Mama Grizzlies

Hi all:

Enjoy!



I'm off to San Diego for this weekend's first C4P Meetup!

Engage!

hrh

The Iron Lady Returns - Margaret Thatcher at No. 10 Downing Street - Could Sarah Palin be the next Iron Lady?

Hi all:

Lovely sight:New Tory leader David Cameron invited Maggie Thatcher for tea.

Maybe the next Iron Lady?

(Yes, it's photo-shopped. It's been around for about a year. Don't know who did the original.)

Engage!

hrh

Palin Endorses Murkowski's opponent: 2004 Sarah Palin on Contested Primaries

Hi all:

In Sarah Palin's Facebook today endorsing Joe Miller for U.S. Senate against Lisa Murkowski, she declares "Competition's Good! Joe Miller for Alaska."

This is not new for Sarah Palin.

Check out this article from 2004, back when Sarah Palin was just a hockey mom.

Contest in primary is nothing to fear

COMPASS: Points of view from the community

By SARAH PALIN

Published: April 16, 2004
Last Modified: April 17, 2004 at 01:57 AM

Granted, my unapologetic passion for sports may play an exceptionable role in shaping my worldview, but I'm convinced the formula for success in the sports arena is essentially the same in the political arena. In fact, I believe all I ever really needed to know I learned on the basketball court. Thus, my zeal for competition in Alaska's primary races.

It would be astonishing to hear anything but enthusiasm for challenges in athletics, so it's puzzling that some are discouraging competition in the selection process for party nominees to move on to the state's general election for U.S. Senate.

Competition defines and refines a person. Character is revealed. It's really nothing to be afraid of. It should be welcomed in order for you to improve as an individual and increase your team's chance of success.

Republicans are known for preaching the benefits of all kinds of competition, including in the business world, for education choices, product pricing and job opportunities in free markets, and even as the principle behind coaches choosing starting lineups. Why, then, deprecate competition when selecting political leaders?

Despite "politico experts" who claim otherwise, it's nonsensical to believe Republicans would shoot themselves in the foot by allowing primary competition. Remember, the dynamics of the new closed primaries don't let "spoilers" advance from party primaries into the general election. Wayward ammunition causes damage when politicians run negative campaigns aimed toward opponents' feet instead of shooting straight with voters. Republican primaries send victorious candidates forward via majority mandate. Pretty simple. Pretty American.

State government spends $1.3 million on primaries so partisans can select candidates. Surely, multiple choices on the ballot help justify this expenditure. Otherwise, what's the sense in tax-funded primaries instead of automatic byes doled out through party conventions?

Competition drives you further than you can push yourself on your own. That's good! Opponents make athletes run faster, work harder, produce more; these are attributes Alaskans want in leaders. Encouraging competition is on par with coaches and teammates believing you can improve, so they advocate competition not to tear you down, but to build the best team possible.

Competitive races allow development of resourcefulness, perseverance, sportsmanship, a larger circle of acquaintances and better responsiveness to issues -- all things needed in elected officials.

Alaska craves leaders who grow stronger when up against the ropes. That's what happens in competition. Champions expose themselves to pressure, ignore fears of defeat and actually relish contests they'll face in the ring where there's no room to shirk from confrontation.

UCLA coach John Wooden reminded his players always to place team welfare above personal desires. He stressed straightforwardness and humility and wasn't impressed with self-claims of competency and qualifications because self-aggrandizement isn't only unimpressive, it's downright annoying. Campaigns: Spare us the same annoyance by welcoming opponents, so results from a trusted selection process can honorably speak for themselves! Then doubts are erased. Victories are earned and legitimized.

I trust that most in the party of Abraham Lincoln have the right agenda for Alaska, but we won't realize GOP-won benefits if Alaskans continue to struggle with questions concerning fairness in the candidate selection process. All the campaign funds in the world won't buy positive results if voters question the integrity of actions that give unearned, unfair advantage to anyone. So instead of fearing contests as dreaded, dangerous affairs, realize the most important thing incumbents and challengers can do to establish themselves and explain their positions is to run inspiring, open campaigns from here on out.

For the good of Alaska's team, let's have healthy debate and voter education opportunities in upcoming races. We'll develop confidence in candidates chosen by majority vote who gain statewide experience. Candidates also benefit by gaining confidence in the public trust they earn as they move into the final round.

Competition. Yeah, it's tough. It's uncomfortable and inconvenient. But as the sports world gives constant reminders that competition makes everyone better, in this land of opportunity Alaskans deserve campaigns that make our state better too.


Sarah Palin is a former mayor of Wasilla and Republican candidate for lieutenant governor. She also was co-captain of a state champion girls basketball team at Wasilla High. She now is an enthusiastic hockey mom and very slow distance runner. Though mentioned as a possible U.S. Senate candidate, she says her chances of winning the Boston Marathon are better than her chances of GOP leadership support for a challenge to Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

Engage!

hrh

Brewer & Palin to Obama: Do Your Job

Sarah Palin's Alaska

In Pictures: Meeting Sarah Palin in Rochester

Hi all:

Enjoy some pix I drove 811 miles RT to get!

