our leftist friends would be all over these monsters who don’t practice “separation of church and state,” nor even grasp the concept, but alas, they are not.

Under Taliban and al Qaeda rule, women are basically property. They serve little or no purpose, to them, and have absolutely no rights. The US, if it did nothing else, liberated 10’s of millions of Afghan women. That’s no small deed. These women were little more than slaves. Girls were not even allowed to have an education!

“Progressives” tell you they are for women’s rights, now is their chance to step up and prove it!

For all of the reasons we cannot lose this war, the human tragedy that would occur is at the top of the list.

We need a leader, not a glorified pitch man!

Mr President, it’s time to stop the madness. Stop the lunacy of ObamaCare, stop “jet setting” around the world. Stop all of the nonsense. It is time for you to actually go to work. Have someone show you where your office is, then roll up your sleeves and get going!

You hand picked General McChrystal to run this war, and you approved his mission. It was a good choice.

Now the General is giving you a list of tools he needs to carry this plan out. Stop voting “present.” It’s time to be the Commander-in-Chief, one of the duties that is actually spelled out in that Constitution you have such little regard for.

Maybe the Great Ronald Reagan, and his stance on the Soviet Union, can be of some guidance to you. President Reagan’s philosophy on the Soviets can be boiled down to this: “We win, they lose!”

Mr President, you owe this to the American people, you owe this to the Afghan people, and you owe this to the rest of the free world. Time to put away the trappings of office, and the foolish playthings it allows you.

It’s time for you to lead!

In your leadership, the American people will be right beside you.

Sarah Palin: Going Rogue Number One In Sales UPDATED!

In less than 12 hours after Barnes & Noble first offered “Going Rogue: An American Life,” Sarah Palin’s brand new book, for pre-publication sales, it has hit number one on their chart!

The book is currently number two on Amazon.com. Amazon, for some reason, was many hours behind the curve, and didn’t have the book linked. This allowed Barnes & Noble to get the early sales, and the book to reach number one on their charts a lot sooner.

**** Updated! As of 5:15 PM “Going Rogue: An American Life” is now the number one best seller at Amazon.com! ****

This new book, so new that it doesn’t even have a cover design yet, has generated serious buzz. Easily the most anticipated book of the year, Palin and her publisher HarperCollins surprised everyone when they announced that Sarah had finished her book already and the launch date had been moved to November 17 from it’s original Spring 2010 time period.

From Fox News

NEW YORK- That was fast.

Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate, has finished her memoir just four months after the book deal was announced, and the release date has been moved up from the spring to Nov. 17, her publisher said.

“Governor Palin has been unbelievably conscientious and hands-on at every stage, investing herself deeply and passionately in this project,” said Jonathan Burnham, publisher of Harper. “It’s her words, her life, and it’s all there in full and fascinating detail.”

Palin’s book, her first, will be 400 pages, said Burnham, who called the fall “the best possible time for a major book of this kind.”

The book now has a title, one fitting for a public figure known for the unexpected — “Going Rogue: An American Life.”

Harper, an imprint of HarperCollins, has commissioned a huge first printing of 1.5 million copies. Sen. Ted Kennedy’s “True Compass,” published by Twelve soon after his Aug. 25 death, also had a 1.5 million first printing.

As with the Kennedy book, the digital edition of Palin’s memoir will not be released at the same time as the hardcover. “Going Rogue” will not be available as an e-book until Dec. 26 because “we want to maximize hardcover sales over the holidays,” Harper spokeswoman Tina Andreadis said Monday.

Publishers have been concerned that e-books, rapidly becoming more popular, might take away sales from hardcover editions, which are more expensive.

Palin, who abruptly resigned as Alaska governor over the summer with more than a year left in her first term, has been an object of fascination since Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, chose her as his running mate.

Although Democrat Barack Obama won the election and Palin was criticized even by some Republicans for being inexperienced, she remains a favorite among conservatives and is a rumored contender for 2012. Interest in her is so high that a fan recently paid $63,500 to have dinner with her, part of an Internet auction for a charity that aids wounded veterans.

Palin, 45, spent weeks in San Diego shortly after leaving office and worked on the manuscript with collaborator Lynn Vincent, a person close to her said. She was joined in San Diego by her family and her top aide, Meghan Stapleton, then spent several weeks in New York working around the clock with editors at Harper, said the person, who wasn’t authorized to comment and asked not to be identified.

We knew Sarah was a hard worker, but oh my goodness, she didn’t let any time go to waste!

This also answers the question of those who wondered why she had been “heard (on Facebook) but not seen.” It’s obvious though, after her great Hong Kong speech, and this announcement, that things are about to change on that front!

The synopsis of the book of the book reads as follows:

Sarah Palin burst onto the political scene at the height of the 2008 presidential campaign and overnight became a national sensation. Adored by the right, bitterly reviled by the left, she is the most polarizing figure to emerge in American politics in decades. Yet for all the dirt digging and gossip that has surrounded her, very little is actually known about who she is, what she believes, and above all, about her plans for the future. In her new book, Sarah Palin tells the story of her Alaskan upbringing, her marriage and family life, her political career, her religious beliefs, and her meteoric rise to national prominence. With her customary blunt common sense, she sets the record straight about the many myths and lies that have been spun around her and lays out her vision for an America that is strong, independent, and free.

We all knew this would be an autobiographical book, but it’s the last sentence that is intriguing and will sell the books! America is hungry for a true leader. The first person to come up with a real vison to get the nation back on track will most certainly shoot to the head of the pack.

Sarah started laying things out in her Hong Kong speech. It was a policy speech full of solid ideas, the book obviously looks to expand on that.

HarperCollins has ordered an initial printing 1.5 million. Currently, Sarah has 905,787 Facebook friends, and this increases every hour, on the hour. One can bet that most will buy, at minimum, one book, with many planning these as Christmas presents, and buying multiple books. I think we’re going to need more books!

Rush Limbaugh offered his thoughts:

The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund had some interesting insight on the behind the scenes goings on, and pretty much confirms what we already knew about the inept McCain campaign:

Sarah Palin may no longer be governor of Alaska, but she’s certainly destined to become a best-selling author. HarperCollins, her publisher, has announced the print-run of her memoir will be a staggering 1.5 million copies — equal to the print-run of Senator Ted Kennedy’s posthumous autobiography published this month. Publishing sources tell me that such a giant run is only ordered up when there is clear evidence from booksellers and surveys of massive interest in a book.

The book, which will be published on November 17, was a crash project. Ms. Palin actually moved temporarily to San Diego after she resigned the governorship in July so she could be close to her collaborator, Lynn Vincent. I bumped into Ms. Vincent, a former editor at the Christian-oriented World magazine, in New York a few weeks ago, where she had parked herself in a hotel close to the offices of HarperCollins while working on the book’s final edits.

Ms. Vincent didn’t reveal any details about the book, but did acknowledge it will describe Ms. Palin’s frustration over her treatment by the staffers she inherited from the McCain campaign after her surprise pick as the GOP vice presidential nominee last year. Ms. Palin was booked on grueling interviews with hostile reporters while talk-show hosts such as Glenn Beck couldn’t even get through to her aides. Mr. Beck tells me he was stunned when he picked up the phone one day just before the election to discover Sarah Palin was on the other end of the line. “She explained that she had been blocked from reaching her audience, so she was now ‘going rogue’ and booking her own interviews,” Mr. Beck told me. “I was thrilled she had burst out of the cage they’d built for her and we were finally talking.”

That incident was the only time Ms. Palin declared her independence from her keepers, and it’s fitting that the title of her upcoming book will be “Going Rogue: An American Life.”

This was a brilliant move for the Arctic Fox, and not just for sales of her book. As all big books require a book tour, and a round of interviews on all of the top shows, Sarah will be laying out her vision for America at a time it is sorely needed. At the same time, she will be starting her effort to go and campaign for like minded candidates for the 2010 elections.

Brilliant timing, and we expected no less from Sarah Palin!

Despicable: Barack Obama Orders Pensions Cut Off To WWII Veterans

Once again, Barack Obama proves he is not fit to serve as commander-in-chief to our armed forces. In a continuing despicable act, Obama is refusing to honor WWII veterans who fought for our nation in it’s darkest hours.

From the McClatchy News Service:

WASHINGTON — In a strongly worded message to Congress outlining its priorities for a military spending bill, the Obama administration today said it disapproved of including money for pensions for 26 elderly members of the World War II-era Alaska Territorial Guard.

The Guardsmen are among those assigned to protect Alaska from the Japanese during World War II.

The Army decided this year to no longer count service in the Guard in calculating the military’s 20-year minimum for retirement pay, although it still counts for military benefits. As a result, their pensions were decreased in January.

An estimated 300 members are still living from the original 6,600-member unit formed in 1942 to protect Alaska, then a territory, from attack. The 26 men have enough other military service to reach the 20-year minimum for retirement pay but would lose it if the Territorial Guard service doesn’t count.

A Senate military spending bill up for a vote in the Senate allows the former Guard members count their service as part of active military duty, and it reinstates the payments.

State lawmakers passed a bill earlier this year to fill the pay gap until Congress made a permanent fix, but the White House said Friday it didn’t think it was “appropriate to establish a precedent of treating service performed by a state employee as active duty for purposes of the computation of retired pay.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who along with Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, sponsored the fix, called the administration move “deeply disappointing, bordering on insensitive.” The legislation honors 26 elderly Native people who are the few remaining survivors of a military unit that served the country with valor, Murkowski said.

