Looks Like Campaign 2012 Has Started

Credit for the original image below goes to Runner's World online mag, who staged this cutesy pic of Governor Icon last month. I'll take full blame for the overlaid word salad but I swear I heard her say something very much like this in the past!

By the way, don't you just want to do me? *wink wink*

I couldn't resist. *insert smiley face here*

Governor Icon of Tight Ab-Land

I found a comment from Regina of Palingates on another blog today with a link to a series of YouTube videos showing the Sarah Palin special that FauxNoise broadcast almost 10 months ago. Thank you Regina, I've been looking for this footage for a long time! A lot of the video that Faux incorporates in their special was purchased from Elan Frank, an Israeli Air Force reservist and documentary director who interviewed Sarah Palin when she would have been almost eight months pregnant. Frank went to Alaska and filmed Sarah over a few days, and the best information I can find has April 8, 2008 as one of those days. (If any reader has confirmation or more precise information please let me know.

So, why is this video footage so important? Because just ten days later—April 18, 2008—is Trig Paxson Van Palin's birthday. Or so we have been told. Images of Sarah seemingly pregnant with Trig are scarce, and they are interspersed in the February-April 2008 timeline with images of Sarah clearly not pregnant.

I extracted an frame of Sarah from one of the videos and put it side-by-side with an image of another woman who seems to really be eight months pregnant. In case you're confused, that's Sarah on the left and a woman advertising a little strap-thingie that connects bra to jeans on the right.

I viewed all 5 parts of the Faux special and found more interesting material that may make it into blog posts in coming days.

Because snippets of the video are quite telling, I put a little movie together showing Sarah talking about her "tight abs" and cooing and giggling and looking ever so innocent as she talks to Elan Frank. I know, I should probably add music in here somewhere, but I'm still very much a newbie when it comes to making videos:

More Fun With Photoshop

The hole that Meg Stapleton and Sarah Palin dig with their ridiculous outrage over petty and false things brought the following image to mind.  If they keep it up, even their faithful disciples are going to have a hard time taking them seriously!

Sarah and Meg accidentally flush themselves down the 'get off the stage' toilet

The Wasillabilly Grifters

Backstory for those not aware:

AK blogger Celtic Diva is trying to get copies of some AK executive branch e-mails and the Palin administration wants an arm and a leg for finding and copying them, so readers of her blog are contributing so that the fee can be paid. The request for e-mails has to do with the executive branch leaking private information to certain media outlets to smear someone who filed an ethics complaint against Sarah Palin.

Part of Celtic Diva's fundraising campaign has included a 'thermometer' type graphic illustrating the fundraising progress. Each day a new image with a new "percent raised" has been posted. One day's image showed Sarah Palin holding a baby Eddie Burke (a radio host who broadcast the leaked information).

Sarah's disciples at one of her more prominent worship sites have gotten into a humongous uproar about this thermometer image because Eddie Burke's face was 'shopped on top of the body of Trig Palin, Sarah's [grand]son. They began informing everyone they could think of about Celtic Diva's horribleness and word must have reached Sarah herself. We know this because her spokesperson Meg Stapleton distributed a statement today, likening the 'shopped image to desecrating a holy icon. I'm not kidding.

As a result, Politico and even CNN reported the extent of Sarah's latest outrage, which probably sent an awful lot of traffic to Celtic Diva's site. Congratulations Linda!! Based on most of the comments on those stories, another result is that Sarah's bulb has gotten even dimmer (if possible). They are fun to read if you have the time.

So I thought, hey, I can 'shop too! With that, let me introduce my latest (hilarious) creation, titled "The Wasillabilly Grifters and Their Enablers." :-)

Feel free to reproduce and use anywhere you want!

Fear, Hate and Loathing in Anchorage, Alaska

After listening to a few hundred people 'testify' before the Anchorage Assembly regarding an ordinance that would extend the current anti-discrimination law to include members of the LGBT community, I've got enough material to compile a typical statement made by the red-shirted xtians who stood up at the microphone. The following is not a transcript, it is simply my impression. The images on the side come from pictures posted on this blog entry at Mudflats.

"My name is Redd Shurt and I've lived in Alaska for a while. I'm here to let you Assembly people know that God loves everybody and I love everybody, really I do, and I don't hate anyone. All my brothers and sisters in Khrist feel exactly the same way! In fact I know a lot of homo-sekshuals and I have gay friends, a lot of 'em. But there's a natchural way to live and an unnatchural way and if you all pass this here ord'nance 64, we'll be forced to condone, support and promote the unnatchural way which is the same as sin because it says so, right here in the Bible: [insert favorite chapter and verse from the Old Testament here]. Alaska will turn into Sodom and Gomorrah and be destroyed. Gays will be recruiting other people and spreading disease and prancing around telling us decent, God-fearing folks what we can and can't do in our own city. So do the right thing and vote NO on 64.

"I don't judge anybody because that's up to God, but I love God and I don't approve of those gay people's sin! Can I get an amen? Think of the children when they go to school or church or daycare or... to the bathroom! What happens when they run into men dressed up like women in a public restroom and get scared and confused! Or what if their Sunday school teacher was a lesbian, trying to infect them with some of that queerness -- that would be turrible bad! I have a right to raise my children as I see fit, far away from sick, immoral deviants. Gay people should just stay in the closet where they belong, but this ord'nance makes it okay for them to come out and that makes me disgusted and angry. Remember, I vote and I'm watching you! In fact, let the people vote on 64, otherwise you are taking away my rights to have a voice in this matter and it's clear that people who feel like I do are in the majority and the majority should rule!

"What about my rights? If I don't want to hire somebody you can't make a law that sez I have to. If God doesn't like what I do then I get to answer to God, not to some law you make up. I won't be able to turn down a homo-sekshual with bad credit who wants to rent an apartment without getting sued! The lawyers will get rich but us Khristshuns will go broke and that is very bad for our city, our state and our country. Even the US Military kicks gay people out and everyone knows that there's no proof at all that you have to be gay because I shure haven't read anything scientific to prove it but right here on the Internet it says gays can be cured so that means it's a choice and behavior can be changed. But if you wanna be gay then suck it up and take what comes with that and don't be asking me to give you any special rights. Besides, I shouldn't have to pay because of a choice you make!"

Why Babygate Matters

There are some people who say they don't care whether or not Sarah Palin gave birth to a 5th child, a son named Trig Paxson Van Palin. I care, and here is why.

Sarah Palin seems to see herself as a national political figure. She's done nothing to discourage any talk about running for President in 2012 or 2016, and in fact, she seems to be eager to promote herself as someone worthy of consideration.

Palin's supporters push for her candidacy and promote the idea on numerous blogs and other Web sites. They support her potential run financially through SarahPAC. I get the feeling they are not all that numerous but they are very vocal. We have to wait until the PAC's first accounting comes out to see how the support translates into dollars.