First of all: No, I didn't camp out overnight.
But here are the instructions for those who did:

Question: What other politicians have people camping out
overnight for their book signings?

Sarah's there somewhere!

Stars in her eyes.

Signing.

The man on the left is Jason Recher,
who worked with her on the 2008 campaign.
Looks like he still is.

Chatting with supporters.

Listening to suppporters.

Supporters of all ages.

Shaking hands.

Leaning in.

Here we are! Almost there. Just around the corner we'll get to meet Sarah!
I'm in the middle.

We had to put our cameras on a separate table because no personal pix were allowed of ourselves with Sarah. Shealah Craighead took pix, so I'll be checking there to see if there are any good ones of my meeting.

Engage!

hrh

Factual Response to Democrat National Committee's Attack on Sarah Palin re: Health Care

Hi all:

Check out this quick video fact check of the Democrat National Committee's (DNC) attack ad trying to debunk Sarah Palin's claims about the horrible health care plans currently being forced upon us Americans:




(BTW, I thought Palin was an irrelevant, light-weight quitter? Why is the official DNC attacking a private citizen? ...)

ACTION ITEM

Join Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and actor Jon Voight and a few thousand or so (more if you can go) this Thursday (November 5) at high noon on the West Steps of the Capitol in DC to walk the halls and let our congressman and women - you know, those people we sent to DC to represent our policy preferences - that we do not want these health care plans foisted upon us.

Click here for all the details.

Engage!

hrh

ATTENTION: Vital Health Care Alternatives from House Minority Leader John Boehner

Hi all:

Please listen to tomorrow's weekly GOP address. Why? Well, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi just released another health care bill from the House. And guess what?

1. Abortion coverage is back in.
2. Coverage for illegal immigrants is back in.
3. Mandatory end of life counseling alongside mandates for doctors to cut spending - which means they are incentivized to counsel seniors to not get the best care because it's too expensive - is back in.
4. Penalties for not having health insurance are back in.
5. The government "public" option is back in.

Talk about a scary Halloween nightmare!!!

So in tomorrow's weekly GOP address, House Minority Leader John Boehner will outline the right way to fix the parts of health care that are broken.

Here are my comments on the subject:

Because, really if you think of health care as a house, the house of U.S. health care is a mansion, the best in the world. 85% of American citizens are covered, and of those people, 75% or so are happy with their care. That's pretty darn good!

So to cover the 15% or so who want to be covered, all we need to do is finish off the basement, renovate the attic, or put in a room over the garage. We do NOT need to come in with a wrecking ball and knock the whole house down!!! Which is exactly what the Dem plan does!

Let's see:

• Finish off the basement with medical malpractice lawsuit reform.
• Renovate the attic by lifting the government restrictions on buying healthcare nationally across state lines. That's how we buy automobile, life, and home insurance. The Dems say the government option is necessary for choice and competition, but it will give us only one more choice. If they would lift the barrier to buy across state lines, that would give us around 1,500 choices, which is the number of health insurance companies in America!!
• Put in a room over the garage by incentivizing Health Savings Accounts with high deductible, low cost catastrophic health insurance policies! (That's what I have and more than 13 million others across American and it's great! It's my bank account that goes with me if I leave this job. Pretax deposits, interest bearing, used for healthcare expenses.)

Here's what Sarah Palin just wrote in her Facebook note:

TUNE IN TOMORROW TO HEAR A HEALTH CARE REFORM PLAN THAT WILL PROVE TO BE THE GAME CHANGER

Today at 6:28pm

Mark my words - tomorrow is the game changer! Tune in to hear common sense solutions that bury the false accusations that conscientious members of Congress have no solutions to meet America's health care challenges.

If you're like me, shaking your head wondering why all the miscommunication between Washington and the American people who have been saying, "Please hear what we're saying about our desire for health care reform," then tomorrow will be a refreshing time of clarity for all.

All Americans, and especially colleagues of House Republican Leader John Boehner: please listen to tomorrow's weekly GOP national address. Rep. Boehner will highlight a common sense alternative to Speaker Pelosi's 1,990-page government takeover of health care. I urge you to watch for it. For a preview, go to: http://HealthCare.GOP.gov

You'll hear solutions. You'll hear of real choices based on America's proven free-market principles. You'll know once and for all what the GOP and Independents have been saying all along about alternatives to another big government take over. After tomorrow, you'll know that accusations against the GOP and Independents for not providing solutions are false. Those claims are bogus. There are alternatives. Tune in to Rep. Boehner's address tomorrow to hear them.

I look forward to the game changer!

- Sarah Palin


BTW, good news from at least one of Connecticut's senators: Joe Lieberman will vote with the GOP bills with public options! Thanks, Joe!

Engage!

hrh

Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin agree: "Good Intentions Aren't Enough with Health Care Reform"

Hi all:

Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann came to Connecticut yesterday to speak to the CT Liberty Forum. I had the privilege to both hear her speak and meet her, because she came and spent 20 minutes or so with Connecticut for Sarah, of which I'm one of the state organizers. We were glad to make her an honorary member of our group:

Photo courtesy Wayne Kilburn copyright 2009

(The woman to Bachmann's right is Daria Novak, who will defeat Congressman Joe Courtney in 2010. Yes, she will! But I digress ...)