“The administration’s justification, which is that the legislation will set the precedent of treating service as a state employee as federal service, defies logic and history,” she said in a statement. “Sixty-two years after the Territorial Guard was disbanded, the Obama administration minimizes the contribution of this gallant unit to America’s success in World War II by calling its service ‘state service.’ “

This is beyond the pale, and just shows Obama’s continual disregard for what has made America the greatest nation on earth. To diminish these brave Alaska Natives as “state employees” is to diminish all of the brave men and women who served their nation in all sorts of ways during WWI.

For those that don’t know, the Japanese attacked and invaded Alaska’s Aleutian Islands at the same time the battle of Midway was about to take place. It was part diversion, part payback for Doolittle’s bombing of Tokyo.

Above: Japanese bombing of Dutch Harbor, 4 June 1942…

Historical Photo – Public Domain: Naval Historical Center

Department of the United States Navy

Above: Japanese transport burning after U.S. air attack on Kiska Harbor, 18 June 1942…

Historical Photo – Public Domain; Naval Historical Center

Department of the United States Navy

This was a tragic bit of history for Alaskans, more of which you can read here and here.

From Wikipedia:

The Alaska Territorial Guard (ATG) or Eskimo Scouts was a military reserve force component of the US Army, organized in 1942 in response to attacks on American soil in Hawaii and Alaska by Japan during World War II. The ATG operated until 1947. 6,368 volunteers who served without pay were enrolled from 107 communities throughout Alaska in addition to a paid staff of 21, according to an official roster.

The ATG brought together for the first time into a joint effort members of these ethnic groups: Aleut, Athabaskan, European American, Inupiaq, Haida, Tlingit, Tsimshian, Yupik, and most likely others. In later years, all members of some native units scored expert sharpshooter rankings. Among the 27 or more women members were at least one whose riflery skills exceeded the men. The ages of members at enrollment ranged from 80 years old to as young as twelve. (both extremes occurring mostly in sparsely populated areas)

Two things stick out in my mind. One, these 6,368 Alaskan Territorial Guards, of which the 26 men being denied by Barack Obama are part of, served their nation during war time, for NO PAY.

Second, the situation was so dire that old men and children all pitched in.

You can read more here.

Another historic perspective can be read here:

The Alaska Territorial Guard: A Debt of Honor Unpaid. As this article points out towards the end:

In 2000, largely due to efforts by former Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens, a bill was signed into law ordering the Secretary of Defense to issue Honorable Discharges to all members of the Alaska Territorial Guard. The bill was intended to repay the debt of honor we as a nation owe these people, these Americans, and provided many of the surviving members (now in their 80’s and many living far below the poverty line) with retirement pay and survivor’s benefits and medial care.

However history views Ted Stevens it must be noted that he was largely responsible for righting a dishonorable and inexcusable injustice. However, the story of the ATG doesn’t end there – most of the elderly surviving members of the ATG live in remote and inaccessible locations. Finding them was long and difficult.

In 2003 Colonel Bob Goodman USA(ret), undertook the effort to find and assist the remaining members of the ATG, at first funded by the state and later out of his own pocket. So far he and his people have located over 150 former members of the ATG, and they estimate there are several hundred more – and they continue their efforts to this very day.

Many of those located in the last five years have since died of old age. For those who remain, the benefits provided aren’t much, some medical care and a couple hundred dollars a month, but for folks who now live far below the poverty line in villages where gasoline costs more than $10 per gallon – those benefits mean the difference between life and death.

Those benefits, that mere pittance in retirement pay, would seem to be the least we can do for those forgotten veterans of that long ago conflict.

It would seem to be the very least we could do.

But it’s not.

It turns out we could actually do less.

It turns out that the Army could suddenly decide, say yesterday in fact, to reinterpret the law to read that these men and women of the Alaska Territorial Guard, these men and woman who came to defend our nation in its time of need, these men and women who fought bravely for a flag not even their own, who built the roads and the airfields and the hospitals and the bridges and who rescued downed airmen and stranded sailors and braved the cold and the isolation and the horror of war – these men and women – are not, in fact, entitled to even that small effort.

That’s right. The Army has decided to cut off retirement pay for the twenty-six surviving members of the ATG. Twenty-six, and applications from thirty-seven more identified by Colonel Bob Goodwin and his people have been suspended. Apparently we can not afford to take care of even this small handful of people, this small handful of veterans, this small handful of Alaskans, this small handful of Americans.

However, in a good hearted move, the Army will not seek to recoup past payments.

Big of them, wouldn’t you say?

It goes without saying that this issue has been boiling for some time. Senator Stevens indeed had worked to get these brave WWII veterans, these brave Native Americans, their due.

In what some might say was odd timing, or Chicago style politics, just two days after Barack Obama had taken the Oath of Office as Commander-In-Chief, ABC News reported:

The Army has decided to cut off retirement pay for veterans of a largely Native militia formed to guard the territory of Alaska from the threat of Japanese attack during World War II.

The change means 26 surviving members of the Alaska Territorial Guard — most in their 80s and long retired — will lose as much as $557 in monthly retirement pay, a state veterans officer said Thursday. The payments end Feb. 1.

Applications for retirement pay from 37 others have been suspended.

The state is pursuing a remedy for “these brave Alaskans, who did so much for the cause of freedom during a time of great national peril,” Gov. Sarah Palin said.

The action comes almost a decade after Congress passed a law qualifying time served in the unpaid guard as active federal service. The Army agreed in 2004 to grant official military discharge certificates to members or their survivors.

An Army official said the law was misinterpreted. The law applies to military benefits, including medical benefits, but not retirement pay, said Lt. Col. Richard McNorton, with the Army’s human resources command in Alexandria, Va.

“The focus is to follow the law,” he said. “We can’t choose whether to follow the law.”

The Army doesn’t intend to seek to recoup past pay, he said.

About 300 members are still living from the original 6,600-member unit called up from 1942 to 1947 to scout patrols, build military airstrips and perform other duties. But only a fraction had enough other military service to reach the 20-year requirement for retirement pay.

Among those who did is 88-year-old Paul Kiunya in the western Alaska village of Kipnuk. Kiunya was 16 when he joined the territorial guard and worked in communications, reporting by radio any unusual noises or the direction of aircraft, including some Japanese planes he spotted.

“We did not get one cent being in the territorial guard,” he said. “And we worked hard.”

Kiunya — who later put in 22 years in the National Guard and another decade in the Guard reserves — will lose more than $358 a month in his retirement package because of the Army’s decision. With gasoline in his village at almost $10 a gallon, that’s a huge amount to lose.

For her part, Governor Sarah Palin, in her role as Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska Defense Force, the modern day equivalent to the Territorial Guard, signed SB 89 which funded, these pensions until 2010.

For those that don’t know, the Alaska Defense Force is a federally recognized state militia, that trains as an auxiliary police force, as well as a military defense force, and is part of Homeland Security’s readiness plan, and is under the command of the Governor of Alaska.

This situation is incredibly disturbing. All indications are these brave WWII veterans served Alaska and the nation with honor. To purposely cut these aged men off, in the twilight of their lives, goes against everything America stands for. In fact, as this cuts off not only a substantial part of their paycheck, but other benefits, such as medical, one might even say this is sort of a death panel, especially knowing that winter is coming, and heating fuel is quite expensive in Alaska.

I can’t speculate what makes Barack Obama such a heartless and cruel man. I do know that once again, Obama’s radical, communist upbringing has shown it’s self front and center. Obama must really hate America, and Americans to pull a stunt like this.

Obama should be ashamed of himself, but I fear that is an emotion he is incapable of.

What can you do?

You can call your Senators and Congressmen and tell them that this dog just don’t hunt! Tell them cutting off pay to these brave WWII veterans is inhumane and un-American. Our veterans deserve better.

You can also call Barack Obama at the White House: (202) 456-1414

Tell Obama this cannot stand. Tell Obama this will not stand!

Sarah Palin Rocks Hong Kong

As expected, Sarah Palin made a worldwide splash with her speech at the 16^th Annual CLSA Investor’s Forum. According to CLSA’s website it was standing room only with over 1100 institutional fund managers and heads of leading Asian, Australian and US corporations.

Reports are Sarah received a lengthy standing ovation at the end of her speech. It’s also reported that a couple of whiny liberals left before she was finished., I guess they couldn’t handle the truth! They also wouldn’t go on the record. No guts, no glory!

In his introduction, CLSA Chairman and CEO, Jonathan Slone, quoted President Eisenhower on the responsibilities of citizens in a democratic society to debate issues that matter.

Following her remarks, Governor Palin responded to questions from CLSA’s clients.

You know how one knows this thing was a home run? The New York Times ran a fair story about Sarah’s speech without an ounce of snark! I imagine Maureen Dowd had a stroke!

From the New York Times:

HONG KONG — Sarah Palin, in what was billed as her first speech overseas, spoke on Wednesday to Asian bankers,investors and fund managers.

A number of people who heard the speech in a packed hotel ballroom, which was closed to the media, said Mrs. Palin spoke from notes for 90 minutes and that she was articulate, well-prepared and even compelling.

“The speech was wide-ranging, very balanced, and she beat all expectations,” said Doug A. Coulter, head of private equity in the Asia-Pacific region for LGT Capital Partners.

“She didn’t sound at all like a far-right-wing conservative. She seemed to be positioning herself as a libertarian or a small-c conservative,” he said, adding that she mentioned both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. “She brought up both those names.”

Of course, the comparison’s of Sarah Palin to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher are inevitable We’ve done it ourselves. No less than Michael Reagan, son of the great Renaldus Magnus, has compared the two favorably as well, as he did in his piece: “Welcome Back Dad.”