Even though many voices I respect claim Sarah Palin stands no chance being selected as the Republican nominee, much less winning the Presidency, I'm not confident enough in our mainstream media or our voting machines to think that such a fluke is 100% impossible. Besides, there is always a 3rd party ticket possibility.

I think most reasonable people would acknowledge that Sarah Palin uses people, including her own children, to further her political aims. If she did not give birth to Trig, she is especially using those who are against legal abortions, or those who also have a Down syndrome child, by appealing to them in events across the country. If she did not give birth to Trig, she has been lying to them and everyone else for a long time.

A person who would perpetrate a deception like this would also attempt to deceive on other issues. These are not the morals or ethics I want to see in a President, or in a person who holds any political office for that matter.

Sarah Palin's resume, and her appeal to what are called the core voters in the GOP, rests almost entirely on these "facts:"

1. She is an attractive woman and a mother of five.
2. She chose to give birth to a baby with Down syndrome.
3. She is a Governor.
4. She is knowledgeable about the "energy" issue.
5. She has a "servant's heart."

Point one is in dispute (the mother of five part). Point two is very much in dispute. Point three is true, but her legacy as Governor is still being written and it is so far peppered with incidents that do not reflect well on Sarah Palin's ability to govern wisely and well. That point four is in dispute is apparent if you do even a little research on the topic. That leaves us with point five, but it's not up to me to judge that.

Babygate is about points one and two. I can say with great confidence that the woman shown below could not have given birth to a 6 lb 2 oz baby a few weeks after these pictures were taken:

Sarah Palin on March 14, 2008

Sarah Palin on March 27, 2008

Sarah Palin, first week of April 2008

Babygate researchers have turned up all kinds of additional evidence that increases my confidence. This information is being preserved online at Team Truther as well as several other places. It's not hard to find if you look!

The only evidence to the contrary remains:

1. Sarah said she was pregnant. ("So, it was really great, I was only pregnant a month.")
2. The mysterious Gusty photos taken on one afternoon that appear to show a pregnant Sarah.
3. An ambiguous printed statement released by the McCain campaign purporting to be from Sarah's family doctor.

As for #1—We heard Sarah claim that the Alaska Legislative Council report on Troopergate cleared her of any wrongdoing even when it plainly told us she was guilty of abusing her office as Governor. Sarah also said she turned down the funds for the "bridge to nowhere" but neglected to mention she kept them anyway. And she also let everyone believe she sold the governor's jet on E-Bay for a profit even though she sold it at a loss to a political contributor. Believe what Sarah says at your peril.

As for #2—We know that a woman can appear to be pregnant when she is not. There are many ways to pad oneself under clothing. For some reason, the Gusty images are no longer publicly available. Neither are any other images that show a pregnant Sarah Palin. There are quite a few images that show a not-pregnant Sarah Palin though!

As for #3—Sarah's family doctor has never spoken on the issue even though local news media gave her the opportunity a few times in an attempt to put Babygate to rest. No birth certificate or medical records have ever been released that would back up Sarah's claim of being pregnant with and giving birth to Trig. No hospital birth announcements were published for Trig Paxson Van Palin.

If the Babygate deception was revealed as truth, would Sarah's chances at a national political office be virtually eliminated? My Magic 8 ball says:

That's why Babygate matters to me, and I'd guess that's also why Sarah Palin's supporters are so savage and vicious when anyone brings it up.

[cross-posted at Team Truther]

What the Red Shirts Really Said

Last night's public testimony from the red-shirted ABT people (Anchorage Baptist Temple, the church led by Jerry Prevo) boils down to this:

The LGBT community is not okay because God said so, according to the Prevochristians™.  They are extremely agitated at the thought that the Anchorage Assembly might pass an ordinance saying that gays actually are okay in the eyes of the law.

The Prevochristians™ won't say this out loud, but they are afraid this might mean that they are not exclusively okay. According to Prevo, there is only one kind of okay.  People who believe as he does are it.  So people who don't believe as he does can't be okay, can they?

The red shirts claim that their rights will be taken away if sexual orientation is added as a protected class along with other identifiers like race, color, creed, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, and marital status.  The only "right" they would lose, it seems to me, is the right to discriminate against a lesbian or gay or transgender person—which seems just fine to me.  If they ever had that right in the first place it was because they assumed too much.

Pastor Prevo has developed a litany of reasons why gay people are not okay, and red shirt after red shirt stepped up to the microphone last night and read out the reasons.

1. Being gay is a choice, a lifestyle, a behavior.  (Even if this were true, going to ABT and believing what Prevo says is also a choice.) 
2. Since gayness can be cured it is okay to ostracize, ridicule, reject and otherwise discriminate against gays who don't seek treatment. (Sorry, being gay is not a physical or mental disease.)
   
3. God condemns homosexuality as a sin.  (Whose god?)
4. Gays have an agenda! (And Jerry Prevo does not?)
5. Gays try to convert you into being gay too!  (Ahem.  Who is trying to convert who?)
   

It is immensely sad and quite unsettling to me that in order to grow a church, certain religious leaders opt to create a box in which to keep their congregations.

It's very hard to see what is outside the box when you are inside it. The box protects you and shields you, but it also blinds you and breaks your connection to the rest of the world. I don't have a problem with people being in a box as long as they know they are in a box, and as long as they accept that being in that box isn't the only right way to live.

More to Come But First:

I've been watching the video feed of the public discussion on the Anchorage, AK ordinance that would add a class of protected persons to their anti-discrimination laws. The law in Anchorage already protects people no matter their race and gender, among other descriptors. The ordinance (#64) seeks to add protections for those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (aka LGBT).

The proponents for the ordinance are presenting studies that discrimination against this group is real, and in their testimony they are bearing witness, through personal accounts, of the bigotry, hatred, and ostracizing they or close friends have experienced... in Anchorage.

The opponents of the ordinance are inspired to speak out, to fight against the ordinance, largely by a few pastors of Anchorage churches. Their testimony includes exhortations to God, statistics about the deviance and foulness and disease of gay folks (which seem to be largely unsupported), history lessons going back to the Old Testament, and pleas to the Assembly to refrain from usurping their own rights. Rights? Rights to label others? Rights to discriminate against others? Rights to engage with others only as long as those others recognize their sin and agree to be re-programmed so they are no longer gay?

The opponents are of one voice when they say that lesbians and gays have an illness that comes about from their personal choice. If only, they wail, these deviants, these sick people would accept their help to stop being "not okay" so they could rejoin the Christian™ community!

Frankly, I am appalled. Appalled by the overt hypocrisy in the Reverend Jerry Prevo (and other pastor's) crowd. (See Immoral Minority for a copy of what this right Reverend has sent to his "congregation." See Bent Alaska for a history of the struggle to codify protections for the LGBT community.) I am appalled that a sect... a religious sect really thinks it should be able to enforce its particular beliefs on an entire city. I am appalled that so many individuals, all wearing red shirts, can get up and publicly display their bigotry, their disdain for tolerance, their disgust of fellow human beings. The right Reverend, I think, will have an awful lot to answer for, should he make it to those "pearly gates."