Congresswoman Bachmann was informed and inspiring about the need for us to CALL OUR CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATIONS to stop this health care takeover. She compared it to the federal government's getting a federal "public option" for student loans 20 years ago.

It may have taken two decades, but last week President Obama nationalized all student loans - there are now no private student loans.

THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH OUR HEALTH CARE.

President Obama is on record saying that "it may take 10, 15, or 20 years but we will get a single payer option."

The Democrats are patient; they took 20 years to nationalize student financial aid.

They CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO GET THIS TROJAN HORSE OF A BILL PASSED, which allows anything close to a public option in health care.

If it passes, in 20 years or fewer, we will have completely NATIONALIZED HEALTH CARE, with no private options allowed.

On the same day that I was privileged to meet and be inspired by Congresswoman Bachmann to continue the fight, I got home and found that Sarah Palin had also written another call to action on health care:

GOOD INTENTIONS AREN'T ENOUGH WITH HEALTH CARE REFORM

Yesterday at 11:57pm

Now that the Senate Finance Committee has approved its health care bill, it’s a good time to step back and take a look at the long term consequences should its provisions be enacted into law.

The bill prohibits insurance companies from refusing coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and from charging sick people higher premiums. [1] It attempts to offset the costs this will impose on insurance companies by requiring everyone to purchase coverage, which in theory would expand the pool of paying policy holders.

However, the maximum fine for those who refuse to purchase health insurance is $750. [2] Even factoring in government subsidies, the cost of purchasing a plan is much more than $750. The result: many people, especially the young and healthy, will simply not buy coverage, choosing to pay the fine instead. They’ll wait until they’re sick to buy health insurance, confident in the knowledge that insurance companies can’t deny them coverage. Such a scenario is a perfect storm for increasing the cost of health care and creating an unsustainable mandate program.

Those driving this plan no doubt have good intentions, but good intentions aren’t enough. There were good intentions behind the drive to increase home ownership for lower-income Americans, but forcing financial institutions to give loans to people who couldn’t afford them had terrible unintended consequences. We all felt those consequences during the financial collapse last year. Unintended consequences always result from top-down big government plans like the current health care proposals, and we can’t afford to ignore that fact again.

Supposedly the Senate Finance bill will be paid for by cutting Medicare by nearly half a trillion dollars and by taxing the so-called “Cadillac” health care plans enjoyed by many union members. The plan will also impose heavy taxes on insurers, pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, and clinical labs. [3] The result of all of these taxes is clear. As Douglas Holtz-Eakin noted in the Wall Street Journal, these new taxes “will be passed on to consumers by either directly raising insurance premiums, or by fueling higher health-care costs that inevitably lead to higher premiums.” [4] Unfortunately, it will lead to lower wages too, as employees will have to sacrifice a greater percentage of their paychecks to cover these higher premiums. [5] In other words, if the Democrats succeed in overhauling health care, we’ll all bear the costs. The Senate Finance bill is effectively a middle class tax increase, and as Holtz-Eakin points out, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation those making less than $200,000 will be hit hardest. [6]

With our country’s debt and deficits growing at an alarming rate, many of us can’t help but wonder how we can afford a new trillion dollar entitlement program. The president has promised that he won’t sign a health care bill if it “adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade.” [7] But his administration also promised that his nearly trillion dollar stimulus plan would keep the unemployment rate below 8%. [8] Last month, our unemployment rate was 9.8%, the highest it’s been in 26 years. [9] At first the current administration promised that the stimulus would save or create 3 to 4 million jobs. [10] Then they declared that it created 1 million jobs, but the stimulus reports released this week showed that a mere 30,083 jobs have been created, while nearly 3.4 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus was passed. [11] Should we believe the administration’s claims about health care when their promises have proven so unreliable about the stimulus?

In January 2008, presidential candidate Obama promised not to negotiate behind closed doors with health care lobbyists. In fact, he committed to “broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are. Because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process. And overcoming the special interests and the lobbyists...” [12] However, last February, after serving only a few weeks in office, President Obama met privately at the White House with health care industry executives and lobbyists. [13] Yesterday, POLITICO reported that aides to President Obama and Democrat Senator Max Baucus met with corporate lobbyists in April to help “set in motion a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign, primarily financed by industry groups, that has played a key role in bolstering public support for health care reform.” [14] Needless to say, their negotiations were not broadcast on C-SPAN for the American people to see.

Presidential candidate Obama also promised that he would not “sign any nonemergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for five days.” [15] PolitiFact reports that this promise has already been broken three times by the current administration. [16] We can only hope that it won’t be broken again with health care reform.

All of this certainly gives the appearance of politics-as-usual in Washington with no change in sight.