Last December, writing in the Wall Street Journal, John O’Sullivan wrote a piece called “Conservative Snobs Are Wrong About Palin.” In his article, he compares Sarah favorable to Lady Thatcher, and cites Sarah’s executive experience as a major reason for why she will be successful on the larger stage. It should be noted that O’Sullivan was a special adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Now let’s be honest. Sarah Palin is not Ronald Reagan, or Maggie Thatcher. Sarah is her own person, with her own ideas, and her own brand of conservatism. But Reagan was a huge influence on her, and as Reagan and Thatcher really dominated the world stage in their day, I’m sure some of that interaction made an impression on a young Sarah Palin.

“Common sense conservatism” was a common theme from those that heard her speech.

Here’s the reason why everyone and their uncle compares Sarah Palin favorably to Ronald Reagan. Like Reagan, Sarah Palin is strong, and unwavering in her beliefs. She will tell you what she thinks, straight up, just like Reagan. And like Reagan, Sarah says what she means, and means what she says.

Sarah also articulates conservatism, real conservatism better than anyone out there today. This too is something she shares with Reagan, along with an unabashed love for America, and an unbridled optimism. Reagan’s optimism was key to his success. Reagan, like Sarah, was a realist, he knew we had issues, but at the end of the day, He knew America had it in her to shine. You hear that same spirit in Sarah Palin every time she speaks.

So fairly, or unfairly, this is why the two are always compared, and compared favorable. As a recent Rasmussen poll pointed out, “being like Ronald Reagan” is the only positive political description that voters care about. It’s the gold standard that all conservatives are judged by.

More from the Times:

Cameron Sinclair, another speaker at the event, said Mrs. Palin emphasized the need for a grassroots rebirth of the Republican Party driven by party leaders outside Washington.

A number of attendees thought Mrs. Palin, the former vice presidential candidate, was using the speech to begin to broaden her foreign policy credentials before making a run for the presidency in 2012.

“She’s definitely a serious future presidential candidate, and I understand why she plays so well in middle America,” said Mr. Coulter, a Canadian.

And this from a New Yorker and an Obama supporter who attended:

Melvin Goodé, a regional marketing consultant, thought Mrs. Palin chose Hong Kong because, he said, it was “a place where things happen and where freedom can be expanded upon.”

“It’s not Beijing or Shanghai,” said Mr. Goodé . “She also mentioned Tibet, Burma and North Korea in the same breath as places where China should be more sensitive and careful about how people are treated. She said it on a human-rights level.”

Mr. Goodé, an African-American who said he did some campaign polling for President Obama, said Mrs. Palin mentioned President Obama three times on Wednesday.

“And there was nothing derogatory in it, no sleight of hand, and believe me, I was listening for that,” he said, adding that Mrs. Palin referred to Mr. Obama as “our president,” with the emphasis on “our.”

Mr. Goodé, a New Yorker who said he would never vote for Mrs. Palin, said she acquitted herself well.

“She was articulate and she held her own. I give her credit. They’ve tried to categorize her as not being bright. She’s bright.”

Appearing Wednesday night “On The Record” with Greta Van Susteren, Wall Street Journal’s Asia page editor Mary Kissel, who was in Hong Kong, told Greta that Sarah’s appearance generated the most interest in the forum’s 16 year history. That the media even followed her to the airport as she was leaving the country.

Speaking of which, the Wall Street Journal, had this to say:

The former vice presidential candidate understands Beijing better than the Obama Administration does.

The Journal added:

Sarah Palin was pounded by the media as a foreign-policy novice during last year’s presidential campaign. But when it comes to the U.S. approach toward China, she has ideas worth listening to.

“Twenty years ago, many believed that as China liberalized its economy, greater political freedom would naturally follow,” the former Alaska governor and Republican nominee for the vice presidency told a Hong Kong audience yesterday. “Unfortunately that has not come to pass.”

Mrs. Palin sees China’s authoritarian nature as a security concern for the U.S. and its allies in Asia-Pacific, and she has a point. North Korea, Burma and other rogue regimes couldn’t sustain themselves without Chinese support. Not to mention the hundreds of missiles Beijing has pointed at Taiwan and its navy’s increasingly muscular attitude in the South China Sea. “How many books and articles have been written about the dangers of India’s rise?” she asked.

The solution, she argues, is to encourage political change from within China—a movement that regained momentum last year with the launch of Charter 08, a democratic manifesto.

Such developments, she argued, are in everyone’s interest. “The more politically open and just China is, the more Chinese citizens of every ethnicity will settle disputes in courts rather than on the streets,” she said. The more open China is, “the less we will be concerned about its military buildup and intentions.”

Mrs. Palin also espoused the value of alliances with like-minded democratic countries in the region such as Japan, Australia and India. The U.S. “can, must and should” work with China to address issues of “mutual concern,” she said. “But we also need to work with our allies in addressing the uncertainties created by China’s rise.”

The Obama Administration could take a page from this book. So far, the White House has gone out of its way to downplay human rights in China and tiptoe around recent crackdowns in Tibet and Xinjiang, preferring to focus on hipper issues like climate change. This “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to Beijing does no favors to the Chinese people, much less to the West’s core interests in Asia. At the same time, America’s other alliances in the region have been largely ignored.

Mrs. Palin also made a timely call against trade protectionism—an issue that will be high on the U.S.-China agenda this week at the Group of 20 meeting in Pittsburgh. She spoke up for the U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement, now stalled in the U.S. Congress. She also called the Obama Administration’s decision to slap a 35% duty on Chinese tires a “mistake,” while adding that China needed to respect intellectual property rights and “improve its rule of law.” Again, she made the connection with human-rights: “Our economic relationship will truly thrive when Chinese citizens and foreign corporations can hold the Chinese government accountable.”

Mrs. Palin’s speech will almost surely be dismissed by her critics as a scripted exercise. What we heard was a balanced and realistic view of China, founded on universal values that Westerners and Chinese alike can believe in.

Appearing on Sean Hannity’s “Great American Panel” Wednesday Night, famed Notre Dame coach Lou Holtz has this to say:

“Sarah Palin excites me. She stands for something.”

Holtz went on to expand on this, noting that Ronald Reagan’s successes came from standing for something, and that this recent tendency to “moderate” the message in an attempt to draw people in is a mistake. This echoes what we have been saying for a long time. Be who you are, true to your school. Reagan had the same conservative message for every single American.

People want someone who stands for something, believes in something. Those are the people we know we can trust. Those are the people we know will never, ever waver under pressure.

Sarah herself, recognizing folks wanted to hear a little bit of what she had to say in her address, released excerpts of her speech on her Facebook page, which we covered here.

Having read the excerpts from her speech, it’s simple to say this was some serious red meat, a nice, thick, grilled ribeye steak with garlic mashed potatoes and some veggies on the side, in fact! A good solid meal that was very filling.

It’s going to be a lot of fun watching Sarah Palin out there being Sarah Palin. For long time Palinistas, this is the Sarah Palin we liked before it was really cool to like Sarah Palin!

Airport photo courtesy Asia Media, Speech photos courtesy CLSA.

Sarah Palin: My Thoughts From Hong Kong

As a lot of people have been interested in what Sarah Palin had to say in Hong Kong to the CLSA Investors Summit, she has posted some excerpts on her Facebook page.

Many have asked to see my remarks as presented in Hong Kong. Here is an excerpt.

___Sarah Palin

So far, I’ve given you the view from Main Street, USA. But now I’d like to share with you how a Common Sense Conservative sees the world at large.

Later this year, we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall – an event that changed not just Europe but the entire world. In a matter of months, millions of people in formerly captive nations were freed to pursue their individual and national ambitions.

The competition that defined the post World War II era was suddenly over. What was once called “the free world” had so much to celebrate – the peaceful end to a great power rivalry and the liberation of so many from tyranny’s grip.

Some, you could say, took the celebration too far. Many spoke of a “peace dividend,” of the need to focus on domestic issues and spend less time, attention and money on endeavors overseas. Many saw a peaceful future, where globalization would break down borders and lead to greater global prosperity. Some argued that state sovereignty would fade – like that was a good thing? – that new non-governmental actors and old international institutions would become dominant in the new world order.

As we all know, that did not happen. Unfortunately, there was no shortage of warning signs that the end of the Cold War did not mean the end of history or the end of conflict. In Europe, the breakup of Yugoslavia resulted in brutal wars in the Balkans. In the Middle East, a war was waged to reverse Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. North Korea’s nuclear program nearly led to military conflict. In Africa, U.S. embassies were bombed by a group called al Qaeda.

Two weeks ago, America commemorated the 8th anniversary of the savagery of September 11, 2001. The vicious terrorist attacks of that day made clear that what happened in lands far distant from American shores directly affect our security. We came to learn, if we did not know before, that there were violent fanatics who sought not just to kill innocents, but to end our way of life. Their attacks have not been limited to the United States.

They attacked targets in Europe, North Africa and throughout the Middle East. Here in Asia, they killed more than 200 in a single attack in Bali. They bombed the Marriott Hotel and the Australian Embassy in Jakarta. Last year in Mumbai, more than 170 were killed in coordinated attacks in the heart of India’s financial capital. In this struggle with radical Islamic extremists, no part of the world is safe from those who bomb, maim and kill in the service of their twisted vision.

This war – and that is what it is, a war – is not, as some have said, a clash of civilizations. We are not at war with Islam. This is a war within Islam, where a small minority of violent killers seeks to impose their view on the vast majority of Muslims who want the same things all of us want: economic opportunity, education, and the chance to build a better life for themselves and their families. The reality is that al Qaeda and its affiliates have killed scores of innocent Muslim men, women and children.

