Site Meter
Share

Sarah Palin is evil and must be destroyed.  Right now the Obamabots are doing a wonderful job of attacking her.  Currently there is so much material about their attack, it is better two do several different posts.

Shall we count the reasons.

The first, absolutely dastardly thing Sarah Palin did was to cause Barack Obama to make his now infamous foot in mouth slip about the Special Olympics on Jay Leno.  Yep, she did it.  She planned it.  She manipulated it.  And if you believe that you know what MSNBC is dishing, I can sell you this really great Bridge to Nowhere up in Alaska!  (More about this in Part I)

Babble says that Palin is being a little hypersensitive.  WARNING:  The comments here, against her, are pure filth.

Sarah Palin is putting her personal ambitions ahead of that of Alaska.

“…The news Thursday drew anger from those who accused Palin of putting her national political aspirations ahead of the state’s interests, and admiration from others who say she has courage to turn down money that would expand government. The state Legislature will have an opportunity to override her decision….”

She hates special needs children because she is refusing to take Obama’s money for them. Yea, we all know this is going to be one of the pathetic mantra’s the Dems are going to throw at her in 2012.

Sarah Palin is buried in legal debt. It doesn’t matter if it is do-do the Dems have thrown at her in an attempt to destroy her, it’s legal debt, and anyone who has all of those legal bills must be evil and should be destroyed, right? Naturally US News & World Report is making fun of her, and the fact that Sarah Palin is a rainmaker.

“…Nobody plays the political motivation game better than Gov. Palin, including infuriating members of her own party such as former Alaska governor and GOP powerhouse Frank Murkowski, whom she ran against and beat in a gubernatorial primary. So pity not poor penniless Palin. She’s a survivor if ever there were one. Having a pity party just doesn’t seem to suit her nail-spitting, moose-murdering image at all….”

The liberals are going to hound Palin forever for needing a legal defense fund, even though one of the stellar individuals who caused many of her problems, Kim Elton was beautifully rewarded by Barack Obama with a plum appointment with the DOI.  Seems, he is far more guilty of the things he accused Palin of:

“…I have a source in Alaska who did some digging through the “Alaska Legislature 2008 Salary and Business Expense Report” – put out by the state’s Legislative Affairs Agency – and it’s truly amazing what was going on. According to my source, Elton charged the state a grand total of $20,681.25 in per diem for the year 2008 – several thousand dollars more than Gov. Palin. That comes out to $122.25 per day through the normal legislative session between January 15 and April 15. Then he charged $160.50 per day for two of the year’s four special sessions (30 days each). So, just on these facts alone, the man is far more “guilty” than the Governor when it comes to per diem. But then again, travel and lodging costs a lot for legislators in Alaska. It’s a big state, and legislators from far-flung corners of the Great White North have to move to the remote capital of Juneau for the 90-day legislative session. So, for the most part, it is acceptable for these people to collect per diem for their services. It must have been horribly expensive for Sen. Elton, considering that he represents a town of only a few thousand people that is accessible only by boat. It must have cost an arm and a leg for him to get to work from his home town of Juneau! Yes, you read that correctly. While he was ragging on Sarah Palin for expensing her commutes to Wasilla, Kim Elton was ripping off thousands of dollars from the State of Alaska. While what he did it perfectly legal, I fail to see why he needed more than $20,000 in food and lodging expenses to pay for the quick drive from his house to the Capitol Building. I might also add that, while I only have numbers from last year, Elton charged per diem every year during his decade in the State Senate. Palin, on the other hand, actually charged far less per diem than the previous two governors, who billed the state to live in hotels and rent apartments in Anchorage. Now, this might seem like a regional story, but in this case, Palin’s per diem became a national issue. So, if Kim Elton wanted to ensure that the world found out all about Sarah Palin’s use of state funds, then it’s only fair that we examine Elton’s own use (and abuse) of said funds– especially since the man seems to have been handsomely rewarded for his efforts against Gov. Palin (he was head of the Legislative Council that “handled” the “Troopergate” mess). Then again, his new job may also be due to his close relationship with Pete Rouse – a former co-worker who served as chief of staff to a young senator named Barack Obama….”

Crookes and Liars is making fun of Palin for having a “legal defense fund” completely ignoring the fact that the attacks on Palin were funded by the Obama bunch.  They’re now comparing her to Scooter Libby.

“…Luckily, there’s already a proven model for bankrolling the legal fights of Republican wrongdoers. As Scooter Libby showed, it’s as easy as 1-2-3.

The first step, of course, is to tap into the deep pockets of well-heeled Republican faithful. On the day of his Plamegate indictment, former Cheney chief-of-staff Libby received a check, courtesy of former U.S. ambassador Richard Carlson. He was just one of the GOP who’s who backing Libby, a conservative all-star list featuring Mary Matalin, Barbara Comstock, Steve Forbes, Jack Kemp, Alan Simpson and many more. Having already launched her obligatory political action committee (SarahPAC) to endear her to Republican candidates nationwide, Sarah Palin is well on her way to asking right-wingers nationwide to pay back the favor. (Of course, one would think her rumored multimillion dollar book deal would be sufficient to cover her costs.)

Second, Palin should follow Scooter Libby’s lead in securing the allegiance of a prominent member of the media to plead her case. For Libby, this faithful mouthpiece was failed CNN and MSNBC host Tucker Carlson. From Libby’s indictment and conviction through the commutation (but not full pardon) by President Bush, Carlson declared Scooter’s innocence while savaging prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. (At no time, of course, did Tucker inform viewers that his father Richard was a key adviser to the Libby legal defense fund.)

Happily, it appears Palin can cross this item off her to do list as well. As ThinkProgress noted earlier this week, Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren has made a cottage industry of fawning interviews with the Alaska Governor. That Van Susteren’s husband Joan Coale also happens to be the man “guiding Palin’s political image in Washington” (if not actually a paid adviser) is yet another serendipity….”

Sarah Palin is evil because she refuses to take stimulus funds unless there are no strings.

This is getting old.  The Democrats are going after Sarah Palin so strongly, she must now form a legal defense fund, or basically lose everything her family has paying legal fees fighting the idiot charges the Democrats have leveled against her.  Once she forms her legal defense fund, the Democrats will paint her as a criminal, or at the very least, ethically challenged.

Why is it serious Republicans must all have legal defense funds?  It’s quite simple, they’re going to be hit over and over again by insane and useless ethics complaints from insane and useless individuals Democrats.  In other words, she violated ethics laws in Alaska by being John McCain’s running mate.  Let’s be honest here, they think she’s violating ethics laws simply by being alive and talking.

Steve Maloney at Draft Palin 2012 has an excellent piece on what the media has done to Sarah Palin. The more I read about this kind of thing, the angrier I get.

Is this another new tactic to use against NORMAL Americans who just might be able to take out The One (Incompetent)?

“…The disclosure said only that she owed “hundreds of thousands of dollars.” On Friday in the written statement, attorney Thomas Van Flein wouldn’t give a precise number but said it was “a substantial debt.” Palin said she didn’t have an exact figure yet but “the debt is over a half a million dollars.”

Van Flein represented Palin on the Troopergate controversy, which grew from her dismissal of the state’s public safety commissioner, as well as other complaints alleging ethics violations, some of which have not been publicized. One was filed under the name of a soap opera character, Palin said. Another concerned the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute using her photograph to promote seafood.

Palin also faced a small claims case in Washington, D.C., that was dismissed when the plaintiff didn’t show up for a hearing.

In all, Palin said, there have been 10 ethics complaints, counting Troopergate, though she did not provide a list. State ethics complaints are confidential unless a public accusation is filed or the accused person agrees in writing to make to make it public. State officials said they could not discuss any pending ethics cases.

Out of the 10 complaints, Palin said six have been dismissed, one had “concluded,” and three are pending.

Last month, with Van Flein as her lawyer, she settled an ethics complaint over her children’s travel by agreeing to repay the state for an estimated 10 trips. She said Friday that debt is still under review by the state.

Activists who have brought complaints against Palin said they don’t consider their efforts frivolous.

Zane Henning, a North Slope worker, filed a complaint in November after the election, accusing Palin of partisan “post-election damage control” for talking to reporters about the campaign in her state office. He said he wanted to stop that sort of behavior, and it seems to have worked, but he couldn’t talk about the complaint further while it was pending.

Andree McLeod, who has filed four ethics complaints against Palin and top aides, and made a number of public records requests, says she’s doing exactly what Palin expects. When Palin was sworn in as governor in December 2006, McLeod recalled, she said “Alaskans, hold me accountable; and right backatcha. I’ll expect a lot from you too.”

“I’m unambiguously, steadfastly and doggedly holding Palin accountable,” McLeod said in a statement. Her most recent complaint, filed this week, accuses Palin of using state resources to post a campaign message on the state Web site, and using her state spokesman to address confusion caused by her political action committee.

Van Flein initially was hired by the state under a $95,000 contract to represent Palin in a legislative investigation of Troopergate.

At issue was whether Palin pushed for the firing of her ex-brother-in-law, state Trooper Mike Wooten, then fired public safety commissioner Walt Monegan when the trooper stayed on the job.

But just after Van Flein was tapped, Palin landed on the national GOP ticket. Van Flein said the investigation “became part of the national campaign strategy against the governor.” He never billed the state.

Palin said she knew the case had turned political when CNN reported that the Obama campaign had spoken with the troopers’ union about Monegan. Meg Stapleton, spokeswoman for Sarah PAC, Palin’s political action committee, said in an e-mail Friday evening that a CNN reporter who was live on the air Sept. 5 reported the Obama campaign reached out to Wooten through his union.

Palin said she didn’t think it would be fair to “sacrifice public monies to defend against something that was so politically charged.” Van Flein called the investigation a “political probe” and an “abuse of state money.”

Asked for response, state Sen. Hollis French, an Anchorage Democrat who directed the investigation, wrote in an e-mail that the state’s bipartisan Legislative Council approved the investigation 12-0, with eight Republicans voting for it. The panel agreed to spend up to $100,000, mainly for an independent counsel, but spent $75,000.

“The investigation came in 25% under budget, which is clear evidence that the investigator was restrained and judicious in the work that he performed,” French wrote Friday evening.

The legislative investigation concluded Palin abused her power by not stopping her husband, Todd, from trying to get trooper Wooten fired.

Palin didn’t cooperate with that probe, but with Van Flein’s help got the matter before the state Personnel Board by making an ethics complaint against herself. That investigation concluded the day before the election and found she didn’t know what her family or staff members were doing regarding Wooten so she couldn’t be held responsible.

Palin made $131,891 last year, counting her $125,000 salary and expense payments she collects when she’s away from Juneau, according to the disclosure. Todd Palin made $86,150 from his two jobs, as a commercial fisherman and a BP production operator….”

Share
  • Dan Scott

    Does Palin Support McCain’s bill—Indefinite Detention of Citizens On Mere Suspicion?

    Are You Scheduled For Government Interrogation If McCain’s bill 3081 Is Passed?

    On March 4, 2010, Sen. John McCain introduced S.3081, The “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010.”

    Sen. McCain’s S.3081 would eliminate several Constitutional protections allowing Government to arbitrarily pick up Americans on mere suspicion—with no probable cause. Your political opinions and statements made against U.S. Government could be used by Authorities to deem you a “hostile” “Enemy Belligerent” to cause your arrest and indefinite detention. S.3081 is so broadly written innocent anti-war protesters and Tea Party Groups might be arrested and detained just for attending demonstrations.

    Considering how often Sarah Palin defends Free Speech, one can’t help wonder why Palin is helping McCain’s reelection to the U.S. Senate after he introduced possibly the most anti-Free Speech Bill in Modern U.S. History. Perhaps Palin or her Tea Party supporters haven’t considered McCain’s legislation might be used by a corrupt government administration to crush them. Tea Parties might question Palin whether she supports Sen. McCain’s bill the “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010.” (S.3081)

    Under S.3081, an “individual” need only be Suspected by Government of “suspicious activity” or “supporting hostilities” to be dragged off and held indefinitely in Military Custody. Government will have the power to detain and interrogate any individual without probable cause. Government need only allege an individual kept in detention, is an Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent suspected of; having engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. How could one prove to Government they did not purposely do something? “Materially Supporting Hostilities” against the United States could include any person or group that spoke out or demonstrated disapproval against an agency of U.S. Government. It is foreseeable many Americans might go underground to Resist Government Tyranny. Definition for Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent: (Anyone Subject to a Military Commission)

    At least under the Patriot Act, law enforcement generally needed probable cause to detain a person indefinitely. Passage of S.3081 will permit government to use “mere suspicion” to curtail an individual’s Constitutional Protections against unlawful arrest, detention and interrogation without benefit of legal counsel and trial. According to S.3081 Government is not required to provide detained individuals U.S. Miranda Warnings or even an attorney.

    S.3081 if passed will frighten Americans from speaking out. S.3081 is so broadly written, it appears any “individual” who writes on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against or an entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners might be detained on the basis he or she is an “unprivileged enemy belligerent”, “supporting hostilities against U.S. Government.”

    How might Americans respond should Government use this bill to take away their loved ones, family members and friends on mere suspicion? It is foreseeable McCain’s bill will drive lawful political activists underground, perhaps creating the domestic terrorists McCain said we needed to be protected from.

    McCain’s bill mentions “non-violent acts” supporting terrorism in the U.S. and or emanating from America against a Coalition Partner. Non-violent terrorist acts” are covered in the Patriot Act to prosecute Persons that support “coercion to influence a government or intimidation to affect a civilian population.” However, U.S. activists and individuals under S.3081 would be much more vulnerable to prosecution, if (charged with suspicion) of “intentionally providing support to an Act of Terrorism”, for example American activists can’t control what other activists might do illegally—they network with domestically and overseas. Under the Patriot Act, law enforcement generally needs probable cause to detain or prosecute someone. But under S.3081, law enforcement and the military can too easily use (hearsay or informants) to allege “suspicious activity” to detain an individual. It is problematic under S.3081 that detained individuals in the U.S. not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or allowed legal counsel will be prosecuted for ordinary crimes because of their alleged admissions while in military custody.

    Notably, McCain’s S.3081 mandates (merging) Federal, State and Local Police and subsequently the U.S. Military to detain and hold Individuals in the U.S., even without probable cause.

    Historically it is foreseeable under S.3081 that “erroneous informant information” could be used to detain innocent Individuals. Other countries have used lying informants to imprison; even execute political opposition.

    Under S.3081 government may use an individual’s phone call and email information to allege without probable cause “suspicious or hostile activity against a U.S. civilian population or the United States to detain Americans.”

    (Make Your Own Determination If The Analysis Herein Is Correct) See McCain Senate bill S.3081 at:
    assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/ARM10090.pdf

    FYI: below is enclosed a copy of “Hitler’s Discriminatory Decrees signed February 28, 1933.” Although the Nazi Decrees are written differently than S.3081, the McCain bill could bring America to the same place crushing free speech and personal liberty. Note how the Nazi Government in Section (1) and (4), similar to U.S. S.3081, suspend personal liberty— shutdown Free Speech to intimidate Citizens speaking out against Government:

    See Section 1
    “Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”

    Similar to McCain’s S. 3081, but using different wording the Nazi Government in Section (4) see below, suspended Constitutional rights, ordered the arrest of Citizens for any ACT that might incite or provoke disobedience against state authorities. McCain’s S.3081 instead mentions detaining and prosecuting Individuals for “supporting hostilities” against U.S. Government. S.3081 is so broadly written any person or group attending a protest could be arrested without provable cause and detained if government charged a protest-supported hostilities.

    See Section 4
    Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.

    DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE

    Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism, 1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7

    In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence, endangering the state:

    Section 1
    Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

    Section 2
    If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.

    Section 4
    Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.

    Who ever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the sentence my include confiscation of property.

    Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.

    Section 5
    The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general poisoning).

    Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:

    1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;

    2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person;

    3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.

    Section 6
    This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.

    Reich President
    Reich Chancellor
    Reich Minister of the Interior
    Reich Minister of Justice


WordPress SEO fine-tune by Meta SEO Pack from Poradnik Webmastera