Americans want health care reform because we want affordable health care. We don’t need subsidies or a public option. We don’t need a nationalized health care industry. We need to reduce health care costs. But the Senate Finance plan will dramatically increase those costs, all the while ignoring common sense cost-saving measures like tort reform. Though a Congressional Budget Office report confirmed that reforming medical malpractice and liability laws could save as much as $54 billion over the next ten years, tort reform is nowhere to be found in the Senate Finance bill. [17]

Here’s a novel idea. Instead of working contrary to the free market, let’s embrace the free market. Instead of going to war with certain private sector companies, let’s embrace real private-sector competition and allow consumers to purchase plans across state lines. Instead of taxing the so-called “Cadillac” plans that people get through their employers, let’s give individuals who purchase their own health care the same tax benefits we currently give employer-provided health care recipients. Instead of crippling Medicare, let’s reform it by providing recipients with vouchers so that they can purchase their own coverage.

Now is the time to make your voices heard before it’s too late. If we don’t fight for the market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven reform plan that we deserve, we’ll be left with the disastrous unintended consequences of the plans currently being cooked up in Washington.

- Sarah Palin

[1] See http://tinyurl.com/yjs3mgf
[2] See http://tinyurl.com/yfuw3k3
[3] See http://tinyurl.com/yfxq8ca
[4] See http://tinyurl.com/ykefsk6
[5] See http://tinyurl.com/ygf42fj
[6] See http://tinyurl.com/ykefsk6
[7] See http://tinyurl.com/lkvgsp
[8] See http://tinyurl.com/nx4nh6
[9] See ibid.
[10] See http://tinyurl.com/yhhr56v
[11] See ibid.
[12] See http://tinyurl.com/yhzhkvg and http://tinyurl.com/lhyr9o
[13] See http://tinyurl.com/yksd6h3
[14] See http://tinyurl.com/yl9gg27
[15] See http://tinyurl.com/yknpxd6
[16] See http://tinyurl.com/d2k5hb
[17] See http://tinyurl.com/yf8qmfh

ACTION ITEMS

1. Click here or here to support Michele Bachmann as she fights to save our freedoms.
2. Click here or here to support Sarah Palin and like-minded patriots who are fighting to save our freedoms.
3. Click here to CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION. Congresswoman Bachmann says they do pay attention if they get thousands of calls a day.

Engage!

hrh

Sarah Palin says "Drill" in National Review article

Hi all:

In the interest of getting this well-reasoned and common sense article spread across every corner of the Internet, I'm doing my part by reposting it here. The original piece with all due credit was published by National Review Magazine, conservative extraordinaire, William F. Buckley's, legacy.

Drill

Petroleum is a major part of America’s energy picture. Shall we get it here or abroad?

By Sarah Palin

Given that we’re spending billions of stimulus dollars to rebuild our highways, it makes sense to think about what we’ll be driving on them. For years to come, most of what we drive will be powered, at least in part, by diesel fuel or gasoline. To fuel that driving, we need access to oil. The less use we make of our own reserves, the more we will have to import, which leads to a number of harmful consequences. That means we need to drill here and drill now.

We rely on petroleum for much more than just powering our vehicles: It is essential in everything from jet fuel to petrochemicals, plastics to fertilizers, pesticides to pharmaceuticals. Ac­cord­ing to the Energy Information Ad­min­is­tra­tion, our total domestic petroleum consumption last year was 19.5 million barrels per day (bpd). Motor gasoline and diesel fuel accounted for less than 13 million bpd of that. Meanwhile, we produced only 4.95 million bpd of domestic crude. In other words, even if we ran all our vehicles on something else (which won’t happen anytime soon), we would still have to depend on imported oil. And we’ll continue that dependence until we develop our own oil resources to their fullest extent.

Those who oppose domestic drilling are motivated primarily by environmental considerations, but many of the countries we’re forced to import from have few if any environmental-protection laws, and those that do exist often go unenforced. In effect, American environmentalists are preventing responsible development here at home while supporting irresponsible development overseas.

My home state of Alaska shows how it’s possible to be both pro-environment and pro-resource-development. Alaskans would never support anything that endangered our pristine air, clean water, and abundant wildlife (which, among other things, provides many of us with our livelihood). The state’s government has made safeguarding resources a priority; when I was governor, for instance, we created a petroleum-systems-integrity office to monitor our oil and gas infrastructure for any potential environmental risks.

Alaska also shows how oil drilling is thoroughly compatible with energy conservation and renewable-energy development. Over 20 percent of Alas­ka’s electricity currently comes from renewable sources, and as governor I put forward a long-term plan to increase that figure to 50 percent by 2025. Alaska’s comprehensive plan identifies renewable options across the state that can help rural villages transition away from expensive diesel-generated electricity — allowing each community to choose the solution that best fits its needs. That’s important in any energy plan: Tempting as they may be to central planners, top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions are recipes for failure.

For the same reason, the federal government shouldn’t push a single, uni­versal approach to alternative-powered vehicles. Electric cars might work in Los Angeles, but they don’t work in Alaska, where you can drive hundreds of miles without seeing many people, let alone many electrical sockets. And while electric and hybrid cars have their advantages, producing the electricity to power them still requires an energy source. For the sake of the environment, that energy should be generated from the cleanest source available.