The reality is that Muslims from Algeria, Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan and many other countries are fighting al Qaeda and their allies today. But this will be a long war, and it will require far more than just military power to prevail. Just as we did in the Cold War, we will need to use all the tools at our disposal – hard and soft power. Economic development, public diplomacy, educational exchanges, and foreign assistance will be just as important as the instruments of military power.

During the election campaign in the U.S. last year, you might have noticed we had some differences over Iraq. John McCain and I believed in the strength of the surge strategy – because of its success, Iraq is no longer the central front in the war on terrorism. Afghanistan is. Afghanistan is where the 9/11 attacks were planned and if we are not successful in Afghanistan, al Qaeda will once again find safe haven there. As a candidate and in office, President Obama called Afghanistan the “necessary war” and pledged to provide the resources needed to prevail. However, prominent voices in the Democratic Party are opposing the additional U.S. ground forces that are clearly needed.

Speaker of the House Pelosi, Defense Subcommittee Chairman Murtha, the Senate Armed Services Committee Chair, and many others, recently expressed doubts about sending additional forces! President Obama will face a decision soon when the U.S. Commander in Afghanistan requests additional forces to implement his new counterinsurgency strategy.

We can win in Afghanistan by helping the Afghans build a stable representative state able to defend itself. And we must do what it takes to prevail. The stakes are very high. Last year, in the midst of the U.S. debate over what do to in Iraq, an important voice was heard – from Asia’s Wise Man, former Singaporean Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, who wrote in the Washington Post about the cost of retreat in Iraq. In that article, he prophetically addressed the stakes in Afghanistan. He wrote:

“The Taliban is again gathering strength, and a Taliban victory in Afghanistan or Pakistan would reverberate throughout the Muslim world. It would influence the grand debate among Muslims on the future of Islam. A severely retrograde form of Islam would be seen to have defeated modernity twice: first the Soviet Union, then the United States. There would be profound consequences, especially in the campaign against terrorism.”

That statesman’s words remain every bit as true today. And Minister Lee knows, and I agree, that our success in Afghanistan will have consequences all over the world, including Asia. Our allies and our adversaries are watching to see if we have the staying power to protect our interests in Afghanistan. That is why I recently joined a group of Americans in urging President Obama to devote the resources necessary in Afghanistan and pledged to support him if he made the right decision.

That is why, even during this time of financial distress we need to maintain a strong defense. All government spending should undergo serious scrutiny. No programs or agencies should be automatically immune from cuts.

We need to go back to fiscal discipline and unfortunately that has not been the view of the current Administration. They’re spending everywhere and with disregard for deficits and debts and our future economic competitiveness. Though we are engaged in two wars and face a diverse array of threats, it is the defense budget that has seen significant program cuts and has actually been reduced from current levels!

First, the Defense Department received only ½ of 1 % of the nearly trillion dollar Stimulus Package funding – even though many military projects fit the definition of “shovel-ready.” In this Administration’s first defense budget request for 2010, important programs were reduced or cancelled. As the threat of ballistic missiles from countries like North Korea and Iran grow, missile defense was slashed.

Despite the need to move men and material by air into theaters like Afghanistan, the Obama Administration sought to end production of our C-17s, the work horse of our ability to project long range power. Despite the Air Force saying it would increase future risk, the Obama Administration successfully sought to end F-22 production – at a time when both Russia and China are acquiring large numbers of next generation fighter aircraft. It strikes me as odd that Defense Secretary Gates is the only member of the Cabinet to be tasked with tightening his belt.

Now in the region I want to emphasize today: The reason I speak about defense is because our strong defense posture in Asia has helped keep the region safe and allowed it to prosper. Our Asian allies get nervous if they think we are weakening our security commitments. I worry about defense cuts not because I expect war but because I so badly want peace. And the region has enjoyed peace for so long because of our security commitment to our longstanding allies and partners.

Asia has been one of the world’s great success stories. It is a region where America needs to assist with right mix of hard and soft power. While I have so much hope for a bright future in Asia, in a region this dynamic, we must always be prepared for other contingencies. We must work at this – work with our allies to ensure the region’s continued peace and prosperity.

I know that you all — like all of Asia and indeed the whole world – has a keen interest in the emergence of “China as a great power.” Over the past few decades China’s economic growth has been remarkable. So has the economic growth and political liberalization of all of our key allies in Asia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Asia’s economic growth and political development, together with our forward military presence in the region and strong alliances, have allowed the region to prosper in peace for a long time. We hope that Asia will continue to be an engine of world economic growth, will continue to democratize and will remain at peace.

Our future is now deeply linked to Asia’s success. Our children’s future. We must continue to strengthen our key alliance with Japan, a country going through its own democratic change. Together the U.S. and Japan built the security umbrella under which so many Asians prospered. While there is so much attention to China these days, we cannot forget the importance of Japan in helping to make this the “Pacific Century.”

The recent elections in Japan demonstrated that voters wanted reform and an end to debt and stagnation. We have a substantial stake in Japan’s success — our alliance with must continue to be the linchpin of regional security.

With its open political system and vibrant democracy, South Korea wants to play a larger role on the international stage as well. Of course it wants us to work together toward a future where the peninsula is irreversibly denuclearized, and unified. But it also wants to play a global role. We need to work together with Japan, South Korea and our steadfast ally to the south, Australia, to make sure Asia remains peaceful and prosperous.

Australia rightly reminds us to keep our eye on Southeast Asia, where Indonesia has proved that Islam and democracy can co-exist. Indonesia has fought extremism inside its own border and is consolidating a multi-ethnic democracy that is home to hundreds of millions of Muslims. Those who say Islam and democracy are incompatible insult our friends in Indonesia.

Our great democratic friend India is also “looking East”, seeking a greater role in East Asia as well. Together with our allies we must help integrate India into Asia. If we do so we will have yet another strong democracy driving Asia’s economy and working on shared problems such as proliferation and extremism. And we must continue working with the region’s most dynamic economy, China. We all hope that China’s stated policy of a “Peaceful Rise” will be its future course.

You know better than most the enormous change that has taken place in China over the last thirty years. Hundreds of millions of Chinese have been pulled out of poverty as China has undertaken economic reforms that have resulted in unprecedented growth. Even today, China’s economy is projected to grow by some 8%. It is helping to edge the world out of recession.

China has amassed huge financial reserves. Chinese diplomats are engaged on every continent and, through its vote on the United Nations Security Council, China has become critical in gaining UN support on multilateral issues from Darfur to Iran to North Korea.

Just four years ago, then-Deputy Secretary of State Bob Zoellick urged China to become a “responsible stakeholder” in the international system. He observed the many benefits to China of a “benign international environment.”

The peaceful regional environment that China has enjoyed was created through the hard work of Americans, Japanese, South Koreans and Australians. Secretary Zoellick urged China to step up and play its role too. We are working with China to de-nuclearize North Korea. But to be a responsible member of the international community China should exert greater pressure on North Korea to denuclearize and undergo the fundamental reforms it needs. Zoellick urged China to play a greater role in stabilizing the international energy market by ceasing its support of dangerous regimes.

China could play a role in stabilizing its ally Pakistan, and working for peace in Afghanistan. There are many areas where the U.S. and China can work together. And, we would welcome a China that wanted to assume a more responsible and active role in international politics.

But Secretary Zoellick also noted that many of China’s actions create risk and uncertainty. These uncertainties led nations to “hedge” their relations with China because, in Zoellick’s words: “Many countries HOPE China will pursue a ‘Peaceful Rise’ but NONE will bet their future on it.”

See: this is the heart of the issue with China: we engage with the hope Beijing becomes a responsible stakeholder, but we must takes steps in the event it does not. See? We all hope to see a China that is stable, peaceful, prosperous and free. But we must also work with our allies in the region and the world in the event China goes in a direction that causes regional instability.

Asia is at its best when it is not dominated by a single power. In seeking Asia’s continued peace and prosperity, we should seek, as we did in Europe, an Asia “whole and free” – free from domination by any one power, prospering in open and free markets, and settling political differences at ballot boxes and negotiating tables.

We can, must and should work with a “rising China” to address issues of mutual concern. But we also need to work with our allies in addressing the uncertainties created by China’s rise. We simply CANNOT turn a blind eye to Chinese policies and actions that can undermine international peace and security.

China has some 1000 missiles aimed at Taiwan and no serious observer believes Taiwan poses a military threat to Beijing. Those same Chinese forces make our friends in Japan and Australia nervous. China provides support for some of the world’s most questionable regimes from Sudan to Burma to Zimbabwe. China’s military buildup raises concerns from Delhi to Tokyo because it has taken place in the absence of any discernable external threat.

China, along with Russia, has repeatedly undermined efforts to impose tougher sanctions on Iran for its defiance of the international community in pursuing its nuclear program. The Chinese food and product safety record has raised alarms from East Asia and Europe to the United States. And, domestic incidents of unrest — from the protests of Uighurs and Tibetans, to Chinese workers throughout the country rightfully make us nervous.

It is very much in our interest and the interest of regional stability that China work out its own contradictions – between a dynamic and entrepreneurial private sector on the one hand and a one party state unwilling or unable to adjust to its own society’s growing needs and desires and demands, including a human being’s innate desire for freedom.

I do not cite these issues out of any hostility toward China. Quite the contrary, I and all Americans of good faith hope for the Chinese people’s success. We welcome the rise that can be so good for all mankind. We simply urge China to rise responsibly. I simply believe we cannot ignore areas of disagreement as we seek to move forward on areas of agreement. Believe me, China does not hesitate to tell us when it thinks we are in the wrong.