Anyway, more to come on this. There is another open session tonight where additional "testimony" will be taken. Please visit Mudflats for information on how to listen/watch tonight's session. Also please visit Alaska Commons for a comprehensive view of the ordinance and its meaning.

Compare and Contrast

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of images of Sarah Palin. Most of this photographic record starts with her Alaska gubernatorial run and goes through the McCain-Palin campaign. I've displayed a random sampling of those images in the strip on the left.

I think many of us noticed the sudden and startling shift in Sarah's appearance in her recent cable news interviews. At first I put it down to a different hair-do—a subconscious, perhaps, rebellion against David Letterman's jest that she went to Bloomingdale's to "update her slutty flight attendant look."  After taking a second look, though, I think the contrast cannot be explained by just the hair style change.  Images grabbed from her Matt Lauer interview a few days ago make up the strip on the right.

In my previous post I suggested that something is definitely going on with Sarah, and I am even more sure of it after comparing these images. 

Before		After
These images were taken between the time Sarah Palin ran for Governor in 2006 and end when she finished her campaign to be VP.		These images were taken a few days ago as Sarah Palin spoke with cable news about her outrage over David Letterman's "knocked up" joke.

I wonder if the sea of pee'ers has noticed this physical deterioration in their goddess, and if they think their efforts to raise funds for SarahPAC will be of any help whatsoever. Maybe one of the teabaggers can talk her into sipping a good herbal blend that stimulates the appetite.

I'm No Doctor But...

Sarah Palin doesn't look well to me.

My impression comes from looking at the images of her "pageant walk" across the stage at the NRCC/NRSC dinner last week.

Awfully slim, skinny even, more so than I've ever noticed.

No hips, no abdomen.

Toes slipping off the front of the platform shoes.

Prominent tendons at the neck.

The hair is big, but nothing else is.

Here's another .. she's sort of leaning toward Todd as she makes her way across the stage.  Her chinbone is visible and her hands look absolutely skeletal.  Her kneecaps are obvious. 




I enlarged the hands to look at them better.

 

Her knuckles look swollen and her wrists and fingers are terribly bony.  The bracelet on her left wrist looks like it could fall off at any moment.  She's not wearing any rings that I can see, which is odd because she usually wears a wedding band.


Maybe it's just the lights, or the fact that black is incredibly 'slimming' in these photos.  But my impression is that something is going on.  What do you think?

How's Your Self-Esteem Lately, Bristol?

In each of Sarah Palin's public discharges (I can't help but think of the ooze from a pus-filled wound) over the last day or two, she takes the opportunity to ream David Letterman for destroying the self-esteem of young women everywhere. It is with no small amount of head-shaking that I feel it necessary to remind "she who is a media whore from babble on" that she herself is the major factor in destroying her daughters' sense of self-worth.

Think back to the beginning of September, 2008. The GILF (Governor I'd Love to F*** was a frequent descriptor) was chosen as John McCain's running mate. She came with some baggage. Part of the baggage was a legislative investigation into her questionable firing of Walt Monegan. We all know how that turned out—she was found to have abused her power as Governor by the AK State Legislature, but her own Personnel Board simply took her word for the fact that she had no idea members of her family and staff were harassing Monegan to fire her ex-brother-in-law.

The other part of her baggage was this persistent, long-standing rumor that she had faked her supposed 5th pregnancy and that her daughter, Bristol, had in fact, given birth to the DS baby Sarah lugged around on stage during the campaign. Sarah attempted (unsuccessfully) to squash that story by shoving Bristol, then not even 18, onto the public stage by proclaiming that Bristol was now pregnant by "around 5 months." Instead of offering any records that she, Sarah, had given birth to Trig, she outed her 17-yr-old daughter's current pregnancy as a way of saying, "See, she's really pregnant now, so she couldn't have been pregnant before!"

Talk about embarrassing. Bristol was padded and stuffed into tight clothes and displayed on stage at the RNC and carted around throughout the campaign, curiously acting more motherly toward Trig than Sarah ever did. From that time on I felt sorry for Bristol. Her pre-marital sex with someone suddenly became common knowledge across the world. Had my mother done that to me (had I been unfortunate enough to become pregnant as an unwed teen) I would have despised her.

And that wasn't enough! Almost as if Sarah wanted Bristol to pay dearly for her indiscretions, Bristol somehow became a spokesperson for abstinence via Candies' "excuse me" subsidiary. Candies makes money by selling sex to very young girls. They also try to counter the negative publicity from this by running another enterprise that is intended to tell young girls that they should not engage in sexual intercourse -- all the while feeding them images that aim to get them to buy and dress in sexy revealing clothing.

So I ask, what has Sarah Palin done in her own small sphere—her family—to bolster her own daughters' self-esteem? She branded Bristol as an irresponsible youth for whom an equivalency high school diploma is some grand achievement and an out-of-wedlock child is a happy misfortune. Her brazen tossing of Bristol under the bus of her own political aspirations must have sent red flags to Willow, and even if Piper doesn't realize it yet, she too has been demeaned.

For Sarah to essentially call David Letterman a pedophile and a statutory rapist is not an ordinary reaction. It is an extreme over-reaction. It makes me wonder about the rape history in Sarah's family story. You only get that touchy about something that has touched you.

Here's another aspect of Sarah's hypocrisy in her recent blathering. She said in the Matt Lauer video,

Quite, I think, a sad commentary on where we are as a culture, as a society to chuckle and laugh through comments such as he had made the other night. I think it’s quite unfortunate.

But listen here to an audio broadcast where Sarah giggles when radio talk show hosts demean an Alaskan Republican legislator who happened to be recovering from cancer. The shock jocks call Lyda Green a bitch and a cancer. Way to go supporting women, Sarah! You agreed and laughed and never said one word to tamp down the very nasty speech against a fellow female politician IN YOUR OWN PARTY.

Sarah, take it from me. I'm a financial conservative and social liberal. I have three children, one of whom is a daughter. My mother was a dittohead (aka Rush Limbaugh devotee). If you had shown any promise whatsoever, even in one sphere (besides American Talibanism), I would have tried to find reasons to support you. Instead, you spit on me and those like me, because even though we are working women who have raised children while totally supporting our households in ordinary jobs (at less than 1/3 of what you make), you say we do not belong to "real America," whatever that is. What you are doing now, by smacking your lips and getting all in a roar about a late night comedian, is self-defeating. You have chosen to fight a paper dragon. Yet you are no warrior, you are a whiner. You are no lady, you are a tramp. You are no Christian, either, so get off it.

The jokes that Letterman told a couple nights ago were derived from you, the actions you took, the scrutiny you invited, the celebrity you sought and cultivated for you and your vulnerable children. Your daughters' self-esteem problems, whatever they may be, have nothing to do with Letterman compared to what you've already done to them.

Red Is the Color of ...