Natural gas is one promising clean alternative. It contains fewer pollutants than other fossil fuels, it’s easier to collect and process, and it is found throughout our country. In Alaska, we’re developing the largest private-sector energy project in history — a 3,000-mile, $40 billion pipeline to transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas to markets across the United States. Onshore and offshore na­tural gas from Alaska and the Lower 48 can satisfy a large part of our energy needs for decades, bringing us closer to energy independence. Whether we use it to power natural-gas cars or to run natural-gas power plants that charge electric cars — or ideally for both — natural gas can act as a clean “bridge fuel” to a future when more renewable sources are available.

In addition to drilling, we need to build new refineries. America currently has roughly 150 refineries, down from over 300 in the 1970s. Due mainly to environmental regulations, we haven’t built a major new refinery since 1976, though our oil consumption has increased significantly since then. That’s no way to secure our energy supply. The post-Katrina jump in gas prices proved that we can’t leave ourselves at the mercy of a hurricane that knocks a few refineries out of commission.

Building an energy-independent Amer­ica will mean a real economic stimulus. It will mean American jobs that can never be shipped overseas. Think about how much of our trade deficit is fueled by the oil we import — sometimes as much as half of the total. Through this massive transfer of wealth, we lose hundreds of billions of dollars a year that could be invested in our economy. Instead it goes to foreign countries, including some repressive regimes that use it to fund activities that threaten our security.

Reliance on foreign sources of energy weakens America. When a riot breaks out in an OPEC nation, or a developing country talks about nationalizing its oil industry, or a petro-dictator threatens to cut off exports, the probability is great that the price of oil will shoot up. Even in friendly nations, business and financial decisions made for local reasons can de­stabilize Amer­i­ca’s energy market, since the price we pay for foreign oil is subject to rising and falling exchange rates. Decreasing our dependence on foreign sources of energy will reduce the impact of world events on our economy.

In the end, energy independence is not just about the environment or the economy. It’s about freedom and confidence. It’s about building a more secure and peaceful America, an America in which our energy needs will not be subject to the whims of nature, currency speculators, or madmen in possession of vast oil reserves.

Alternative sources of energy are part of the answer, but only part. There’s no getting around the fact that we still need to “drill, baby, drill!” And if those in D.C. say otherwise, we need to tell them: “Yes, we can!”

— Sarah Palin was governor of Alaska from 2006 to 2009, and the Republican candidate for vice ­president in 2008. This article appears in the November 2, 2009, issue of National Review.

1. I'm getting ready to attend the Connecticut Liberty Forum event tomorrow to hear Minnesota Republican Congressman Michelle Bachmann.
2. I've emailed all 3 of my Congressional delegation regarding healthcare legislation.
3. I've written up an Information Sheet for Connecticut for Sarah, our conservative activitist group.

What are you doing?

Engage!

hrh

Sarah Palin on President Obama's healthcare speech

Hi all:

For those of you watching the U.S. Open in NYC this week, there's another back and forth battle going on in DC that's also a must see.

Hours before the President gave his speech on health care - unnecessarily before a joint session of Congress since he didn't say anything new - Sarah Palin gave a third guide to watching the event (Guides 1 and 2 are here and here.):

Response to the White House

Yesterday at 5:55pm

I'm pleased that the White House is finally responding to Republican health care ideas instead of pretending they don't exist.[1] But in doing so President Obama should follow his own sound advice and avoid making "wild misrepresentations".[2] Medicare vouchers would give everyone on Medicare the chance to decide for themselves which health plan to use, rather than leave that decision to government bureaucrats. Such proposals are the kind of health care reform that Republicans stand for: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven.

The White House talking points leave the rest of my arguments unanswered. They don't respond to the idea that all individuals should get the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; that we must reform our tort laws; and that we should allow Americans to buy insurance across state lines. The White House also fails to respond to the Nyce/Schieber study indicating that wages will fall if the government expands coverage without reducing health care inflation rates.

One last thing: after President Obama's speech tonight, listen for which pundits use the words "false", "scary", and "risky" in describing the proposals I put forward. That's how you'll be able to tell who the White House counted as "allies" worthy of receiving its talking points.

-Sarah Palin

[1] See http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/White_House_talking_points_blast_Palin.html.
[2] See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/opinion/16obama.html.


Hours after the speech, she responded thusly:

Response to the President's Health Care Speech

Today at 12:25am

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


Couple notes from me:

1. Since Rep Joe Wilson has apologized to the President for calling him a liar last night, I'm wondering when the President will apologize to the American people for calling US - and anyone who disagrees with him - liars?
2. When is the President going to apologize to the American people for lying to US? For example:
   

• We'll be able to keep our health care. That's a lie. We will only be able to keep our current health care TEMPORARILY. At some point, we will not be allowed to renew our healthcare coverage.
• Illegal immigrants are not covered. To my knowledge there is no verbiage in any of the current bills (no, I have not read every word of the thousands of pages) that specifically prohibits coverage. Therefore if an illegal challenges a provider for not taking care of him or her, the courts will have to point out that no where in the bill is covering illegals specifically prohibited - therefore providers will have to cover them.
• Abortion is not covered. Same argument as above, nowhere is paying for abortions with taxpayer money specifically prohibited so challenges in a court of law would not succeed.
• "I won't sign any bill that adds one cent to the deficit." We don't believe you, Mr. President, since in 9 months you have signed bills collectively that have increased our deficit to unprecedented levels in the 230-year history of our country. And you underestimated your deficit levels by TWO TRILLION DOLLARS, first stating that it would be $7 trillion and revising to $9 trillion. In this case, you may be lying to yourself, but you are certainly lying to the American people, who believe that ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.
  