I mentioned China’s internal contradictions. They should concern us all. We hear many Chinese voices throughout that great country calling out for more freedom, and for greater justice. Twenty years ago, many believed that as China liberalized its economy, greater political freedom would naturally follow. Unfortunately that has not come to pass.

Ummm, in fact, it seems China has taken great pains to learn what it sees as “the lesson” of the fall on the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union: any easing of political constraints can inevitably spin out of control. But, in many ways, it is the essence of China’s political system that leads to concerns about its rise.

Think about it. How many books and articles have been written about the dangers of India’s rise? Almost as large as China – and soon to be more populous – virtually no one worries about the security implications of India becoming a great power – just as a century ago the then-preeminent power, Great Britain, worried little about the rise of America to great power status. My point is that the more politically open and just China is, the more Chinese citizens of every ethnicity will settle disputes in courts rather than on the streets. The more open it is, the less we will be concerned about its military build-up and intentions. The more transparent China is, the more likely it is they we will find a true and lasting friendship based on shared values as well as interests.

I am not talking about some U.S.-led “democracy crusade.” We cannot impose our values on other counties. Nor should we seek to. But the ideas of freedom, liberty and respect for human rights are not U.S. ideas, they are much more than that. They are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many other international covenants and treaties. They apply to citizens in Shanghai as much as they do to citizens in Johannesburg or Jakarta. And demands for liberty in China are Chinese, not American, demands. Just last year, many brave Chinese signed Charter 08, a Chinese document modeled on the great Czech statesman Vlacav Havel’s Charter 77. Charter 08 would not be unfamiliar to our Founding Fathers and was endorsed by Havel himself. No, we need not convince the Chinese people that they have inalienable rights. They are calling for those rights themselves. But we do have to worry about a China where the government suppresses the liberties its people hold dear.

Nothing of what I am saying should be seen as meaning conflict with China is inevitable. Quite the contrary. As I said, we welcome China’s responsible rise. America and China stood together against fascism during World War II, before ravages took over in China – we were ready to stand together with China to shape international politics after World War II. Much has been accomplished since President Nixon’s fateful visit. And again, we stand ready to work with what we hope will be a more open and responsible China on the challenges facing the 21st century.

All of you here know how deeply integrated the economies of the United States’ and China’s are. We rely on each other, sometimes unfortunately in unhealthy ways. America spends too much that we don’t have, and then we go to China as a lender of first resort. Our fiscal policy, lately, seems to be “tax, spend, borrow, tax some more, repeat” and then complain about how much debt China holds. America needs to gets its own fiscal house in order. That’s a Common Sense Conservative perspective. We can hardly complain that China holds so much of our debt when it’s over spending that created the debt.

But here’s the reality. If in fact the United States does the “right” thing – if we spend less and save more – then China will also have to rebalance its economy. We need to export more to China – and we’d like China to consume more of our goods – just as we need to save and invest more. This vital process – so crucial to both countries – is impeded by problems of market access.

We must talk about these issues with more candor. If China adopts policies that keep our highest value products out of their markets, by manipulating technical standards or licensing requirements, our economic relationship suffers.

Our economic interdependence drives our relationship with China. I see a future of more trade with China and more American high-tech goods in China. But in order for that to happen, we need China to improve its rule of law and protect our intellectual property. We need to avoid protectionism and China’s flirtation with state-assisted “national champions.” On our part, we should be more open to Chinese investment where our national security interests are not threatened. In the end, though, our economic relationship will truly thrive when Chinese citizens and foreign corporations can hold the Chinese government accountable when their actions are unjust.

I see a bright future for America in Asia. One based on the alliances that have gotten us this far, one based on free and open markets, one that integrates democratic India into East Asia’s political life and one in which China decides to be a responsible member of the international community and gives its people the liberty – the freedom – they so desperately want.

Sadly, however, our largest free trade agreement ever in Asia, with South Korea, sits frozen in the Congress. In contrast, China is behaving wisely in negotiating free trade agreements throughout Asia. We want an Asia open to our goods and services. But if we do not get our free trade act together, we will be shut out by agreements Asians our making among themselves.

All of you here follow global financial markets and economic policy closely, I know that it will come as no surprise to you that United States leadership on global trade and investment is being sorely tested at this moment.

We are struggling with a monumental debate on whether fiscal discipline, or massive government spending, will drive a sustained recovery. We are struggling to repair the excesses that grew in our own economy and served as a trigger to a catastrophic collapse in the global financial system. And we are attempting to do so under the weight of a global imbalance of debt and trade deficits that are not only unbearable for the world’s mightiest economy, but also unacceptable in that they foster tensions between global economic partners like the United States and China.

I am proud to be an American. As someone who has had the tremendous opportunity to travel throughout the United States and listen to the concerns of Americans in towns and cities across the country, I can tell you that there is a sense of despair and even crisis afoot in America that has the potential to shape our global investment and trade policies for years, and even decades to come. Never has the leadership of our government ever been more critical to keeping my country, and the world, on a path to openness, growth and opportunity in global trade and investment.

It would of course be a mistake to put the entire burden of restoring the global economy on the backs of America’s leaders. There is plenty of work for all of us to do in this matter. Governments around the world must resist the siren call of trade protection to bring short term relief during a time of crisis.

Those who use currency policy or subsidies to promote their nation’s exports should remain acutely aware that if there ever were a time in which such policies could be viewed as “tolerable,” that time has now passed. All participants who seek to find benefit in the global trading system must also take the responsibility of playing by the rules.

The private sector has responsibilities as well. For instance, it should not be the responsibility of government to dictate the salaries of bankers or the ownership of companies. And yet, due of the excesses committed by some, this is exactly where we find ourselves now because government now owns substantial portions of the private economy – even, unbelievably, in the United States.

These are challenging times for everyone, but we in the United States must humbly recognize that if we are to lead and to set the direction for the rest of the world, it must be by our example and not merely our words. And we must tread lightly when imposing new burdens on the imports of other countries.

Well, CLSA: My country is definitely at a crossroad. Polling in the U.S. shows a majority of Americans no longer believe that their children will have a better future than they have had…that is a 1st.

When members of America’s greatest generation – the World War II generation – lose their homes and their life savings because their retirement funds were wiped after the financial collapse, people feel a great anger. There is suddenly a growing sentiment to just “throw the bums out” of Washington, D.C. – and by bums they mean the Republicans and the Democrats. Americans are suffering from pay cuts and job losses, and they want to know why their elected leaders are not tightening their belts. It’s not lost on people that Congress voted to exempt themselves from the health care plan they are thrusting on the rest of the nation. There is a growing sense of frustration on Main Street. But even in the midst of crisis and despair, we see signs of hope.

In fact, it’s a sea change in America, I believe. Recently, there have been protests by ordinary Americans who marched on Washington to demand their government stop spending away their future. Large numbers of ordinary, middle-class Democrats, Republicans, and Independents from all over the country marching on Washington?! You know something’s up!

These are the same people who flocked to the town halls this summer to face their elected officials who were home on hiatus from that distant capital and were now confronted with the people they represent. Big town hall meetings – video clips circulating coverage – people watching, feeling not so alone anymore.

The town halls and the Tea Party movement are both part of a growing grassroots consciousness among ordinary Americans who’ve decided that if they want real change, they must take the lead and not wait to be led. Real change – and, you know, you don’t need a title to do it.

The “Tea Party Movement” is aptly named to remind people of the American Revolution – of colonial patriots who shook off the yoke of a distant government and declared their freedom from indifferent – elitist – rulers who limited their progress and showed them no respect. Today, Main Street Americans see Washington in similar terms.

When my country again achieves financial stability and economic growth – when we roar back to life as we shall do – it will be thanks in large part to the hard work and common sense of these ordinary Americans who are demanding that government spend less and tax less and allow the private sector to grow and prosper.

We’re not interested in government fixes; we’re interested in freedom! Freedom! Our vision is forward looking. People may be frustrated now, but we’re very hopeful too.

And, after all, why shouldn’t we be? We’re Americans. We’re always hopeful.

Thank you for letting me share some of that hope, and a view from Main Street with you. God Bless You.

__Sarah Palin

Being “Like Ronald Reagan” The Only Positive Political Description

“Progressive” is becoming more of a dirty word, but all political labels – except “being like Ronald Reagan” – are falling into disfavor with many U.S. voters, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

“Liberal” is still the worst and remains the only political description that is viewed more negatively than positively. Being like Reagan is still the most positive thing you can say about a candidate.

So says the latest Rasmussen polling on the subject. Now for conservatives, “like Ronald Reagan” has been the only acceptable position for a politician to have, for a long, long time.

I’m sure the David Frums, Peggy Noonans, Colin Powells, and Kathleen Parkers of the world are hyperventilating right about now, as they are the ones always telling us the “era of Reagan is over.” I guess they are wrong once again! Shocking, huh?

It’s been twenty years since the great Renaldus Magnus, as he is affectionately known, has sat in the Oval Office, so why is he just as appealing today as he was back in his prime? I think it’s because Reagan was such a strong leader and just a great man, but that is probably way too simplistic.

Ronald Reagan was part of the American consciousness for most of the last century. I won’t attempt to write a biography here – there are plenty out there for folks to read and enjoy – but some of the highlights of Reagan’s career and how we came to love the man are certainly something to talk about.

Reagan was an actor, and while some called him a “B-Movie Actor,” he also gave us one of the most memorable characters of all time when he played George Gipp in the movie “Knute Rockne, All American.” While the movie itself was about famed Notre Dame coach Knute Rockne, one of the most memorable performances was Ronald Reagan playing George Gipp. Gipp was a great football player who died too young of a strep infection.