Given today's terribly sad news about an aged right-wing, white supremicist shooting and killing a security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC, and given the recent horrific news about another right-wing anti-abortion extremist killing Dr. Tiller at his church last weekend, and given the awful speech by extreme right-wing idealogues who mouthed off against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, I suppose I should be thankful that none of the LGBT citizens who appeared at last night's Anchorage hearing were harmed while I watched.

Staying up well past my bedtime last night I viewed as much of the hearing as I could (via the Internet) on Anchorage, Alaska's proposed ordinance to add LGBT persons to their anti-discrimination law.  Was anyone else disturbed by the nearly uniform wearing of red shirts by all those who testified in opposition to the ordinance?  Had I been sitting on the board hearing the testimony, I would have been upset that a simple session for citizen comments would be usurped by what appeared to be a calculated, organized movement.  People from well outside Anchorage spoke against the ordinance... no doubt people from Sarah Palin's own home congregation.

I wrote down several themes, from both proponents and opponents.  What I finally sorted out for myself today boils down to this:  those who oppose making explicit a LGBT person's rights are afraid.  Here is what they have been led to fear:

• They will no longer be able to freely discriminate against members of the LGBT community.
• In addition, they will no longer be able to assert their dominance as the major religion, forcing their ideas and beliefs on others.

I consider myself to be a spiritual person, but not a religious person.  If I were gay and marching in a parade, I would not want so-called Christians yelling at me, reviling me, telling me that Jesus could save me from my illness, and insisting that I am damned if I don't listen to them.  Yet I would never chastise them for holding those beliefs.

I do not care what my neighbors believe when it comes to religious precepts.  What I would care about is if my neighbors took it upon themselves to set me straight according to their religious beliefs by haranguing and harassing me.  (I do wish Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons would stop knocking on my door, trying to enlist me in their belief systems.)

Our country does have freedom of religion.  It also has, or should have, freedom from religion.  Extreme fundamentalists and proselytizers have the option to kick out their gay son or daughter from their own house.  They have the option to refuse entry to a transgender person from their house of worship.  They have every right to turn away a gay couple who asks to be married in their church.  But each of us also has the right to be respected when we ask evangelists of whatever flavor to leave our front porches or get out of our faces at women's health clinics or on the streets.  Each of us should have the right to be hired and perform our jobs with excellence regardless of our religious or personal beliefs, regardless of our gender or sexual orientation, and regardless of our race.  Each of us should have the right to rent an apartment as long as we have the finances to do so and no history of trashing places.

There were a couple very egregious things I heard from the "red shirt" crowd last night.  One was that 'teh gay' was a behavior, a choice, and therefore was not worthy of an extension of civil rights.  To that I say, your choice of religious beliefs is also a choice.  Why should one segment of society be told to change their "choices" while your choices remain unassailed?  What makes your "choices" any better than anyone else's?  (Let it be known that I do not subscribe to the view that 'teh gay' is a matter of choice.)  The other was that laws should not be made to grant benefits to minorities when the majority was against it.  When it comes to civil rights, it is our responsibility to make sure that minorities are protected from majorities. That is what civil rights is all about!  One speaker even revealed his fear that by affirming the civil rights of LGBT persons the ordinance would essentially be enforcing a religion of tolerance on all.  How fallacious.

If you run a business, you are no longer an individual.  You report to the state, the state licenses you to run the business, you have to follow business rules.  That goes whether you are silk-screening T-shirts in a garage somewhere or renting apartments that you own.  As an individual, if you do not want to invite a lesbian to your backyard barbeque, fine.  As a business who places advertisements for workers, you need to hire based on qualifications and not your own personal againstments.

I am not a "Christian," but I honestly don't think Jesus would mind hanging out with LGBT folks at all.  And I hope that the body in Anchorage responsible for deciding on this ordinance keeps in mind that the state is supposed to keep itself separate from the church.

Red is the color of passion, war, power, wanting attention...

"Better dead than red"
"Red herring"
"Was my face red"
"Redcoats"
"The devil wears red"
"STOP"
"Anger"
"Lust"
"Intensity"
"Danger"

Over the Top: C4P Can't Handle the Truth

It's not often that someone opposed to my personal views on political topics adds a comment here at Hypocrites and Heffalump Traps. But when someone has, that comment remained in the thread as part of the discussion. I have yet to remove a comment, much less ban someone from posting altogether. Maybe I'm just lucky not to have incited serious hate speech or excessive foulness.

I admit that I can be aggressive in a gentle sort of way. I was in that sort of mood when I posted a few comments on C4P's site last night under a topic that was excusing Sarah from "lifting" thoughts and words from the Gingrich-Shirley article without attribution. I wondered aloud if there was anything her highness could do or say that would raise an eyebrow of concern among her disciples. And I further wondered if anyone at C4P had a problem with Michael Reagan, and Sarah's glowing praise and encouragement of him when she introduced him.

The first poster to reply to me said, " Go away DivaPiglit."

Another wrote, "Tell your masters they need to come up with a better boogey man then Michael Reagan ok."

A third chimed in, "In case you haven't noticed, this isn't 'Converatives4MichaelReagan'. Who cares what he said or didn't say? And why the hell do you care if anyone here agrees with him or not?"

Then R.A. Mansour joined the fray, "She cited her source. How can she have plagiarized when she vited [sic] her source?"

The next thing I know, I read this from RAM, "Bye troofers. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out." Every post I'd made on the thread so far was removed.

So I wrote an e-mail asking what happened and why. Full content below, in chronological order:

Ejected from C4P...

Sunday, June 7, 2009 11:20 PM
From: "Lee Franklin"
To: ramansour@conservatives4palin.com

On what grounds, please?

I did not, to my knowledge, break any rules about posting.

Thank you for a prompt response,

Lee Franklin
aka Ennealogic

Re: Ejected from C4P...

Sunday, June 7, 2009 11:26 PM
From: "R. A. Mansour"
To: "Lee Franklin"

Off topic, spamming the thread, and being an over all jerk who annoys all of us. How's that?

I didn't actually ban you. This thread was your warning. Do it again and you're gone for good.

Re: Ejected from C4P...

Sunday, June 7, 2009 11:38 PM
From: "Lee Franklin"
To: "R. A. Mansour"

The topic was Goeffrey's article about Sarah's plagiarism. I do not believe I was off topic.

I opened some remarks and then responded to replies directly made to me. I do not understand how that qualifies as spamming.

As for being an "over all jerk who annoys all of [you]", perhaps that is how you see it, but I did not impugn any poster or the site. I did not malign you or anyone else there, I only asked a few questions about plagiarism and the speech that Sarah gave -- which was, in all 17 minutes, supposed to be a glowing introduction to Michael Reagan.

As for me, I did not receive even one honest answer to any of my questions from any of the people who spoke with me. Yet I am not annoyed, I am only saddened. Why does what I said annoy you?

As for your warning... I do not know what not to do again. Perhaps if you'd lay out the rules? Can one not question Sarah Palin's actions? Can one not point out that Mike Reagan wants to stuff hand grenades into babies' butts? Can one not link Sarah Palin with those she introduces and cheers on?