Engage!

hrh

Sarah Palin's Health Care Op Ed in the Wall Street Journal

Hi all:

And for those of you who don't subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, here's Sarah Palin's OpEd posted online at 7:45 p.m. September 8. I hope it's published in the print edition on September 9, the day of Obama's speech before Congress.


Obama and the Bureaucractization of Health Care

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 ...

Read the rest here, including her list of better solutions than the Congress or President are proposing. Keep this one handy for tomorrow night's address from the President, too.

I know I'm looking forward to being at the 9/12 March on Washington this Saturday. Come on down if you can!

Engage!

hrh

Governor Palin's Testimony on Health Care For the New York State Senate

Hi all:

New York State Senator, prolife Democrat Ruben Diaz, had invited Governor Sarah Palin to come to his district and talk about health care. She was unable to attend in person, but she submitted this testimony to the New York State Senate for their public hearing on health care:

Senator Reverend Ruben Diaz
Chair, New York Senate Aging Committee
Legislative Office Building
Room 307
Albany, NY 12247

Transmitted via email to: diaz@senate.state.ny.us

September 8, 2009

RE: H.R. 3200: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 and Its Impact on Senior Citizens

Dear Senator Diaz,

Thank you for asking me to participate in the New York State Senate Aging Committee’s hearing regarding H.R. 3200, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.” You and I share a commitment to ensuring that our health care system is not “reformed” at the expense of America’s senior citizens.

I have been vocal in my opposition to Section 1233 of H.R.3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.”[1] Proponents of the bill have described this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. That is misleading. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual ... or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility... or a hospice program.”[2] During those consultations, practitioners are to explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services.[3]

To understand this provision fully, it must be read in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.”[4] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As one commentator has noted, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.... If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to ‘bend the curve’ on health-care costs?”[5]

As you stated in your letter to Congressman Henry Waxman of California:

Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives.... It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen ... should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign.[6]

It is unclear whether section 1233 or a provision like it will remain part of any final health care bill. Regardless of its fate, the larger issue of rationed health care remains.

A great deal of attention was given to my use of the phrase “death panel” in discussing such rationing.[7] Despite repeated attempts by many in the media to dismiss this phrase as a “myth”, its accuracy has been vindicated. In the face of a nationwide public outcry, the Senate Finance Committee agreed to “drop end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly.”[8] Jim Towey, the former head of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, then called attention to what’s already occurring at the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, where “government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care.”[9] Even Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, a strong supporter of President Obama, agreed that “if the government says it has to control health care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.”[10] And of course President Obama has not backed away from his support for the creation of an unelected, largely unaccountable Independent Medicare Advisory Council to help control Medicare costs; he had previously suggested that such a group should guide decisions regarding “that huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives….”[11]

The fact is that any group of government bureaucrats that makes decisions affecting life or death is essentially a “death panel.” The work of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, President Obama’s health policy advisor and the brother of his chief of staff, is particularly disturbing on this score. Dr. Emanuel has written extensively on the topic of rationed health care, describing a “Complete Lives System” for allotting medical care based on “a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”[12] He also has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens.... An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”[13]

Such ideas are shocking, but they could ultimately be used by government bureaucrats to help determine the treatment of our loved ones. We must ensure that human dignity remains at the center of any proposed health care reform. Real health care reform would also follow free market principles, including the encouragement of health savings accounts; would remove the barriers to purchasing health insurance across state lines; and would include tort reform so as to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending connected to the filing of frivolous lawsuits. H.R. 3200 is not the reform we are looking for.

Thank you for calling attention to this important matter. I look forward to working with you again to ensure that we keep the dignity of our senior citizens foremost in any health care discussion.

Sincerely,

Governor Sarah Palin

1 See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
2 See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1); sec. 1233 (hhh)(3)(B)(1), above.
3 See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1)(E), above.
4 See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
5 See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html
6 See http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/letter-congressman-henry-waxman-re-section-1233-hr-3200
7 See http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=113851103434
8 See http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/54617-finance-committee-to-drop-end-of-life-provision
9 See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204683204574358590107981718.html
10 See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002455.html
11 See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03Obama-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1
12 See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions
13 See http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf

Keep this testimony - and the footnoted sources - nearby during President Obama's health care speech Wednesday night before a joint session of Congress.

Engage!

hrh

h/t C4P and Palin's Facebook

Something Fishy About DC

Hi all:

Engage!

hrh

Sarah Palin on Health Care

Hi all:

Private Citizen Sarah Palin has been on a tear lately, writing up well-researched and documented essays on the current healthcare proposals.

It all started last Friday when she released this statement, which I'll post in its entirety because 1) it's short and 2) it's been grossly misrepresented in the media:

Statement on the Current Health Care Debate

Friday, August 7, 2009 at 4:26pm

As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.

Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.

We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate. Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back. Ronald Reagan once wrote, “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Let’s stop and think and make our voices heard before it’s too late.

- Sarah Palin

Rep. Bachmann's speech can be viewed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CHBvKGmevI

Sarah Palin's Notes link: http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin#/note.php?note_id=113851103434


Of course, the media keyed in on the "death panels," which was deliberately put in quotation marks because that term isn't in the bill. But the dunderhead media didn't get it and began screeching from the rooftops that "death panels aren't in the bill!"

So Sarah followed up the next day with a dozen or so articles, panels, and videos backing up her point that rationing to keep costs low will lead to death panels, or bureaucrats advising older people to consider taking less healthcare and either suffering more or dying sooner in order to save money for the younger, fitter, more productive set.

Here's the beginning of that post and the link if you want to consider all her sources:

Some Useful Commentary on the Health Care Debate

Saturday, August 8, 2009 at 5:50pm

As Americans spend the next few weeks discussing health care reform, I thought it might be helpful to share some articles (and one panel discussion video) that I’ve found especially insightful.

Washington Post editorial, July 26, 2009
“The Health-Care Sacrifice: What President Obama needs to tell the public about the cost of reform”

But Mr. Obama's soothing bedside manner masks the reality that getting health costs under control will require making difficult choices about what procedures and medications to cover. It will require saying no, or having the patient pay more, at times when the extra expense is not justified by the marginal improvement in care.

*********

Click the link below to read the rest of the sources and watch the video panel.

Sarah Palin's Notes link: http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin#/note.php?note_id=114345578434

Those who support this monstrostiy of a government takeover of health care and our private lives couldn't argue in the face of that mountain of evidence - so they took to personal attacks instead, saying that as Governor, Palin didn't care about seniors.

So she posted her record of governance regarding seniors:

Palin Reduced Medicaid Backlog 83% In Two Years

Tue at 9:37 pm

Contrary to some assertions, Sarah Palin has a strong record supporting Alaskan seniors. For example, Governor Palin successfully obtained approval for a five year extension of a state program that provided monthly cash payments to low-income seniors.

On May 23, 2007, using a rarely invoked emergency regulation, Governor Palin ordered assistance benefits to continue for Alaska’s neediest seniors after the Alaska legislature failed to fund the SeniorCare Program. After her action, the legislature responded, and on July 28, 2007, Governor Palin signed Senate Bill 4 to continue support for low-income Alaskan seniors by adopting the Senior Benefits Program. “This program continues important assistance to Alaska seniors,” Governor Palin said. “I promised that seniors would not go hungry, and we worked with the Alaska Legislature to address this critical need.” It was estimated that 10,700 Alaskan seniors would be able to benefit under the program ...

Read the rest for more #s and graphs of the Medicare backlog, etc.

Sarah Palin's Notes link: http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin#/note.php?note_id=115884633434

Then the President at his stage show in Portsmouth, NH, began bringing up death panels in answer to questions that had nothing to do with death panels. And Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called out Sarah Palin by name as the one who is spreading misinformation.

So Sarah responded with an in-depth, endnoted essay backing up her initial post, you know, the one that got everyone talking - including the President of the United States:

Concerning the "Death Panels"

Wed at 11:55pm

Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.

The President made light of these concerns. He said:

“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore....It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.” [1]

The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context ...

Read the rest for more cogent and sourced arguments.

Sarah Palin's Notes link: http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin#/note.php?note_id=116471698434


And then, guess what happened?

The Senate Committe working on the bill decided to drop the end-of-life provision! As U.S. News & World Report put it:

In what can fairly be described as an admission that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin knew what she was talking about, the Senate Finance Committee Thursday dropped language from its bipartisan healthcare reform package that Palin and others had suggested would eventually lead to mandated end-of-life counseling sessions for seniors.

Supporters of Obamacare, including President Barack Obama, had accused Palin and others of being dishonest in suggesting the counseling sessions would somehow lead to the government encouraging euthanasia as a cost-cutting measure as part of rationed care.

Check out more details at C4P here: http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2009/08/senate-to-drop-end-of-life-provision.html


But those death panels are only one part of the onerous and ominous provisions in the 1,000 page bureacratic nightmare known as health care reform. So Sarah continues to analyze the bill:

Troubling Questions Remain About Obama's Health Care Plan

Today at 1:11am

I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200). It’s gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones.

As I noted in my statement last week, nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time. The rationing system proposed by one of President Obama’s key health care advisors is particularly disturbing. I’m speaking of the “Complete Lives System” advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the president’s chief of staff. President Obama has not yet stated any opposition to the “Complete Lives System,” a system which, if enacted, would refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled who have less economic potential. [1] Why the silence from the president on this aspect of his nationalization of health care? Does he agree with the “Complete Lives System”? If not, then why is Dr. Emanuel his policy advisor? What is he advising the president on? I just learned that Dr. Emanuel is now distancing himself from his own work and claiming that his “thinking has evolved” on the question of rationing care to benefit the strong and deny the weak. [2] How convenient that he disavowed his own work only after the nature of his scholarship was revealed to the public at large.