Now I’m going to tell you something I’ve kept to myself for years. None of you ever knew George Gipp. He was long before your time, but you all know what a tradition he is at Notre Dame. And the last thing he said to me, “Rock,” he said, “sometime when the team is up against it and the breaks are beating the boys, tell them to go out there with all they’ve got and win just one for the Gipper. I don’t know where I’ll be then, Rock,” he said, “but I’ll know about it and I’ll be happy.”

Pat O’Brien as Knute Rockne

“Win one for the Gipper” became part of the American lexicon. As for Reagan, the Gipper nickname stuck and became just another affectionate name we know him by.

Reagan was much more than just an actor. though. He was President of the Screen Actors Guild and a solid spokesman. He was also a democrat, who famously said: “I didn’t leave the democrat party, the democrat party left me.”

And Reagan, who had a sharp wit, never missed the chance to have fun with that:

In fact, one of the things that we all loved about Ronald Reagan was his ability to speak well and deliver great one liners as well as funny stories.

But Reagan was more than a good line and a bright smile. Reagan was also someone who loved America with all of his heart. He saw America as a “shining city on a hill” the world’s last best hope. Reagan was always concerned that Americans understood our great gifts of freedom and kept a constant watch for things that would cause Americans to lose those freedoms.

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

Ronald Reagan

What really sets Reagan apart, at least for me, is how not only were his warnings appropriate for their time, but they can be applied to today’s events as well. In fact, it’s uncanny how the same things Ronald Reagan warned us about – communism and the slightly less oppressive socialism – are still real threats today.

For example, no one understood the danger to freedom and liberty that socialized medicine posed better than Ronald Reagan. Back in 1961, as they had been for decades, the democrat party was trying to shove socialized health care down an unwilling America’s throat. Reagan took part in the “Operation Coffee Cup Campaign” and went on a speaking tour, forcefully warning about the dangers of allowing the government to control health care.

Anyone who has actually read H.R. 3200, the most likely version of Obamacare to pass, knows Reagan was right then and even more right now! Obamacare is nothing less than a complete and total usurpation of the Constitution. It totally remakes American society, turning it into a communist state, with a centrally controlled government and centrally planned economy.

America was designed to be a loose confederation of states, coming together as a Republic for mutual benefit but with each remaining sovereign. It’s what the 10th Amendment to the Constitution is all about. Once Obamacare is passed, states rights and most individual rights go right out the window.

If we as Americans are to retain our freedoms and liberties, it is imperative that we listen to Ronald Reagan. It is imperative that we stop the government’s attempt to “reform” health care.

Now I am not saying health care doesn’t have its issues. It does. But health care in America is still the best in the world, has the highest quality, and is available in the most timely manner to the greatest number of people.

There are common sense plans out there. Plans that include major tort reform and the ability for Americans to shop for insurance nationwide rather than just within their state. There are thousands of insurance companies nationwide. The Obama regime claims to want “more competition” for the consumer’s dollar. What better way than to open the door for all Americans to shop all of the various insurance companies nationwide?

Ronald Reagan didn’t just warn us about socialized medicine, though. Few understood better than Reagan that liberalism was a losing proposition. That liberalism made absolutely no sense whatsoever. That liberalism was a contradiction all unto itself.

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

Ronald Reagan

In another speech that absolutely applies today, Ronald Reagan speaks out on the dangers of allowing liberals to be elected to positions of responsibility.

In 1964 Reagan gave this speech at the Republican National Convention in support of Barry Goldwater, the candidate for President. The speech, entitled “A Time For Choosing” is one of the most iconic of all time. In fact, it has come to be known simply as “The Speech.”

If I had my way, this video would be required viewing by every school kid in America. In fact, it would be a required course to get a high school diploma, and there would be advanced teaching on it in colleges and universities nationwide.

It’s just that important!

What is rather chilling is how we can listen to Ronald Reagan 45 years later and apply absolutely everything he is saying to our current situation.

This might help explain why “like Ronald Reagan” is still the best thing you can say about a politician!

“The Speech”

Here’s a bit of an exercise for you. After watching the video, write down just how many things Reagan was talking about that not only exist in our current climate, but are even a greater threat today. Reagan understood all too well just how dangerous it was to allow government to grow too large and too powerful.

Ronald Reagan also warned that the “once honorable democrat party” was on a strong march towards socialism, or Marxism, as he called it. Today, we understand it as communism, plain and simple. We now have a President who was raised by communists, mentored by communists, and is now surrounded by and seeks advice from self avowed communists.

“A socialist is someone who has read Lenin and Marx. An anti-socialist is someone who understands Lenin and Marx”

Ronald Reagan

We are left asking ourselves just how in the hell this happened!

Ronald Reagan was an inspiration to America at a time when we needed it the most. America was in a slump. The American morale was as low as it had ever been, and the current national embarrassment, Jimmy Carter, had all but destroyed the economy forever. Carter had also allowed our military readiness to become dangerously low.

Our foreign policy was a joke. Under Carter, radical Islam was able to come to power in Iran and the greater Middle East. We are all suffering to this day because of Carter’s failures in this area. And frankly, our current White House occupant is following Carter’s lead.

I always laugh at the imagery surrounding Barack Obama. We were told when he was elected that the sea levels would lower, the skies would be brighter, and it would be rainbows and unicorns for all.

Well, I remember just how defeated Americans felt during the Carter years. Just how bad it was. We actually had a “misery index” concocted by the media just to tell us how bad our life sucked on any given day. Double digit unemployment, double digit inflation, and double digit interest rates on loans was the way of life in America.

Ronald Reagan represented real hope. It truly was “morning in America” once Reagan was elected. Reagan brought an intangible “it” factor with him that many leaders will never have. Reagan exuded optimism. He was our oldest President ever to take office, and yet he was the very picture of virility. Reagan was both a strong and forceful leader and America’s father figure, a kind man with a reassuring smile that simply told you everything was going to be just fine.

In no time America’s morale was high. America’s confidence was on the rebound. People were very proud to be Americans again. I remember those days well, and they were simply electric. The new feeling of optimism was amazing. You honestly felt like you could achieve anything.

I was a young man back then, but the feelings of this energy effected me greatly. Reagan had so much confidence that it spilled over onto the rest of us. It made us all see that absolutely anything was possible.

Now it took more than a few years for America to start to recover from the Carter fiasco – in fact, almost all of Reagan’s two terms. If a person were to go back, and just look at raw numbers, they would see that much of Reagan’s presidency saw economic numbers that, until the Obama presidency, wouldn’t have been all that stellar, but compared to where we had been, they were great.

The greatest affirmation of the difference Reagan made and of the love for him back then was his 1984 re-election. Now Reagan won an absolute landslide when he defeated Jimmy Carter in 1980. Reagan won 44 of 50 states in a three-way race that saw Republican John Anderson run as an Independent. Anderson being what we would call a RINO today. Reagan got 50.7 percent of the raw vote and Carter got 41 percent.

In 1984 though, the American people rewarded Reagan with an incredible 49 state win against former Vice President Walter Mondale, who barely won his home state and carried D.C. The Electoral College victory was 525 to 13, raw vote 58.8 percent to 40.6. To me that says it all about the confidence America had in Ronald Reagan.

History tells us that Reagan wasn’t a perfect man, but he was a great man. Reagan was able to shepherd American through some tough times. He defeated the Soviet Union without firing a shot. He brought new confidence to America, something that had been lacking. In time, it was the Reagan revolution that would end the 40 years of disastrous Democrat Party control of Congress, leading to a stunning victory for congressional Republicans in 1994.

It was truly Reagan’s moral compass, though, his strength and integrity, that made him such a great leader. A man among men. It was the moral clarity he had that allowed him to look into the eyes of the American people and tell them liberalism, communism, and socialism were evil. It was that same moral clarity that allowed him to stand at the Berlin Wall and demand, “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

It was that same moral clarity, that same strength and integrity Reagan had then, that still makes being “like Ronald Reagan” so desired today.

So where do we take it from here? Who is “like Ronald Reagan”?

Some names that come to mind are people like Dick Cheney. Say what you will about the former Vice President – when he speaks, he speaks with moral clarity, strength, wisdom, and with the love of our nation in his heart.

Liz Cheney is her father’s daughter. She is sharp, tough, and has a solid footing. Then there is Michelle Bachmann. While not as well known, she is certainly cut from the Reagan cloth. Strong, forceful, and unwavering in her beliefs and values.

But one simply cannot talk about leaders who are like Ronald Reagan without bringing up Sarah Palin. The comparisons are easy to make. Like Reagan, Sarah Palin is a strong leader with moral clarity.

Sarah has shown this clarity throughout her career. From battling her mentor on the Wasilla city council over his attempt to use his position to set up a monopoly for his company, to her legendary battle with Frank Murkowski’s “Corrupt Bastards Club.”

For those that don’t know the story, Sarah had been appointed as Chairman of the powerful Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the agency that regulates oil and natural gas in Alaska. Sarah had been appointed by Governor Murkowski after she had lost her bid for Lt. Governor. She was charged with overseeing ethics in her position.

Before long, Sarah realized she had a really corrupt shop. After being told to back off by her boss, the Governor, Sarah stepped down, “quit” as they say. Had to be a really tough decision. This was a high paying gig, six figures, and a powerful position from which to launch herself to even more powerful positions. After all, Sarah’s star was on the rise!

After Sarah “quit” she made it her project to go after the bad actors. As a result, she went after pretty much the entire Republican Party leadership, a profile in courage in itself, and a sure fire case of political suicide. In the end, some went to prison, some paid fines, others were forced to resign. Then she ran for and won the governorship.