Thank you for a response, though. I wasn't expecting it.

Sincerely,

Lee Franklin

Re: Ejected from C4P...

Monday, June 8, 2009 11:56 PM

From: "R. A. Mansour"
To: "Lee Franklin"

You know what "saddens" me? Your Trig Trutherism.

Re: Ejected from C4P...

Sunday, June 7, 2009 12:08 AM
From: "Lee Franklin"

To: "R. A. Mansour"

I do not believe I have posted anything about Trig (Palin, right?) on the C4P site, ever. Have you removed my posts from a thread about Sarah's alleged plagiarism because you suspect I may not subscribe to your beliefs concerning the birth of Trig?

Seriously?

Re: Ejected from C4P...

Monday, June 8, 2009 1:16 AM

From: "R. A. Mansour"
To: "Lee Franklin"

"Trig (Palin, right?)"

That's it. Now you are banned for life, you sick son of a bitch.

"may not subscribe" to my beliefs?

Yes, I would also delete and ban racists, Obama birth certificate truthers, and Holocaust deniers.

You are at home with those people.

Don't ever come back to my blog. Don't email me again. Your emails are going in my SPAM filter.

For some reason I don't fully understand, the topic of Trig Palin's parentage is as horrific as garlic soaked in holy water and wrapped around silver stakes would be to a vampire. RAM and most everyone else at C4P seem to be deathly afraid of touching the topic at all. And I didn't even bring it up.

I pointed out the apparent disconnect between how they viewed Sarah Palin's cheerleading for Michael Reagan, and Obama's non-connection to Bill Ayers' revolutionary actions. Go figure.

Gosh, now that I'm branded as a sick son of a bitch, maybe I should get a tattoo?

Palin bin Plagiarizin

Geoffrey Dunn noticed something odd about Sarah Palin's speech last Wednesday, the one where she gushed over Michael Reagan and told him to continue to be bold.  In the linked story Dunn cites eleven instances where Sarah's words, even though they were garbled and chopped and then strung back together in her inimitable fashion, clearly originated from an article written by Newt Gingrich and Craig Shirley some four years ago.

"Screw political correctness," pronounced Sarah.  Indeed.  That must mean, also, too, screw honesty and screw ethics and screw the effort it takes to think your own thoughts and write your own speeches. 

By the way, I'm pretty sure it was Rush Limbaugh (may the universe forgive him) who started the whole "screw being PC" movement at least twenty years ago. Does Sarah have an original thought in her head, I wonder?

I also wonder how the Sarasites feel about their idol's words today, knowing that she ripped them off. C4P had reprinted much of Palin's Reagan-introduction-in-Anchorage and praised it in glowing terms.  I won't hold my breath waiting for them to berate the guv'ner for cheating and stealing.

A Tale of Two Speeches

Before I begin, I wish to credit AK Muckraker's post at Mudflats in which she transcribes Sarah Palin's recent speech introducing Michael Reagan. If you are unfamiliar with the fullness of Sarah's word salad, you really ought to read the whole thing.

And the quotes from President Obama's recent speech to the world given in Cairo, Egypt, are taken from the transcription provided at Huffington Post.

On one side of the world, Sarah Palin cheers on Michael Reagan. He is the son of a former President and a vehement proponent of killing mothers and babies who believe in Islam by stuffing a hand grenade up their butts... This is who Sarah Palin -- supposedly an avid "pro-life" person -- applauds and cheers on:

On the other side of the world, we see our President making the case for a new beginning in the hope that we can identify those principles we share instead of harping on those notions that separate us. See Obama's video in my last post.

Let's compare the speeches. I would not embarrass Sarah Palin so, except for this: she has given no assurance that she rejects the notion of running for a national political office in the future, and the Sarasites who adore her seem to truly believe she is well-suited for a national political office. On, then, to the comparison.

Opening paragraphs -- Sarah's will be in red, Obama's in blue. Keep your favorite grammar book handy:

We have an awesome guest, a guest who is affecting our culture in such a positive way. We need him to keep on being bold and we’re counting on Michael Reagan to help educate America.

I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.

Fair enough... Sarah is introducing an extremist right wing talk show host before an audience of maybe 400, and President Obama is speaking to the Arab peoples and the rest of the world before an audience of millions.

Let's get more into the meat of these speeches. Please read carefully and apply headache remedy as needed for the red text:

Today the things that some in Washington would do to take away our freedoms, it’s absolutely astounding, and we would do so well to look back on those Reagan years as he championed the cause for freedom and then he lived it out as our president - cheerfully, persistently and unapologetically. Reagan knew that real change and real change requiring shaking things up and maybe takin’ off the entrenched interest thwarting the will of the people with their ignoring of our concerns about future peril caused by selfish short-sighted advocacy for growing government and digging more debt, and taking away individual and state’s rights and hampering opportunity to responsibly develop our resources, and coddling those who would seek to harm America and her allies.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

And again, more contrast:

What Newt had written in this article, he wrote “remember how refreshing it was with his outrageous directness that Americans loved, and praised and deserved” that Reagan dealt with, with then the troublesome Soviet Union, remember this? His vision for the Cold War? We win, they lose.

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers - for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

And this closing message:

Friends, we need to be aware of the creation of a fearful population, and of fearful lawmakers being led to believe that big government is the answer to bail out the private sector because then goverment gets to get in there and control it and, mark my words, this is going to happen next I fear, bail out next debt-ridden states, then government gets to get in there and control the people, and watch what happens there. Michael, maybe you want to talk about your home state California. We’ll see what happens there but you know it’s…. aaaaa!…. for the love of God you’ve got to ask yourself where we got off track?

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples - a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

Sarah can't hold a candle to Barack. Not in style, certainly not in substance, and definitely not in spirit. Sarah is all about blaming and dividing. We recognize this personality because we learned it well during GWBush's years in office. Sarah is all about fear and loathing and calling on us to buy guns and ammo and build fallout shelters. She's all about that because she has no inkling of any other way but the isolationist, us versus them way. She is afraid. She cannot deal with anything outside her own small sphere because she doesn't have the wisdom or the education to realize that all human beings have common aims and dreams and hopes. She doesn't know that we need each other. Sarah asks us to be afraid along with her.

Barack asks us to step outside any fear and see truth.

Sarah couldn't put a cohesive speech together by herself if her life depended on it.

Barack not only can think and write and speak cohesively, he does so with a humility and graciousness that Sarah has never touched and probably will never know.

One speech makes us shudder and cower and clutch that which we feel is most dear. The other speech lifts our spirits and opens our hearts and encourages us to extend our hands in greeting and good wishes to our neighbors.

Two speeches, two entirely different attitudes. Which will have the more positive impact on our lives and our future?

A Time for Peace: Obama's Hope

I can't imagine anyone else currently in public life, or any other politician or person now in office, who could have created and delivered this speech with such depth, sincerity, gravity, and warmth.  I'm looking at you, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or any other presidential wannabe -- left or right.

I'm in tears.  The speech is long but as people who live for only a brief time as citizens of this world, we owe it to ourselves and our fellow humans to listen to it.  This is our President, and I could not be more proud.

Huffington Post has a full transcript below the video if you'd like to read along.

Abuses Excuses I'm Not Buying

Nearly every day another aspect of the Bush-era torture policy is uncovered and published and discussed. Those who would excuse what we did keep coming up with new twisted arguments intended to justify the unjustifiable. This post outlines some of those arguments and counters them. 

We Don't Torture (Therefore What We Did Wasn't Really Torture)

As Chris Matthews repeats frequently, any time you deprive someone of oxygen, it's torture. I'd go further. Anytime you do what we did in sum—with all the "enhanced" techniques—that is torture.  I believe that anyone who takes the time to read the detainees' personal accounts in the ICRC report (PDF), anyone with the ability to put themselves in their position, anyone with an ounce of empathy, would have to admit that we tortured them.  We caused severe pain and suffering on purpose.  We treated them cruelly and inhumanely.  We committed outrages upon their personal dignity by degrading and humiliating them. 

Besides, These Terrorists Are the Worst of the Worst

Torturing anyone (you can't create a special category of 'combatant' to get around this) is illegal according to the United States Constitution.  Torturing anyone is also immoral and unethical not to mention anti-Christian; it debases the torturers and elevates the tortured.  Out of the 770 people detained at Guantanamo, more than 500 have been released without charge.  Of the approximately 245 detainees remaining, after all this time, only 18 have been charged with anything.  Even if every detainee were guilty of something awful, that fact would not justify torturing anyone.

Lawyers Wrote Opinions Saying These Techniques Were Legal

A lawyer's opinion is just that: an untested and unsupported opinion. Such opinions can not change what the law is until and unless the opinion is written into law and upheld in the courts. Besides, torture began before any legal excuses were created.

The lawyers who wrote the now-infamous memos, most notably John Yoo and Jay Bybee, held some extremely unorthodox viewpoints.  Yoo was of the opinion that it would be perfectly legal if the President of the United States ordered crushing the testicles of a detainee's child in front of the detainee to get him to talk.  Bybee suggested that extreme sleep deprivation was fine because after it was over, you couldn't tell it had happened. 

We Did What We Did to Keep America Safe -- See, We Haven't Been Attacked Since 9/11

This correlation is false on at least two counts.  First, we were "attacked" after 9/11 by whoever mailed the anthrax letters.  Second, where is the evidence that Bush's torture policy prevented an attack of any kind? This reminds of me the joke:

A man is sitting on a park bench, making the STRANGEST noises.
'Are you all right?' asks a concerned stranger.
The man nods and keeps making the noises.
The stranger then asked, 'Then why are you screaming like that?'
The man replies 'It keeps the elephants away.'
The stranger mentioned that there weren't any elephants for miles.
The man smiled 'See, it works!'

There are serious questions about who was actually responsible for 9/11.  Some possible answers to those questions provide other reasons for why we haven't been "attacked again."  We have not satisfactorily investigated either 9/11 or Amerithrax.  I'll let it go at that.

Additionally, we know for a fact that Bush's torture policy was a boon to those who were recruiting zealots to take anti-American actions.  This has had a negative and deadly impact on our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, so it is quite false to say we are more safe as a result.

We Got Valuable Information Using These Methods

Interrogators and intelligence professionals agree that valuable information is not obtained by torturing people. Contrary to what GW Bush and Dick Cheney have claimed, there is no evidence that any information obtained by torture led to thwarting imminent terrorist attempts.  A White House fact sheet from the Bush archives justifying the use of abusive interrogation methods says,

In 2002, we broke up a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast.

Yet KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the guy we waterboarded over 180 times in a month, the guy whose picture was used to create the graphic in this post) was not picked up and arrested until March 2003.  Therefore, torturing him had nothing whatsoever to do with preventing that attempt.  In fact, we are not even sure that plot was real at this point. 

Not only is there no evidence that we've gotten good information—there is evidence to the contrary.  According to testimony at a recent congressional hearing, FBI agent Ali Soufan claimed the flow of actionable information was interrupted when CIA contractors took over the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah and began using "enhanced techniques."  There is even evidence that detainees gave false information to their interrogators to stop the torture.

The Democrats Knew About It and They Didn't Raise a Stink Then

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has recently been under fire for daring to say that the CIA was less than truthful during their mandatory Intelligence Committee briefings on "enhanced interrogation techniques."  Let's not forget that nothing anyone said or did in opposition to the GW Bush machine was given credence or air time during the first 6 years of the last administration—unless it was called un-American, traitorous, troop-hating garbage.

Regardless, there's still no proof that Democrats in Congress were fully briefed about the torture program.  And even if there were, that's hardly an excuse for going forward with the "torture program" in the first place.

What's Past Is Past, Let's Look Forward

Has Dick Cheney or Rudy Giuliani forgotten 9/11 yet?  Or think about this: if someone dear to you had been kidnapped and tortured, and you could pretty well figure out who was responsible, would you be comfortable saying, "Let the past be the past," and decline to go after the perpetrators and demand they be prosecuted?

What does it say to the rest of the world, never mind the citizens of the US, to sweep these abhorrent events under a rug labeled, "the past?"

Can we, as a nation, redeem ourselves and begin to restore our standing in the world if we fail to hold accountable the architects of our torture policy?  I'm looking at GW Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Yoo, Bybee and Gonzales along with everyone else who helped formulate and facilitate those who carried out the program of abuses.  It will be a pathetic miscarriage of justice to have prosecuted and jailed Lyndie England and Charles Graner while letting the authors of the torture policy avoid paying for their much greater crime.

I Call It Torture

I've been trying to find a way to post on this topic for weeks. The way the torture issue is being bandied about in the press lately has me incensed.  After all, that's why I started this blog—as an outlet for my outrage—so here goes.

The primary source material for this post is a recently-leaked report by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) (PDF). As far as I am concerned, the ICRC is an unimpeachable source of information. Sadly, the same cannot be said of politicians, government officials or even certain high level members of our intelligence community. Based on the following information about the CIA detention program, you tell me if what we've done (yes, WE have done this) to some human beings can be called anything other than torture.

Arrest and Transfer

The ICRC reported on 14 cases. Each of these individuals was captured between 2002 and 2005, not by US Armed Forces on a battlefield, but by national police or security forces in one of four countries. The fourteen were moved around from one detention site to another, at least 3 and for some, 10 times before finally arriving at Guantanamo in September 2006. They were never told where they were being sent, but several deduced that Afghanistan was the first stop. A CIA 'black site' in Poland was another likely destination.

The transfer routine was fairly standard. The detainees were stripped naked, cavity-searched, photographed, dressed in a diaper and tracksuit, blindfolded, fitted with earphones and shackled into position on a plane where they remained until arriving at the new location. Flight times varied from one hour to more than twenty-four hours.

Continuous Solitary Confinement

The length of detention for the fourteen ranged from sixteen months to four and a half years. They were held incommunicado the entire time. They were allowed no contact with anyone other than their interrogators and masked prison guards. No family. No news. No independent third parties.

Ill-Treatment

The detention regime was extremely harsh, especially during the initial period which lasted up to several months and included:

• Suffocation by water
• Prolonged stress standing, naked, arms chained above head for two to three days at a time, often with no toilet access
  
• Beatings by use of rope attached to a collar around the neck to forcefully slam the head and body against a wall
  
• Beatings involving kicking to the body and face, slapping and punching
• Lengthy confinement in a small box to severely restrict movement
• Prolonged nudity for several weeks to several months
• Sleep deprivation for up to 180 hours through forced stress positions, cold water, repetitive loud noise or music
• Prolonged exposure to cold air, dousing with cold water and cold water immersion
• Prolonged shackling of hands and feet
• Threats of ill-treatment to the detainee and his family
• Forced shaving of head and beard
• Deprivation of solid food for up to a month

Further Deprivations

In addition to the torture treatment outlined above, the fourteen were also deprived of access to the open air, exercise, appropriate hygiene facilities and the basic items that go with it, and restricted access to their holy book. 

These 'enhanced techniques' must be viewed in their totality. The ill-treatment did not consist of a single technique now and then, but all the techniques one after another or in conjunction with each other.



The ICRC defines torture and other prohibited ill-treatement as follows:

• Torture: existence of a specific purpose (e.g., to gain information) plus intentional infliction of severe suffering or pain;
• Cruel or inhuman treatment: no specific purpose, significant level of suffering or pain inflicted;
• Outrages upon personal dignity: no specific purpose, significant level of humiliation or degradation.
  

Yes, we did torture at least these fourteen "high-value detainees."  Yes, this ill-treatment is against the law.  Therefore, the people who authorized this treatment, the people who wrote legal opinions attempting to justify it, as well as the people who carried it out, are criminals.

I cannot imagine why anyone would allow these criminals to escape an impartial investigation and a rigorous prosecution.  We cannot turn the clock back and undo what we did.  Likewise, we cannot just turn away and leave this wound to fester.

C4P Incites Blogosphere Outrage

So, this fellow named Chip Thoma who lives in a residential neighborhood with narrow, winding streets in Juneau near the Governor's Mansion, together with some of his neighbors, is asking that large tour buses stop cruising past their houses just so passengers can get a five-second glimpse of the house that Sarah doesn't live in.



As a result, Thoma is being blasted for his past, maligned and falsely accused by a plethora of right-wing Web outlets for trying to destroy the Alaska tourism industry and Piper Palin's lemonade stand along with it.

The Truth

There is a very short story in one of the local AK newspapers showing Piper and friend at a table selling lemonade on one Sunday when the sun is shining. Nothing about angry mobs trying to tear down the table.

Then, there is another story in the ADN reporting the fact that community members are requesting that large tour buses restrict their travel down certain residential streets in Juneau. The current Governor, as usual, plays the victim in this story by twisting it totally to mean that local residents are upset about Piper's trampoline—which has nothing to do with large tour buses of course. But it's just another occasion for Sarah to cry, "Poor me! Poor Piper! Leave my family alone!" Nothing about Piper AT ALL, except for Sarah's faux outrage.

That's it.

Well, except that C4P (if you don't know what this acronym is, someone is sure to mention it in comments and then you can look it up) has turned this local citizen's reasonable request into something very despicable. Joseph Russo has a story (I'm not going to link it) that is guaranteed to bring a tear to the eyes of Sarasites far and wide. Unfortunately he doesn't provide any source, but based on something he heard from some anonymous person, Russo claims that a very unsavory person is trying to destroy Piper Palin's little enterprise selling lemonade.

There is no evidence that Piper is running an ongoing lemonade business that residents are trying to shut down. There is no evidence that anyone was upset about Piper selling lemonade on that one Sunday. There is no evidence that anyone wants a trampoline moved or taken down. There is no evidence that Thoma wants to harm the tourism industry or the Governor's reputation or anything of the sort. "I'm trying to do what I can here to help the neighborhood. I don't want to make this personal between the governor and I," [Thoma] said. "She is obviously coming after me, and I've never met her before."

Yet, if you Google "Piper Palin lemonade" you'll see quite a few sites repeating the unsourced rumor about how this awful man, who had some DWIs in the past, is trying to destroy a little girl's happiness. (IIRC, Dick Cheney and GWB both had DWIs in their past.) To be fair, I need to mention that Thoma went to a Woodstock reunion concert! And he even filed an ethics complaint against former AK Governor Hickel. I guess that's how you know he's a bad, bad person!

Much ado about nothing much, C4P'rs. Do you need someone to file another ethics complaint so you have something else to get your panties in a knot about?

Natural Red and White

 

and

Ms. Disingenuous

A Sarasite's Ignore-ance

I wanted to find out if Sarasites knew how Governor Palin's legal debt came about, how much it actually amounted to, and to what degree the recent ethics complaint-filers were responsible for it. So, I had a little discussion the other night with RA Mansour of C4P in the comments under a post that likened Governor Sarah Palin to Joan of Arc. What actually happened was I asked a couple of questions and got a snarky non-answer and then silence:

ENNEALOGIC: I would appreciate very much someone who is knowledgeable about the "bankrupting" of the Palins to provide some information:

1) The figure of $500,000+ in legal fees: how was this incurred? I'm guessing these fees relate almost entirely to the Monegan-Wooten scandal, and only after VP Candidate Palin was advised by the McCain folks to say nothing to anybody without her own lawyers to run interference. But it would be nice to know the breakdown on this figure. Anyone here know?

2) How does it cost Governor Palin anything when someone files an ethics complaint against her? An ethics complaint isn't a lawsuit. She doesn't have to go to court. Doesn't the complaint get reviewed by the AG and then either thrown out or given to the Personnel Board for investigation? And isn't that investigation part of the job that the Board is paid for (by the state) whether there are complaints or not? If the complaints lack any foundation in law (e.g., if they are in fact "frivolous" as claimed), what would Governor Palin have to pay and to whom? If there is no wrongdoing, all she'd have to do is answer questions and I don't think the Board would charge her to do that.

Seems to me that only if there is wrongdoing would she consider hiring a private attorney to work out a settlement of some kind, which is probably what happened when she agreed to pay back around $9000 of the expenses she billed Alaska for her children's travel.

So, how do these ethics complaints end up costing her any money, much less "bankrupting" her?

RAM: Ennealogic, when a complaint is filed against her or her family personally (not her office), she has to hire a lawyer to defend herself.

ENNEALOGIC: RAM, none of the complaints that I am aware of are filed against her personally. They each relate to her obligations as an executive in the Alaska government.

Unless I'm missing something, could you please point out who has filed either a law suit or an ethics complaint against her that does not have to do with her role as Governor?

RAM: Ennealogic, uh, every one of the complaints allege personal benefit for her or her family. The one from yesterday does. The jacket complaint does. Even Troopergate did.

Naturally, all the complaints relate to her role as governor. Duh! If she were a private citizen they wouldn't be filing executive branch ethics complaints against her.

Are you being willfully obtuse?

ENNEALOGIC: RAM, thank you for re-stating what I said originally.

You said,
"Ennealogic, when a complaint is filed against her or her family personally (not her office), she has to hire a lawyer to defend herself."

Are you confident that this is how executive branch ethics complaints are handled? My initial question was about the process.

I believe it goes like this, but wanted to know if anyone had different information. The complaint is reviewed by the AG. If there is merit, the complaint is forwarded to the Personnel Board for further examination. If the complaint is unfounded, it is tossed. If the complaint is valid, then and only then would the Governor think that maybe she should have her own private attorney to negotiate a settlement or agreement.

In short, if the complaints were strictly of the nuisance variety, I don't see how Governor Palin would be out of pocket for anything. Do you?

(And I know you know what I'm talking about. Let's discuss this without casting aspersions.)

RAM: [no answer to my questions from then on, but in response to another poster...] Anyone defending these ankle-biting idiots is a complete ass.

Sarasitical Meme Origins

Sarasites can be heard chanting this meme of late:
These vile ankle-biters who keep filing ridiculous, frivolous ethics complaints want to bankrupt Sarah and leave her and her family in the poorhouse! They want to paralyze her and keep her from doing her job!

Not surprisingly, this idea that ethics complaints are causing severe financial hardship on the Palin family and creating conditions that make governing difficult originates from Sarah herself and her various spokespersons. (Bolding in the following quotes is mine.)

Are Alaskans outraged, or at least tired of this yet - another frivolous ethics charge by a political blogger? This would be hilarious if it weren’t so expensive for the state to process these accusations and for me to defend against these bogus harassments... How much will this blogger's asinine political grandstanding cost all of us in time and money?
~ Sarah Palin, March 24, 2009

“I must defend against these baseless ethics accusations out of my own pocket as the use of public monies to do so could itself violate state law,” Palin wrote. [My note - Is this true? and what defense does one need if the accusation is baseless, anyway?]

[Palin's financial] 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.”
~ Alaska Daily News, March 20, 2009

----- ===== -----

"Governor Palin has spent a considerable amount of time and money fighting ethics complaints – and no charge has been substantiated...

“These allegations are categorically false and ridiculous, and are an abuse of the Executive Ethics Act,” Nizich said...

“But obviously the purpose of this complaint and the previous ones is to distract the administration and the public, and to paralyze the Department of Law and the executive branch."
~ Mike Nizich, chief of staff, April 22,2009

The Sarasites either do not know or do not care that "Alaska's Joan of Arc" is asking them to pay for her failings while framing herself as a martyr for their cause. The Sarasites seem willing to accept the notion that unfounded ethics complaints have saddled the Governor with over $500,000 worth of legal bills, brought about by political opponents making bogus charges against her. Let's take a closer look at how the bulk of this financial liability was likely incurred.

Troopergate Redux

Let's all remember, please, that Troopergate did not start out as an ethics complaint! The Alaska Legislative Council was alarmed by Sarah's firing of long-time public servant Walt Monegan and initiated its own investigation, by a unanimous vote, in July, 2008. (The Council is a permanent interim committee of the Legislature and is responsible for conducting the business of the Legislature when it is not in session.)

The ethics matter was first brought to the Personnel Board by Sarah Palin herself on September 1, 2008, after she joined the national Republican ticket and reversed her promise of full cooperation with the Council's investigation. Suddenly, and without further explanation, the legislature no longer had a right to investigate her. (The court said they did have that right, but by then it was too late.)

According to an article last month in the Alaska Daily News,

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

Palin said she didn't think it would be fair to "sacrifice public monies to defend against something that was so politically charged."

Apparently Sarah was fine with the state paying the attorney in July and August. If Sarah would have let the Legislative Council do its job, her representation would not have cost her a dime. What was the real reason, then, that she hired her own attorney in the Troopergate matter? I found a clue in a comment made below a recent ADN article about the Alaska Fund Trust. A poster named Msimoniam provided this historical summary:

Everyone seems to forget that it is the Governor's choice to hire a private lawyer and pay for it on her own. Originally, Van Flein was hired to represent the Governor on state contract for Troopergate. That is perfectly legal and normal. That changed when Van Flein started consulting with the campaign and representing Todd too. It made his communications with people other than his client (Palin) subject to the Alaska public records act, thus open to the public. Thus, every communication he had as a state contractor with Todd, staff and McCain campaign people was not protected by attorney/client privilege.

So, Van Flein quickly became her private lawyer to avoid public record disclosure issues. It's Palin's choice to pay for it on her own, or get her supporters to pay, so that she can keep it all hidden. It also allows her to use her lawyer as a propaganda tool, which Van Flein happily did during the campaign. So for her to cry personal financial hardship is disingenuous.

Who's Scamming Who?

Whose fault is it that Ms. Disingenuous has significant legal bills? Any expense as a result of Troopergate was voluntarily incurred in an attempt to sidestep the legislative investigation. Any expense for other supposedly frivolous or bogus complaints needs to be supported by evidence which has yet to be provided. To this outside observer, it looks like Sarah is playing the victim yet again and trying to scam her devotees into paying bills for which she alone is responsible—not the "ankle-biters."

Sarah asked, "Are Alaskans outraged yet, or at least tired of this yet?"

I certainly think they should be. I know I am.

Here's Sarah!!

Found this video attached to a comment on DailyKOS. It needs no introduction, it speaks for itself. And without further delay, heeeeeeeeeere's SARAH!!!!

Larry King - Levi Open Thread

Comments are welcome on your take about the Johnston's appearance on Larry King Live tonight!

Did you send a question? 
Did your question get answered?
Will we find out anything new? 
Why is Levi doing these interviews?
Has his situation improved any since the Tyra Banks and CBS Morning Show interviews? 
How will his TV time tonight help or hurt his image, his chances for custody, or his future?
What response will we see from Sarah and Meg?

Send Your Question for Levi to Larry!

CNN is reporting that Levi Johnston and family will appear on Larry King Live tomorrow evening (Wednesday, April 22).  They invite you to send in your questions for Larry's guests by video or form.  The feedback form is here.

Here's mine:

"Levi, on the Tyra Banks show we saw a picture of you sitting in the Palin's kitchen cradling Trig when he was an infant.  We also saw a picture of you, taken during the Republican National Convention, where you tenderly kissed Trig while Bristol held him.  Can you explain your unusual (for a 17-yr-old) but obvious affection for this child?

"Also, we've heard that you are a volunteer coach for a Special Olympics hockey team.  What got you interested in devoting time to special needs children?"

So, you know what to do!  Get busy!  And share your feedback in a comment!