The president is busy assuring us that we can keep our private insurance plans, but common sense (and basic economics) tells us otherwise. The public option in the Democratic health care plan will crowd out private insurers, and that’s what it’s intended to do. A single payer health care plan has been President Obama’s agenda all along, though he is now claiming otherwise. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what he said back in 2003:


“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan.... A single payer health care plan – universal health care plan – that’s what I would like to see.” [3] ...


Read on for more endnoted analysis.

Sarah Palin's Notes link: http://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin#/note.php?note_id=116979483434


And that's how it stands now.

If your congresspeople are holding town halls near you, consider going to one and voicing your opposition. Health care is one of the most private areas one can have. It's between oneself, one's God, one's family, and one's physician. Not one's government.

Let's keep it that way.

Engage!

hrh

Why Did Governor Palin Resign?

Hi all:

UPDATE: 7/30/09

See what I mean? Apparently the host site has taken the video down. If you search for it though, I believe it is back on youtube and other sites online.


Watch this video. Then you decide.


Find more videos like this on Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy

1. You also need to know that this video was first posted on YouTube. Where it was removed.
2. Then it was posted on Sevenload. Where it was again removed.
3. Then someone posted it on Twitvid. Where it was removed again.
4. Now I'm posting it here from a copy at this Ning site. I suggest watching it quickly, because it may be removed from that site, too. Which means it won't play here either.

[H/T JP for the above info.]


Again I ask, "Why did Governor Palin resign? What has happened to our free and fair democracy?"

What do you think? And what are we going to do about it?

Remember this:

"Therefore do not fear them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known." Matthew 10:26

Engage,
hrh

IBD's Ed on Gov Palin's Op Ed on Cap and Trade

Hi all:

Here's what the Investor's Business Daily (IBD) editorial board has to say in response to Senator John Kerry's hit piece about Governor Palin's Washington Post OpEd:

Palin Vs. Kerry (And MoveOn.org)

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Politics: John Kerry, replying to an op-ed Sarah Palin wrote on cap-and-trade, suggests the Alaska governor "check the view from her front porch." What she sees from there, senator, is energy wealth going to waste.

The political death of Sarah Palin has been greatly exaggerated. In a devastating op-ed in the Washington Post, Alaska's governor exposes the cap-and-tax fraud that has nothing to do with earth's temperature and everything to do with government control of the economy.

She also exposes the stealth socialism ambitions of the Democratic left and once again points out the availability of abundant "shovel-ready" resources under America's soil, off America's shores and even in America's rocks.

Judging from the reaction from Sen. Kerry and the political arm of George Soros, one must ask: If Palin is spent as a political force, why is everyone on the left so worried and talking about her?

Kerry took to the ultraliberal Web site Huffington Post to object to Palin's description of "the president's cap-and-trade energy tax" as "an enormous threat to our economy." In Alaska, she wrote, "we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, energy and security."

Kerry, who opposed the Cape Wind project off breezy Cape Cod because a wind farm capturing energy from ocean breezes might spoil his view, went ballistic. In a thinly veiled reference to Tina Fey's "Saturday Night Live" skit, he repeated the warm-monger mantra that the "global climate change crisis threatens our economy and national security in profound ways" and that "Gov. Palin need look no further than the view from her front porch in Alaska to see how destructive this crisis can be."

What Palin sees is a cap-and-tax plan that will result in a "dried-up energy sector" that even the sponsors of the Waxman-Markey bill anticipate, or they wouldn't have included a provision providing $4.2 billion over eight years for newly unemployed energy workers.

It's not just the energy sector that will be devastated. Palin notes that "even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan." We have cited an analysis of Waxman-Markey by the Heritage Foundation that found unemployment will increase by nearly 2 million in 2012, the first year of the program, and reach nearly 2.5 million in 2035. Total GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion.

Kerry responded that Palin failed to mention that "jobs in our emerging clean energy economy grew nearly 2 1/2 times faster than overall jobs since 1998." That's easy when you start from almost zero. Note that 1998 is also the year the earth started cooling, with not a warmer year since. There's even been snow in Malibu.

From Palin's front porch, senator, she can see "the largest private-sector energy project in history" — her "3,000-mile natural gas pipeline (that) will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America."

From Palin's front porch you can also see the 2,000-acre part of ANWR's frozen tundra that contains 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil (such estimates often underestimate actual yields) and that could supply all the oil needs of Kerry's Massachusetts for 75 years.

And from her front porch, Palin can see the Chukchi Sea northwest of Alaska's landmass. Awaiting development there, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, are 1.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, or 30% of the world's supply, and 83 billion barrels of oil, 4% of global conventional resources.

MoveOn.org began e-mailing members Tuesday, asking them to fund a rapid response ad blasting Palin's op-ed. Soros' group said Palin was positioning herself as the face of conservative opposition to Obama's energy policy, telling supporters her op-ed was "a marvel of misinformation and outright lies."

What really hurts is Palin's truth. Kerry and MoveOn.org say Sarah Palin must be stopped. We say, drill, baby, drill.

IBD has published many editorials that are supportive of Governor Palin's energy independence efforts and specifically, the natural gas pipeline, as well as her national security views. In fact, they've coined the term "the Palin way" when talking about achieving energy independence.

Engage!

hrh