Once in office, she was a strong leader. She was able to bring about sweeping changes and one by one fulfilled her campaign promises.

Claude Sandroff over at the American Thinker talks about the virtue of Sarah Palin. We all know the story of her post-election experiences. Before Sarah ran for Vice President, the Republican Party, still smarting from the reforms she brought and the folks she took down, wasn’t exactly pleased with her, but she had a fairly cordial relationship with the Alaska Democrats in the legislature.

Then came the campaign. It has been well documented that Barack Obama brought Chicago style politics to Alaska through his campaign chief-of-staff, Pete Rouse, and Rouse’s longtime friendship with Alaska State Senator, Kim Elton. Their attempt to derail Sarah with the phony “Troopergate” witch hunt is also well documented

After Sarah lost her in her effort to be Vice President, no one would have thought the Alaska Mafia would have remained so dedicated to the Chicago masters, but how many times has a losing vice presidential candidate become even more popular and sought after!

The word came out from on high to keep the pressure on, and the Mafia started recruiting folks to file phony ethics complaints against her. There was already one misguided woman, Andree McLeod, who made a career out of filing outrageous complaints. But the rest were all manufactured to damage Sarah, by using a favorite Democrat/communist tactic, right out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules.”

This is where Sarah’s strength, courage, and moral clarity came into play. It would have been very simple to sit still and fight this stuff. I mean these charges were all nonsense, and all were thrown out. But the more she resisted, the more the Mafia filed, and at a quicker pace. And these leaches on society had not only cost Sarah personally, they had also effectively stopped her government from functioning and cost the taxpayers almost $2 million processing this mess. And if the pace of the complaints stayed the same for the rest of her term, these thieves were on track to cost the Alaska taxpayers as much as $10 million.

A lot of politicians would have stayed. They would have clung to power at all cost. Not Sarah Palin. As Sandroff puts it, this was:

“The very essence of virtue. It was Sir Thomas More resigning as Lord Chancellor and George Washington returning to Mount Vernon. It showed how rare virtue has become in our politics. It shows why we adore Sarah Palin and why we need her. And it explains why, even without office, she has become the most important political figure in America.”

One can only imagine the struggle Sarah had with this – or maybe it wasn’t a real struggle at all. Earlier in the year, just before a trip to visit her troops in Kosovo, Sarah Palin introduced Michael Reagan, the son of Ronald Reagan, at an event in Anchorage. While talking about how badly her critics wanted her to shut up and go away, she said this:

“They want me to sit down and shut up. But I won’t sit down, and I won’t shut up. Politically speaking, if I die, I die, but I will know I have spoken up! Stand up, speak up, be bold! Forget political correctness!”

History shows that Sarah has not sat down, and is not shutting up! At the time, many could not understand what Sarah was doing when she “quit.” These people simply didn’t understand her unwinnable situation. These are the types who would have “fought to the end,” costing their constituents more tax dollars, and damaging their state.

This was a stroke of genius though, and one I believe Ronald Reagan would have understood. Sarah, a star basketball player, was simply passing the ball off to someone, Sean Parnell, who could continue on with her policies, and not be hassled.

“He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces. He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks. He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.”

Sun Tzu, the Art Of War

Now that is a nice story, as far as it goes. A compelling one, in fact. But it is not the only reason why Sarah Palin is “like Ronald Reagan.”

No one can argue she is powerful. Who in the world but Sarah Palin can change the entire national debate with a few paragraphs posted on a networking website?

Sarah Palin not only had the moral clarity to understand exactly what Obamacare is, she was also able to distill it all down to a level of basic understanding. Her “death panels” said it all. And it wasn’t just the fact Sarah understood that Obamacare would most certainly lead to the rationing of care – she had the courage to say it the way she said it. She knew full well the wrath of both political parties, as well as the fringe media – Obama’s media – would come at her with full force. Sarah called Obamacare “downright evil.”

We all know Ronald Reagan had moral clarity regarding the Soviet Union. He called them an “evil empire.” His critics in both parties, lost it every time he did this, but it didn’t stop him from saying it.

Before Reagan’s famous “tear down that wall” comment in his speech in Berlin, his advisers were telling him “no way” and to steer clear of that sort of thing. They had to be resuscitated after he said it! But Reagan knew in his heart it needed to be said.

Reagan lived to see the Berlin wall come down and to see millions of East Germans become free.

Before Sarah took up the fight, critics of Obamacare might as well have been talking to their houseplants. They were trying to nuance things. Trying to be “statesmen,” at least in their minds.

Sarah looked at this mess, saw great evil. She saw a situation, that if continued, would lead America to certain disaster, and cause all Americans to lose precious liberties and freedoms. It’s that ability to not only recognize evil wherever you see it but to also have the courage to do something about it.

While the other so-called leaders in the Republican party were saying “slow down” Sarah wrote, “Not no, but HELL no!”

Because of Sarah Palin and her inspiration to others, Obamacare is in shambles. And that gives us another “like Ronald Reagan” trait. Sarah Palin inspires people.

Sarah has been inspiring people for a long time, but her speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention was huge. Expectations were high, and she hit a home run. As Michael Reagan wrote days later in a column titled “Welcome Back Dad“:

“I’ve been trying to convince my fellow conservatives that they have been wasting their time in a fruitless quest for a new Ronald Reagan to emerge and lead our party and our nation. I insisted that we’d never see his like again because he was one of a kind.

I was wrong!

Wednesday night I watched the Republican National Convention on television and there, before my very eyes, I saw my Dad reborn; only this time he’s a she.

And what a she!

In one blockbuster of a speech, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin resurrected my Dad’s indomitable spirit and sent it soaring above the convention center, shooting shock waves through the cynical media’s assigned spaces and electrifying the huge audience with the kind of inspiring rhetoric we haven’t heard since my Dad left the scene.”

After Ronald Reagan lost his presidential primary bid to Gerald Ford in 1976, most considered him washed up, a has been. Critics in both parties called him stupid, lazy, naive, inexperienced, even though he had been Governor of California! He was a B-Movie actor. Some even said Reagan was dangerous!

Reagan was from tiny Tampico, Illinois. He went to the “wrong” school, Eureka College. And Reagan was a small-town country boy at heart his entire life.

The Democrats hated Reagan with a passion, and so did the blue-blood, country club elite Rockefeller Republicans. The American people loved Reagan, though, and obviously still do. God bless Ronald Reagan, and may his spirit always remain the spirit that inspires us all.

Sarah Palin Takes Barack Obama To Task Over His Pathetic Speech And Personal Attacks On The American People

Remember, Mr. President, elected officials work for the people. Forcing a conclusion in order to claim a “victory” is not healthy for our country. We hear you say government isn’t always the answer; now hear us — that’s what we’ve been saying all along.

– Sarah Palin

Barack Obama really showed himself Wednesday. Acting more like he was a two bit politician on the campaign trail rather than the President of the United States, Obama belittled his office to no end with cheap rhetoric, lies, and attacks on those who disagree with him.

In all of my life, I have never seen a President who just makes the Office so small, so unimportant. Last night Obama took the status of the Office to a whole new low.

We all know Sarah Palin had already put a double dose of heat on Obama before he ever stumbled into the congressional chamber and started up with his glorified Amway meeting.

This is nothing new for Sarah though, she has had Obama’s number since day one:

“This is a man [Barack Obama] who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word “victory” except when he’s talking about his own campaign.

But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed … when the roar of the crowd fades away … when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot – what exactly is our opponent’s plan?

What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger … take more of your money … give you more orders from Washington … and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy … our opponent is against producing it.”

From Sarah Palin’s Vice Presidential acceptance speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention.

What is really disappointing about Obama’s speech is how he was so far off his game. He was 15 minutes late to start with, prompting Dennis Miller to quip later on The O’Reilly Factor that this was a “ringing endorsement for government efficiency!”

My guess is Obama and his speech writers were still crafting a response to Sarah’s Wall Street Journal op-ed, as well as her Facebook slam from the day before.

During the speech Obama was like a child throwing a temper tantrum. Obama has lost the debate. America wants nothing to do with this fiasco. And instead of cutting his losses, and doing his job, he is bound and determined to shove his communistic, liberty and freedom stealing bill down America’s throat.

Another disappointment, in a night of disappointments, is the fact that Obama said absolutely nothing new. If this guy truly wanted to reform health care, and truly wanted to serve the people, he would have thrown the current mess in the trash can and come out with a clean sheet of paper. He just might have garnered some respect, and support. But he’s just not that smart. Obama is going to ride this ludicrous bill right into the ground.

We learned absolutely nothing new about his plan. All he had was his tired old Saul Alinsky tactics. Don’t talk about the issue, just attack people:

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…

….any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’

“One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.”

Rule Number 13 from Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals”

This is all Obama and his crew have. They have no real solutions, no new ideas. Obama is stuck trying to relive the failed Roosevelt years, using policies that took a bad recession and turned it into the Great Depression, and made recovery take years longer than it should have.

Obama is FDR on steriods, and without the charm and sophistication.

The democrat/communists haven’t had an original thought in almost a century.

They just keep on pushing those time honored big government ideas that have failed spectacularly since the beginning of time. And this Obamacare debacle is a true failure among failures. This thing will have the competency of the IRS, the efficiency of the Post Office, and the effectiveness of the Katrina recovery efforts.

So, instead of admitting failure, and sitting down with some adults to craft an honest plan, such as those that have been proposed by the Republicans, Obama just attacked everyone.

What was remarkable though, was Obama calling out Sarah Palin. Again, she is so far in his head he can’t resist, but just how pathetic is it to see the President of the United States, in the one of the most formal settings he can be in, have to resort whining and attacking a private citizen?

We all know the answer, of course. Sarah Palin is an actual leader, and Barry is not. Not even close. A lot of folks didn’t understand the logic behind Sarah’s decision to step down as Governor. I think now they understand.

Sarah had already delivered on every single campaign promise she made when she ran for office, and Obama’s Alaska Mafia had made it impossible for her to do her job. Besides costing her personally, the Obama surrogates had cost the Alaska taxpayers millions, and were on track to cost them more, with their continual filing of those bogus ethics complaints.

My guess is about now Obama is wishing he had left her alone to Govern Alaska in peace! Now she has nothing but time, time to take him to task on every move he makes.

Of course, Sarah is not one to let Alinsky style attacks by someone the likes of Obama to go unanswered. Sarah Palin has dealt with a lot tougher foes, and Chicago thug politics do not impress this gal. So last night after Obama’s glorified campaign speech, Sarah penned a scathing retort.

From Sarah’s Facebook Page:

Response to the President’s Health Care Speech

After all the rhetoric is put aside, one principle ran through President Obama’s speech tonight: that increased government involvement in health care can solve its problems.

Many Americans fundamentally disagree with this idea. We know from long experience that the creation of a massive new bureaucracy will not provide us with “more stability and security,” but just the opposite. It’s hard to believe the President when he says that this time he and his team of bureaucrats have finally figured out how to do things right if only we’ll take them at their word.

Our objections to the Democrats’ health care proposals are not mere “bickering” or “games.” They are not an attempt to “score short term political points.” And it’s hard to listen to the President lecture us not to use “scare tactics” when in the next breath he says that “more will die” if his proposals do not pass.

In his speech the President directly responded to concerns I’ve raised about unelected bureaucrats being given power to make decisions affecting life or death health care matters. He called these concerns “bogus,” “irresponsible,” and “a lie” — so much for civility. After all the name-calling, though, what he did not do is respond to the arguments we’ve made, arguments even some of his own supporters have agreed have merit.

In fact, after promising to “make sure that no government bureaucrat …. gets between you and the health care you need,” the President repeated his call for an Independent Medicare Advisory Council — an unelected, largely unaccountable group of bureaucrats charged with containing Medicare costs. He did not disavow his own statement that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost … the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives….” He did not disavow the statements of his health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, and continuing to pay his salary with taxpayer dollars proves a commitment to his beliefs. The President can keep making unsupported assertions, but until he directly responds to the arguments I’ve made, I’m going to call him out too.

It was heartening to hear the President finally recognize that tort reform is an important part of any solution. But this concession shouldn’t lead us to take our eye off the ball: the Democrats’ proposals will not reduce costs, and they will not deliver better health care. It’s this kind of “healthy skepticism of government” that truly reflects a “concern and regard for the plight of others.” We can’t wait to hear the details on that; we look forward to working with you on tort reform.

Finally, President Obama delivered an offhand applause line tonight about the cost of the War on Terror. As we approach the anniversary of the September 11th attacks and honor those who died that day and those who have died since in the War on Terror, in order to secure our freedoms, we need to remember their sacrifices and not demonize them as having had too high a price tag.

Remember, Mr. President, elected officials work for the people. Forcing a conclusion in order to claim a “victory” is not healthy for our country. We hear you say government isn’t always the answer; now hear us — that’s what we’ve been saying all along.

– Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin Spanks Obama On The Eve Of His Big Dog And Pony Show With Congress

Sarah Palin hit Barack Obama and his crew with a double dose of good old common sense on Tuesday. She opened the day from her powerful Facebook page with a reprint of written testimony she has given the New York State Senate.

In her testimony, addressed to Senator Reverend Ruben Diaz, Chair, New York Senate Aging Committee, Sarah gives a point by point breakdown of what is wrong with the proposed Obamacare bill as well a stinging rebuke of our old buddy, Dr Ezekiel Emanuel, Dr Death to our readers.

She again lays out the case that Dr Death’s plans would ration health care and gives preferential treatment to people between the ages of 15 and 40 while rationing care, or depending on the circumstance, denying care to those younger than 15 or older than 40, such as the disabled.

Sarah also points out how this sudden acceptance of allowing the old to die before their time will lead to abuse.

Over in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service is an absolute mess. Conditions are unsanitary. Qualified doctors and nurses are in short supply. It is not uncommon for patients to go without food and water, sometimes drinking the water out of the plants in the room to stave off dehydration! And as simple symptoms of dehydration can cause a patient to mimic someone who is dying, for real, many patients who only need some water are basically left for dead!

Then there is this sort of thing that has happened to Rosemary Munkenbeck, whose father, Eric Troake, who entered hospital after suffering a stroke, had fluid and drugs withdrawn and she claims doctors wanted to put him on morphine until he passed away under a scheme for dying patients called the Liverpool Care Pathway

This of course, is Britain’s version of a death panel. Remember, a few shots of morphine are cheap compared to actually treating someone with a stroke, and doing things on the cheap is the priority, not actually treating patients.

You can read the whole story here.

For the complete footnoted transcript of Sarah’s written testimony to Senator Diaz, go here.

Of course, Sarah was just warming up with her Facebook posting. The real shot fired across Obama’s bow was an op-ed posted at the Wall Street Journal’s website, for the Wednesday print edition.

Here Sarah takes on the “Bureaucratization” of Obamacare.

The president’s proposals would give unelected officials life-and-death rationing powers.

Sarah Palin

We just went through the Van Jones debacle, so we know at least two things, for sure, about the Obama administration. One, Obama is all about appointing unelected, un-vetted, and unaccountable “Czars” to prominent positions of power. And two, every single one of these people we have looked at so far are complete and total loons!

Jones is a racist, cop hater, self avowed communist, and a 9/11 truther.

Dr Death believes in the Complete Lives System that uses formulas to determine who is worthy of health care, and who isn’t. Not only does he think the very old, and the very young are not as worthy as those “productive” to society, if you are disabled, well, I hope you have your burial insurance paid up, because you are fixin’ to meet up with Obama’s death panels!

Cass Sunstein, who Obama pretty much wants to allow to regulate every activity you do, thinks doctors should be able to harvest your organs when you die, at least I hope they wait that long, without your permission! Like most communists, Sunstein thinks the citizen is property of the state, for the ruling class to use as they see fit.

And this isn’t even the “weird” thing about Sunstein! He is also against hunting, fishing and all other manly-man activities, and wants to ban them. Now that is mainstream “progressive” communist. But the real punch line here is Cass wants to allow animals to sue humans in court!

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.

Cass Sunstein

Then we have John Holdren. This refugee from a bad science fiction movie thinks our Constitution would be OK with forced sterilizations and forced abortions for population control. I’m still pouring through my copy of the Constitution looking for the article and section that covers this!

Oh, and Holdren is also in favor of adding chemicals into the water supply to sterilize the population, as well. He wants both zero population and zero economic growth, worldwide. Just the guy to be working for the President when the economy is in the crapper!

If you want to know more about Obama’s “cream-of-the-crop” of modern scientific thought, try here.

You can bet Obama has plenty more men ,of equal quality to these, that will make up the Bureaucratization of Obamacare that Sarah Palin is talking about!

You have to really stop and ask yourself this: Do I really want a 9/11 truther, a crazy organ stealer and animal rights loon, someone who wants to sterilize me, forcibly, if necessary, or Dr Death, in charge of my health care?

From The Wall Street Journal:

Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care

By Sarah Palin

Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans “talk with one another, and not over one another” as our health-care debate moves forward.

I couldn’t agree more. Let’s engage the other side’s arguments, and let’s allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats’ health-care proposals should become governing law.

Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that “no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds.” Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.

We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.

How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.

Common sense tells us that the government’s attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats’ proposals “will provide more stability and security to every American.”

With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it’s a promise Washington can’t keep.

Let’s talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats’ proposals “will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control” by “cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . .”

First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such “waste and inefficiency” and “unwarranted subsidies” in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn’t think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that “in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.”

Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He’s asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . .”

Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats’ proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through “normal political channels,” they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats’ proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we’ve come to expect from this administration.

Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats’ proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won’t reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure.

The economic effects won’t be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they’ll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats’ proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise “the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers.” Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times.

Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats’ proposals “will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable.” Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it’s true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats’ proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats.

Instead of poll-driven “solutions,” let’s talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let’s give Americans control over their own health care.

Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don’t need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats’ proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not “provide more stability and security to every American.”

We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we’re not buying it.

You are so right Sarah, this time the American people just aren’t buying it!

Ronald Reagan was fond of saying that government wasn’t the answer to a problem, that government was the problem.

Back in 1964 Ronald Reagan gave a speech at the Republican National Convention. It ranks up there as one of the greatest speeches of all time. The speech, entitled “A Time For Choosing”, is so iconic, it has become simply know as “The Speech!”

Personally, I think this speech should be taught in school. It should be required learning in order to get a diploma. I feel this video, coupled with Sarah’s hard hitting op-ed should be enough to help all Americans understand that we need to stop Obamacare, and Obama himself right in his tracks, and get on with the process of taking America back.

Ronald Reagan warned the nation back in 1964 of the perils associated with putting a democrat in elected office. Pretty much everything he warned against, has come true, with the expected consequences, because folks elected democrats.

During the 2008 election Sarah Palin warned over and over about the perils of electing Barack Obama. Her warnings went unheaded, and everything she warned us about is coming to pass.

This time, listen to what Sarah Palin is saying, and stop this massive government intrusion in our lives before it is too late. I’m not sure we are going to get many more chances to get it right!

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

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: