Tomorrow is Captain Zero's last day in office

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on you smarmy Palin-abetting National Guard rape cover-upper.

I hope the door hits you on the ass on your way out tomorrow.

Wall Street Journal actually slams ole Sarah

From Wall Street Journal



Republicans for the most part avoided eating their own this election except in Alaska, where tea-party diva Sarah Palin helped the independent-Democratic ticket topple GOP Gov. Sean Parnell out of political spite.

The governor’s race in the Last Frontier State was a sleepy affair until September, when independent Bill Walker, who lost to Mr. Parnell in the 2010 GOP primary, merged campaigns with the Democratic nominee, Byron Mallott, a former mayor of Juneau. The unlikely duo, which share little in common politically besides rank opportunism, ran on a populist platform.

Mr. Walker criticized the governor’s plan for a 730-mile natural gas pipeline as “fatally flawed” and a giveaway to Big Oil. He and Mr. Mallott also backed an unsuccessful referendum this summer to repeal Mr. Parnell’s reform to the state’s progressive oil tax—Ms. Palin’s crowning achievement in office.

While governor, Ms. Palin jammed through a tax hike on oil profits as crude prices doubled between 2006 and 2008. Oil and natural-gas royalties and taxes account for roughly 90% of state coffers. Surging oil profits also helped prop up the state’s economy, personal incomes and tax revenues. While U.S. GDP plunged between 2006 and 2009, Alaska’s economy grew by a compounded annual 4.4%—the most nationwide.

Mr. Parnell, the former lieutenant governor, assumed office in July 2009 after Ms. Palin stepped down. The new governor inherited an economic crisis of Ms. Palin’s making. Oil profits subsequently plunged while drillers disembarked for Texas, Oklahoma and North Dakota. Alaska’s crude production has fallen by 20% since 2009.

Last year Alaska’s GDP contracted by 2.5%—the only state to record negative growth. The Republican governor sought to stabilize volatile revenues and stimulate investment by reforming Ms. Palin’s progressive oil tax. Ms. Palin responded by throwing her weight behind the August referendum.

A slim majority of voters rejected the ballot measure, yet the populist furies fueled Mr. Walker’s rise. Two weeks before the election, Ms. Palin formally endorsed the Walker-Mallott “Unity Ticket” on the pretext of encouraging political comity in Juneau. “This strong independent ticket represents an Alaskan-sized heart, putting people over party machine politics and Alaskans over egos,” she declared.

Ms. Palin is not overwhelmingly popular in her home state—a Public Policy Polling survey in August showed that just 36% of voters statewide view her favorably—but she does carry clout among anti-establishment conservatives. Given that the election appears to have been decided by fewer than 5,000 votes, and that Republican Dan Sullivan topped incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Begich by nearly 8,000, Ms. Palin may very well be able to claim Mr. Parnell’s scalp.

Must be an Alaska Republican thing...Sean Parnell uses family as a human shield

From Alaska Dispatch

As an Alaskan, a mother, and first lady who cares deeply about our families and our future, I was disturbed to learn about the very serious problems in the Alaska National Guard.

We’re all deeply concerned about the revelations of wrong-doing coming from the guard -- for the victims, for the men and women of the rank-and-file, and for our state. The terrible actions of a few, with the failure we’ve seen within the guard’s top ranks, are unforgivable. Our guard members and their families do incredible work on behalf of Alaskans, and they deserve better. 

I was with my husband, Sean, when he got the call in February with concrete information that called the Alaska  guard command into question. Sean immediately called the National Guard Bureau’s Office of Complex Investigations (OCI). 

Sean was very frustrated, but I saw grim determination, too. The report he received on the phone that day was in sharp contrast to what he was being told by guard leadership, and my husband was committed to getting to the bottom of this.

I am thankful that the bureau’s OCI responded so quickly and so professionally when my husband called for this independent, outside investigation. The insinuation by some that Sean would not take action is wrong. That is not who my husband is, and that’s not what I have seen him do. He took action, immediately, every time. When he got the facts, he acted. With every specific allegation of assault, he followed up personally.

I’m saddened these issues have turned so political; this is unfortunate for Alaskans and for the victims. It’s a disservice to the men and women who wear the uniform of the guard.

Ultimately, Sean is consistently trustworthy. He makes decisions in a steady and stable fashion, always looking out for others before himself. More importantly, he does not make politically motivated decisions as governor. Releasing the bureau report roughly two months before an election proves this. He has the conviction to get to the bottom of this and will see it through until every crime that has been committed is prosecuted, and an accountable command structure is restored.

Above all, it’s so important to him to respect the service of our guard members.The good men and women of the guard serve and sacrifice for our safety and security. My husband is committed to protecting the integrity of their mission, and ensuring they can carry out their work for all Alaskans in an atmosphere that is safe, with accountable leadership.

Yep like any good Republican Sean uses his wife as a human shield:

Mr and Mrs David Vitter

Mr and Mrs Larry Craig

Sarah Palin tries a little reverse psychology

From National Journal

October 23, 2014 Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin spent the early part of the 2014 midterms traveling the country endorsing conservative candidates in Republican primary races, hoping to leave her mark on the future of the GOP.

But on Wednesday, Palin rebuked her Republican successor in her home state, endorsing independent gubernatorial candidate Bill Walker, who is running on a "unity ticket" with Democratic running mate Byron Mallott, instead. Palin's endorsement goes against her former lieutenant governor, Gov. Sean Parnell, who assumed office in 2009 when Palin abruptly resigned and is embroiled in a highly contested race for reelection to a second full term.

Palin offered the endorsement at a campaign reception in her Wasilla home, according to apress release issued by Walker.

Parnell's 2013 restructuring of the state's oil and gas taxes dismantled a prior, Palin-championed program that she considered to be one of the greatest achievements of her tenure. That difference of opinion is at the heart of Palin's conflict with Parnell, which resulted in the two campaigning on opposite sides of a ballot measure in this year's primary.

Parnell dismantled Palin's oil-tax increase, called ACES (short for Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share), by signing a repeal of some oil taxes in 2013 that was intended to curb the state's production decline. But many fear the measure will severely diminish the revenue brought in by the state, where oil and gas taxes have accounted for as much as 90 percent of government funds.

Palin backed an initiative to repeal the new law, SB 21, when it appeared on the August primary ballot, which put her at odds with Parnell. (Palin accused Parnell of being "suckered" by "crony capitalists" at the time.) The referendum narrowly failed, garnering 47 percent of the vote as the state's Republican U.S. Senate primary attracted conservative voters to the polls. According to the Walker release, Palin offered her endorsement because she "trust[s] them to develop our God-given resources responsibly and to the maximum benefit of Alaskans."

Walker merged his ticket with Mallott in early September, and polls have since shown the race to be a toss-up. It's unclear, however, how big an impact a Palin endorsement will have on the race. The former governor's local approval ratings have been in decline since she left office.

Hoohah knows her endorsements are the kiss of death so she is endorsing someone she hates.  I still endorse Walker and Mallott.

Why Don Young should no longer represent Alaska in the US House of Representatives

He is a crook!

 Longtime Alaska Rep. Don Young improperly used campaign funds for personal use, accepted “impermissible” gifts and failed to report those gifts, the House Ethics Committee announced Friday.
Young, a Republican, has to repay nearly $60,000 to his campaign, and donors, the Ethics Committee said. He has also been reproved by the committee.

 The Ethics Committee said that Young, who has represented Alaska in the House since 1973, accepted improper “gifts and expenses related to” 15 hunting trips. The trips occurred between 2001 and 2013, the Ethics Committee said.

 Eight trips that Young took were improperly paid for, or were paid for by his campaign improperly. Young also did not disclose any of these gifts on his financial disclosure.
There are relatively stringent rules dictating gifts members of Congress can receive, and how a member of Congress can use his campaign funds. Members of Congress cannot accept gifts from entities that employ lobbyists, and can only accept gifts that are worth less than $50. All gifts must be disclosed.
Members of Congress cannot use campaign money for their own use.

He is also a murderer!

Alaskans, PLEASE VOTE FOR FORREST DUNBAR!

Joseph Lawendowski, National Guard, Sarah Palin and Sean Parnell

I while back I wrote a post about some of the players in Hookergate

Someone also left a comment regarding Lawendowski on this post

So I guess it's confrimed, Joseph Lawendowski is an asshole!

From the Anchorage Press

 A confidential military report sheds further light on rampant misdeeds within the Alaska National Guard.

A former pornography company owner and co-founder of an “end times” fundamentalist group who joined the Alaska National Guard in 2003 is now the guard’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Training, despite military investigators finding him directly responsible for empowering Alaska guard recruiters to sexually assault and harass female soldiers, recruits and civilians.

Lt. Col. Joseph R. Lawendowski, 46, was recommended for “other than honorable” discharge in a confidential report that military investigators submitted to high-ranking Alaska National Guard officers on March 3 of this year. The findings of this “AR 15-6” report were not released to the public. (AR 15-6 refers to Army Regulation 15-6, covering the investigation of misconduct by officers.)

The March 3 report finds that Lawendowski failed to act on multiple complaints of serious misconduct, including sexual assault, against four senior noncommissioned officers under his command. The report covers the period from November 2007 to May 2012 when Lawendowski was commander of the Alaska Army National Guard Recruiting and Retention Battalion (RRB). 

The four noncommissioned officers, or NCOs, are identified in the AR 15-6 report as Command Sergeant Major Brown, Master Sergeant Carson, Master Sergeant Nieves, and Sergeant First Class Tallant. National Guard investigators found that Lawendowski created a workplace climate of fear, intimidation and special treatment that emboldened those four NCOs to feel above the law, and that he was derelict in his duties by allowing the NCOs to retaliate against soldiers in the battalion who filed complaints.  

The investigators also found that Lawendowski had condoned and furthered illegal steroid use by RRB personnel, and had violated National Guard codes of conduct on multiple occasions. These included using government vehicles for outings to strip clubs, and Lawendowski being publicly intoxicated at the 2012 Iron Dog Race after-party. (Lawendowski arranged for the Alaska National Guard to become the presenting sponsor of the Iron Dog snowmobile race beginning in 2010. According to the AR 15-6 report, he improperly exchanged more than 10,000 text messages with a female Iron Dog employee during sponsorship negotiations in April and May 2010.)

Furthermore, the March 3 report cites numerous suspect credit card purchases made by Lawendowski using government-issued credit cards. It recommends the National Guard open a separate investigation of Lawendowski for misuse of government funds. 

The Press has obtained US Bank transaction records for Lawendowski’s government-issued credit card during the period in question. Purchases include plane tickets to Dubai and Sweden, payments to a luxury children’s clothing store in Paris, and $1,500 and $2,000 bar tabs in Anchorage and Juneau.

 And the shit is getting deeper too:

 Military investigation reports obtained by the Press detail rampant sexual misconduct beginning in 2007 by three Alaska Army National Guard recruiters whose joint nickname was “The Three-Headed Monster.”

The reports provide in-depth accounts of four sexual assaults and numerous cases of sexual harassment targeting fellow soldiers, new recruits, and civilian women, including high school JROTC cadets.

One National Guard investigation found that a recruiter sexually assaulted a civilian victim in late December 2010, more than a month after three military chaplains have said they personally warned Governor Sean Parnell that Guard officers were covering up rapes committed by recruiters.

The AR 15-6 investigation reports identify the three recruiters known as The Three Headed Monster as Sgt. Jarrett Carson, Master Sgt. John Nieves, and Sgt. 1st Class Shannon Tallant. (AR 15-6 refers to the military code for investigations of misconduct by officers.)

The reports, which have not been released to the public, were submitted to Alaska National Guard leaders in December 2013.

From KTUU

A former Alaska National Guard member said he blew the whistle to his chain of command more than seven years before the federal Department of Defense's Office of Complex Investigations issued a report in September detailing allegations of sexual assault, abuse of power and cover-ups.

 Lt. Col. Kenneth Blaylock spent nearly 30 years with the Alaska Army National Guard.
"The people there become your family," he said.

During that time, he headed up the recruiting and retention division. According to the OCI report, the division had a "high level of misconduct occurring within the Recruiting and Retention Command 2008-2009."

"What I found out is we were paying for products more than once," Blaylock said. "We only had one product for advertising, and yet we were paying for it more than twice. The money was going somewhere it didn't need to go to."

Blaylock said in 2007, he alerted Catherine Jorgensen, who was then the Guard's deputy chief of staff and personnel, and Gen. Tom Katkus, before he was promoted to adjutant general, that he was suspicious of soldiers using money from the recruiting and retention account.

When asked to comment on the Guard's policy on credit card charges, a Guard spokesperson sent this statement:

"We are redirecting our efforts from looking into anonymous and/or unsubstantiated claims that lack detail, and that we are unable to verify," wrote Lt. Col. Candis Olmstead. "There are a broad range of requests, and we feel it is counterproductive to address these allegations and claims stemming from individual complaints. Our priority is to focus on the way forward and to work on developing and communicating plans to correct past issues."

After raising concerns to his chain of command, Blaylock said he was reassigned to another unit.

He also began hearing from fellow Guardsmen and Guardswomen about other problems.
"When the first sexual assault victims started talking to me, it wasn't like they were just coming forward, saying they had been raped," Blaylock said. "It wasn't like they said, 'Hey, sir, I've been raped.' They were just talking. They wanted to talk and tell someone about it. They would tell me bits and pieces, but never quite get to the point. When I finally went back and there were four of them one right after the other, I confronted them, just asked them: 'Were you raped?' They said yes. And I said, 'Was it by someone in the National Guard?' (They said) 'Yes.'"

"Many of them told me they had tried to talk to law enforcement in the past and nothing had happened," said Blaylock.

His chain of command failed to act, so in 2010, Blaylock went outside the Guard. He compiled a summary of concerns and submitted it to the governor's office and Anchorage police.

Blaylock said his concerns were never taken seriously until he met with investigators with the Department of Defense National Guard Bureau.

"I was labeled a crackpot by General Katkus," Blaylock said. "Essentially, anything I tried to bring forward after that was muddied because my name was attached to it. I had a lot of people who basically wouldn't talk to me, including in law enforcement."

In 2012, Blaylock said he was told to leave the Guard.

"Gen. Katkus held a special board and had a bunch of packets reviewed, where three whistle-blowers were essentially retired forced into retirement," he said.

Blaylock said he will continue to speak out in hopes that shedding light on these issues will change the culture within the National Guard, the place he called home for 30 years.

All this is tied to Sean and Sarah as they were the commander in chief's of the Guard during that time.  Why

Why does Sarah hate women and rape victims?  Cuz she was one herself?

Why Dan Sullivan shouldn't represent Alaska

Interesting read from Wickersham's Conscience


Now that U.S. Senator Wannabe Dan “The Carpetbagger” Sullivan has been caught with his political pants down around his knees by the State of Maryland, it’s a near-perfect time to examine other recent occasions in his senatorial campaign when the Carpetbagger and the truth have gone their separate ways.

• In WC’s distant youth, there was a comedy troupe called Firesign Theater. One of their albums – and the title cut from side one – was How Can You Be in Two Places at Once When You’re Not Anywhere At All? The question applies to The Carpetbagger, who swore under penalty of perjury that he was a resident of Maryland, to get himself a nice, fat tax break on his $1.5 million Maryland home. And yet in his Alaska Senate candidacy petition, also made under penalty of perjury, he swore he was a resident of Alaska for the same period of time. While Sullivan loyalists are saying it doesn’t matter, and the Sullivan campaign is nattering about different kinds of “residency,” for WC this is the equivalent of being photographed on the good ship Monkey Business with
a bimboDonna Rice in your lap. If they lie while you’re watching, what are they doing to do when you aren’t watching?

• In a flyer he mailed to WC, the Carpetbagger earlier claimed to have spearheaded the “Choose Respect” campaign to combat Alaska’s high rates of domestic violence against women. No Republican is standing too close to the wreckage of Governor Sean Parnell’s “Choose Respect” campaign after the Alaska National Guard scandal, but the claim is as dishonest as Captain Zero’s respect. WC suspects Captain Zero thinks he was the spearhead, not some cabinet flunky. The Captain’s got a whole web page devoted to his paper thin accomplishments for women, beyond the slick slogan and marches and staged events that have looked an awful lot like campaign rallies. Sullivan, for a while, was The Quitter’s Attorney General, following the Talis Colberg scandal and the Legislature’s flat rejection of Wayne Anthony Ross. He officially served as AG from April 9 – November 18, 2010. Even for a guy who has job-hopped a lot, in baseball parlance that’s hanging around just long enough for a cup of coffee. So unless he “spearheaded” the Captain’s bid for the female vote while Commissioner of Natural Resources – the next tick mark on his resumé – the Carpetbagger has veered pretty far from the truth in this claim.

• In that same flyer, the Carpetbagger claims to have “overhauled Alaska’s bail system, increased sentences for sexual assault offenders, and put notorious criminals behind bars.” Mr. Sullivan must have been really, really busy the seven months and 19 days he was Attorney General. But even if he was really, really busy, bail schedules are set by the Alaska Supreme Court. Not the Attorney General. As for bail in serious cases, bail is set by the trial judges and magistrates, not the prosecutor. Alaska’s Attorney Generals don’t try cases; they don’t appear in court, unless it’s to steal oral argument in a supreme court case with political juice. At the very most, Temporary AG Sullivan instructed his criminal division to argue for higher bail. Nor does the AG impose criminal sentences; judges do that. Temporary AG Sullivan may have told his criminal division attorneys to argue for stiffer time, but that’s a long ways from “increasing sentences.” Finally, Mr. Sullivan himself didn’t put a single criminal, notorious or otherwise, behind bars. His staff attorneys may have. Look, Temporary AG Sullivan supervised a marginally effective state prosecution system. Everything else is a gross exaggeration.

• The Carpetbagger has repeatedly boasted that he negotiated “a $500 million malpractice settlement against one of Wall Street’s largest financial institutions – the settlement went to fund the retirement pension for Alaska’s teachers.” The State’s pension fund management contractor grossly miscalculated the funding requirements for the state pension funds. The problem is that the funding gap is $11 billion, and Mr. Sullivan sold the state short. Sure, any settlement is a compromise that leaves both sides unhappy, but if WC were Mr. Sullivan, WC wouldn’t be bragging about a lame result amounts to less than 5% of the shortfall. The record is clear that AG Sullivan paid an Outside law firm $91 million while only recovering $410 million out of $2.8 billion in pension fund losses through a settlement.  An ADN claim check showed that Sullivan personally negotiated the weak settlement in which he left $2.3 billion on the table and exacerbated the pension fund shortfall that state legislators have been trying to solve ever since. WC wonders if Candidate Sullivan and the truth have filed paperwork for a legal separation? And don’t even get WC started on the State paying that much dough to an Outside law firm.

• The Carpetbagger claimed he successfully defended and fought for Alaskans’ Second Amendment rights with other Attorney Generals before the U.S. Supreme Court. But in point of fact, at the direction of Captain Zero, he signed onto the amicus curiae – friend of the court – brief. Not precisely an heroic effort on Mr. Sullivan’s part, and more a claim of desperation than substance. Following your boss’s order to join a horde of other state AGs in signing an amicus brief isn’t exactly leadership material. Claiming he “successfully defended” the Second Amendment is a breath-taking exaggeration. Sullivan claimed he “took” the McDonald gun case to the Supreme Court. In fact, his only role was having his name on a “friend of the court” brief supporting the plaintiffs who brought the case.  Senator Mark Begich also signed a “friend of the court” brief in support of McDonald. But he doesn’t claim to have “taken the case to the supreme court.”

•  Mr. Sullivan cut a radio ad in which he claimed to have “passed” Stand Your Ground. The last time WC checked, Attorneys General didn’t “pass” legislation. Nor even Commissioners of Natural Resources. In fact, Sullivan’s Department of Law opposed Stand Your Ground and the law only passed after Sullivan no longer was Attorney General. WC wonders if the Carpetbagger isn’t going to get chapped lips kissing up to all the gun nuts. Not to mention a nose like Pinocchio.

•  Sullivan reportedly said in a radio interview on September 9 on station KOTZ-FM that he supports subsistence. But he’s the guy who filed the failed anti-subsistence lawsuit against Katie John. He’s been trying to cover up that record ever since.

WC takes two general observations away from this string of fibs, lies, exaggerations and distortions. First, Candidate Dan’s repeated exaggeration of his “accomplishments” – characterizing signing an amicus brief as something substantive, for example – demonstrates that Candidate Sullivan really doesn’t have any substantive accomplishments to brag about. And somehow he doesn’t mention the incredible string of lost federal lawsuits that he was involved in on behalf of his boss. He overstates his limited accomplishments because it’s all he has.

Candidate Dan Sullivan’s carelessness with the truth is even more troubling. Repeated lying, even perjury, isn’t a qualification WC looks for in Alaska’s Congressional delegation. You know, honesty? Principles? Scruples?
Something more than a charming man who will do say anything, anything at all, to get himself elected?

Why Alaska Governor Sean Parnell has to go

Governor lapdog has refused to expand Medicaid.

Supports tax cuts for Big Oil

Today is the Alaska Senate Primary and Joe Miller is going down thanks to Sarah Palin

Today is Primary Day in Alaska.  And Skanky has endorsed 2010 loser Joe Miller again!

Let’s send in the reinforcements!

To restore liberty, to defend our Constitution, to build American exceptionalism, we must send fighters to the U.S. Senate who will stop Barack Obama’s fundamental transformation of the nation we love. The status quo has got to go, and in Alaska the man who understands this key to our state and country’s future also has the guts, wisdom, experience, and optimism to fight for what is right – and win. We said we'd send the good guys in Washington their reinforcements; so, Alaska, here we go! Vote for Joe Miller on Tuesday and shake off the liberal stranglehold so we can get on the right track.

Thank you, Alaska!

- Sarah Palin




Of course Joe was going to lose anyway because of stupid shit he said earlier in the year.


Why run again?
The country’s facing problems that are similar to what we saw in 2010, but worse… A debt, of course, which is now over $17 trillion. Huge unfunded liabilities…

We now have documentation that our government was involved in the surveillance of our phone calls.

Clandestine agencies have admitted to metadata gathering. You know, there are NSA whistleblowers who have suggested that in fact most digital cell phone calls are recorded. You’ve got all sorts of aggressive action taking place at the federal level which is really, I think, a violation of what the founders intended with the Fourth Amendment – unreasonable search and seizure. And I agree with what some have said, that this is essentially turnkey tyranny. That you’ve got a government with now so much information that’s gathered unconstitutionally, that it does pose a threat to freedom…

The expanse of the federal government in ways that the founders didn’t intend… intruding on states’ rights — another area that gives me great cause for concern.

And when I look at Alaska and how that race is shaping up, and we see two other candidates in the Republican primary that really represent more of the same – we call them establishment candidates, some call them RINOs – we had no choice but to run.

In the struggle over the future of the Republican party, what are the centers of power now?
 The nation to a certain degree faces a duopoly where both parties are effectively doing the same thing, and that’s growing the expanse of power in Washington, D.C.…

There’s an enormous degree of power that’s exerted against both parties by multinational corporations.

You see that with the [Trans-Pacific Partnership]. You see that with respect to, you know, crony regulations and statutes that are embedded in the laws at the behest of lobbyists. You see that even down to the impact that we’re seeing today economically in the country, with middle class having immediate net worth that is lowest in decades…

The people aren’t being properly represented.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act that passed the Senate – would you have voted for it?
No. I would not have. No, I think that private employers should be able to make decisions as to what they do in their private businesses, and I think the people then are entitled to make decisions as to whether or not they use their services.
They can boycott. I think the market can have a proper impact in determining whether or not a business succeeds, based on those decisions that are made. But I mean, right now, what we see is we see this conflict between, you know, the First Amendment and other concerns, where [groups] believe that they have a Free Exercise right – and I think justly so – to decide what they’re going to do in their private business. And I don’t think, for example, somebody that is a traditionalist, that believes in traditional marriage, that runs a bakery for weddings, should necessarily be compelled to do something that’s against their conscience. And I think that’s effectively what the First Amendment was designed against, is someone being forced to violate conscience. So I would’ve voted against it for that reason.

Should a hotel be able to turn away a couple because they’re gay?
I believe that if you’re a private employer, you have the right to do what you want with respect to your business, and that the people of the country then have the right to do as they will, with respect to whether or not they boycott or take other action to financially penalize. I don’t think the government has a role in that.
And you know, what we’re in today, with free enterprise, this is effectively no longer a pure free enterprise system. What we have is a government that’s picking winners and losers. And any time that the government is engaged — whether it be with respect to enforcing the type of protections that you’re talking about, or whether it’s creating regulations to freeze others out of the market, or creating subsidies, or some sort of tax shelter for the big business so that others can’t succeed, where others don’t have those type of benefits — I think it’s an improper role of government. I take more of what you might call a federal libertarian perspective with respect to that.
States, on the other hand, have a wider breadth of action, you know, within the parameters of the Constitution. And if somebody wants something like that — if they want an environment where those types of laws are enforced, then they should be encouraged to move to a state that provides for that. But we’re becoming an increasingly diverse country, and I don’t think anybody – even in your readership – would disagree with that. That the country – I’m not going to call it necessarily “polarized,” but there are different expectations of government, there are different worldviews, there are different values. And the more heterogeneous we become, the more difficult it is to impose a one-size-fits-all solution.
So instead, why don’t we take kind of the direction that our founders intended? And that was, you know, the laboratories of democracy. Different states offering different approaches. And the states that prevail and succeed, obviously that’s a model that can be adopted by other states. But I really do think fundamentally that’s where we’re at. And I think that, at the federal level, the better thing is not to impose the one-size-solution-fits-all, but to reduce the involvement of the federal government, in favor of the people in the states.

So at the federal level, then, should it be legal for that hotel to turn someone away because they’re African-American?
Again, that’s all I’m going to say about it. The state has the right to act. The federal government should be more of a libertarian stance. And that’s all I’m going to talk about on that issue. I’m a state’s right advocate in those areas.

So should a restaurant then be able to turn someone away because they’re African-American?
Again, I’ve said my piece on that.

And so would you repeal the Civil Rights Act?
Again, I’ve said my piece on the issue.

And –
And of course not. I would not. I’ve said my piece on the issue of ENDA. That was your specific question, that’s my response to it. If the states want to act in that area, they certainly have the ability to do it.

Specifically the public accommodation portion of the Civil Rights Act — should that be repealed?
I’ve already made it clear what my position is.

Last year, reportedly you said that “The President of the U.S. and his allies are engaged in a form of systematic spiritual and religious apartheid.” How so?
I think that we’ve seen a president that is more antagonistic and antithetical to free enterprise than any president in the history of the country…
You see that with a complete disrespect, for example, [for] religious institutions to decide whether or not they want to provide certain things under their health plan that they pay for. It’s – if you have a religious organization that’s founded on religious principle, funded by donations, they certainly have the right not do things that they believe violate their doctrine and their conscience. It to me can’t be any clearer.
If the president wants to enforce upon religious groups his version of what should be done, I think that he needs to take into account the fact that he’s got limitations of the Constitution which are designed in the Free Exercise clause to allow those particular religious groups to pursue what they see as appropriate within their particular religious views. When you look at, for example, even internationally what our country is doing in Syria, in the disrespect for what we see going on with the religious minorities there – even Iraq to a certain extent, Afghanistan even. I mean, I think there is almost a degree of, perhaps — internationally — apathy toward those issues [from the administration]. In the United States, almost a degree of hostility in domestic policy.
And so I think that’s a correct assessment of the president. Whether he intends it or not, I mean, I don’t know his heart. But I can certainly see his actions.

What is the apartheid comparison there? Is there one group that you think is being privileged over another group?
Well, we’re talking about different groups, aren’t we?

So who is in what position there?
 I thought we were talking about religious groups and irreligious groups.

So are you suggesting that irreligious groups have more rights than religious groups?
Well, a religious group has a free exercise right to practice their religion. If you’ve got a secular group, there is not a free exercise protection there. But a religious group absolutely has free exercise rights. The people are there, they bind together in community, for the purpose of their worship and their religion. And they have a right to be free of government interference and government mandates that require them to act in a way that violates their very beliefs and, you know, their fundamental worldview.
That’s – I mean, I – I guess maybe I need to take you on a history lesson. I mean, this country was founded on the idea of free exercise. Many of the people that came to this country at its origin – not all, but many of them came here because of the persecution that they were experiencing…
They said…”We want the ability to practice our beliefs as we believe God has directed us, and that’s an area that’s sacrosanct.” And yet this president doesn’t seem to have any respect for it. And that’s what led to that comment…
I think that any time that you show a degree of disrespect for the Constitution, that it should cause all of us to be concerned. Especially – I mean, your magazine… I assume that you’re a civil libertarian, one that embraces the rights that are described in the Bill of Rights. So, what, you’re going to trample the First Amendment free exercise clause… and you don’t think that your other rights are going to be at risk? Any time that you empower the central government and you give way on one of those rights, you’re going to give way on the rest of them…
It really frankly humors me to some extent when I hear those on the left that are out there saying, “Oh you know we ought to mandate the religious groups, go out there and provide for abortions and provide for contraception, even though we know it’s a First Amendment free exercise violation,” but then you scream bloody murder over the fact that the government’s involved in this massive surveillance state, which is clearly a Fourth Amendment violation.
I mean, we have to bind together to protect all those rights. Even though it may feel uncomfortable. You know, I’m a traditionalist; I believe in the traditional family. But I’m also willing to say that the federal government does not have a role in that area – that that’s a state issue…
I think that the unifying concept is the Bill of Rights.
And if someone has a religious objection to serving an African-American at their business, then –
I’m — again, I’m not going there. I already talked to you about the Civil Rights Act.
Are religious objections to interactions with African-Americans equivalent to religious objections to interactions with gay people?
They’re – look – I’m not even going there. I mean, we’ve already talked. We’ve talked about ENDA that was the discussion that you had. The Civil Rights Act is not up to debate. It’s not something that anybody, with any reasonable approach, would ever even consider repealing. So that’s not even – it’s not even a dialogue. I mean, what you’re doing is playing “gotcha” journalism. I’m not gonna play that game with you.
And if someone has a religious objection to paying taxes for foreign wars, that they don’t support, then –
Obviously the courts – no, obviously the courts have established a balancing act. And I assume that you’re knowledgeable enough in the legal area to understand that. I mean, just because somebody claims free exercise doesn’t mean that any moron that claims some sort of free exercise right can do whatever they want. You know that, I know that. And this interview is done.
Well, I appreciate you taking the time…
You know, I’m willing to engage in a dialogue, but we aren’t going to go into the moronic on this, OK?
What was moronic?
What is absolutely moronic is you suggesting that you don’t understand that there are limits to the free exercise clause. And you know there are, and you know that there are balancing tests that are imposed.

What the fuck is a duopoly?  Is that a Sarah Palin term?

I would like Joe to win the primary just so Mark Begich can kick his ass!

From five years ago Sarah Palin's last day in office

Alaskans who will probably never support, help, or vote for Sarah Palin

Walt Monegan
Levi Johnston
Sadie Johnston
Sherry Johnston
Keith Johnston
Sunny Johnston
Andree McLeod
John Stein
Irl Stambaugh
Mark Begich
Jesse Griffin
Sherry Whitstine
Frank Murkowski
Lisa Murkowski
Sean Parnell
Don Young
Tony Knowles
Lyda Green
Shannyn Moore
Kelly Walters
Hollis French
John Bitney
Debbie Bitney
Mike Wooten
Steve Branchflower
Phil Munger
Meg Stapleton
JC McCavit
Brenda McCavit
Catherine Taylor
Clyde Boyer
Joe Miller
Kathleen Gustafson
Mr. Kathleen Gustafson
Gary Wheeler
Scott McAdams
Faye Palin
Vern Upright
Laura Chase
Esther West
Richard Deuser
Randy Ruedrich
Anne Kilkenny
Andrew Halcro
Tony Hopfinger
Frank Bailey
JD Palin
Wendy Palin
Howard Bess
Nick Carney
Nick Tucker
Brad Hanson
Reber Stein
Mark Ewing
Dewey Taylor
Zane Henning
Jay Cross
Jay Ramras
John Cramer
Mary Ellen Emmons
John Cooper
Catherine Mormile
Katie Hurley
Beverly Cutler
John Harris
Erling Nelson
Terry Monegan
Jim WHitaker
Gregg Renkes
Vivian Boyer
Jackson Stein
Waverli Rainey
Linda Biegel

Quitter's Day!

Always fun to watch!

Bristol Palin can't shoot either

This picture was posted on May 23.

Maybe Levi should show her how to shoot a gun like he did for Sarah.

Oh wait Levi's just not that into her anymore.  Bwahahahahahahahaha!

Sarah Palin is now in the dumpster

 From Politicususa

And now for a break, we head over to the Daily Fail section where Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican Vice Presidential nominee, is so hated in her own state that it would go for Hillary over her. Only 19% of Alaskans think Sarah Palin should run for President, 74% want her to sit 2016 out, according to a PPP poll.

The place where they know her best hates her the most.

Only 19% think she should seek the White House, compared to 74% who think she should sit it out. Even among Republicans just 24% want her to run while 70% believe she should take a pass. Palin is actually so weak that she would trail Hillary Clinton 44/41 in a hypothetical contest, even as the rest of the Republican field would lead Clinton. Mike Huckabee has a 43/42 advantage over her, Chris Christie is up 44/41, Rand Paul is up 46/40, and Jeb Bush is up 47/41.

Half of you are already screaming “Who cares!” for good reason — the media’s long obsession with Palin’s alleged “charisma” (of which we saw little after Blood Libel tapped her out) is only now starting to dwindle. But there is a valid and important political point to make upon Palin’s long-wished for exit.

Palin stands for all that is wrong with the current Republican Party. Once voters got to know her, they really didn’t like her. She motivated the GOP base but ultimately helped Democrats, just as she continues to do every time she opens her mouth; while the snide contempt born of the heady and dangerous combination of ill-informed arrogance that Palin specializes in is popular among conservatives, it is not often appealing to the masses — even when it’s hidden behind a pretty face.

The Republican base worshiped her, and some still do. She fed red meat directly into their quivering rage, and made Obama hate viral among a certain set. God had picked her to be President, after all, and only Obama and democracy were standing in the way. But in the end, she was nothing more than yet another puppet, to be used and tossed away when the party was done with her.

Palin was easy to use because she never questioned why the GOP would elevate someone they knew so little about. A more astute person, less blinded by ambition and ego, might have noticed the desperation and asked themselves what end their presence achieved. In Palin’s case, she was the “real conservative” (in spite of her record) and the attack dog, as VP nominees often are, but it went to her head. Instead of understanding her role, she got high off of the rarefied air and became deluded as to her purpose.

The Republican Party chose Palin because of her charisma, beauty and personal story. She was a perfect short term poster girl to distract from and disguise their Bush policies. As the GOP sinks deeper in denial instead of addressing and facing their inherent problems, they will be forced to rely more and more upon people as egomaniacal and deluded as Palin (see Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, et al).

No one else would let themselves be used, unless they were so embedded in the establishment that they knew their family would benefit in the long term.

And this matters, because the faces change but the policies do not. The Republican Party keeps searching for the right puppet. The one who can fool the people. They’ve tried true believers and craven cons, they’ve tried a common woman who is not a witch (!) and a plumber. They’ve tried Richie Rich and they’ve tried their Policy Nerd (aka, the guy who can’t do math and bases policy on a work of fiction).

So Sarah Palin matters because she represents all that is wrong with the GOP, and until they fix it, they should not be allowed to forget her so quickly.

And most people in the lower 48 hate her too.  With the exception of Krusty and Florida troll.

Sarah Palin has thrown Sean Parnell under the bus

 You can watch the interview here

Once Captain Zero has finished digging the knife out of his back, maybe he will spill the beans on Sarah's secrets like whether or not she was pregnant in his picture:

This maybe Skanky's way of sending a message to John McCain.  If she will throw her Lt. Gov. under the bus, she will do the same to the guy who tapped her to be his VP.

Someone from Wasilla speaks out about Sarah Palin

From the Daily Kos

Not everyone from Wasilla agrees with Sarah Palin. I feel it is important for my reputation as a human being who grew up in Wasilla, AK to take a stand. My family and I moved to Alaska in the early 70's. I went to public school in Wasilla from 1st through 12th grade, and I graduated from Wasilla High School in 1986. During that time, I was also a Blue Bird, a Camp Fire Girl, a Rainbow girl, a member of the First Presbyterian Church, and I took History classes from a lady named Jean Krauss. (Do you remember her, Warriors?)

There is Nothing in my upbringing in Wasilla that ever promoted or tolerated the idea that it is ok, good, or necessary to torture anyone. In fact I clearly remember learning about the Geneva Conventions in which it is stated "Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention: willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment including biological experiments." Also - leaders who tortured people, i.e. Hitler & Stalin - not good guys, right? I don't want us to be that kind of nation.


Furthermore, combining the acts of water-boarding (torture) and baptism (a sacred spiritual ritual) is an idea so reprehensible it could be used as a theme in Game of Thrones. Not that I am suggesting that. Speaking of GoT - did you see what Daenarys did to the Masters who tortured people? Yep, they got the exact same treatment. Karma - it's a bitch, unless you're on the right side of it.
There is no theology in which it is ok to forcibly convert/baptize someone into a religion they do not freely accept, by means of torture. Just so THAT'S clear. But then again, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Sarah has done and said many things over the years that I disagree with, am embarrassed by, am furious over - but this one just puts it so far over the line that I feel it's important to make a statement about it.
I know how I became me, and where I got my values. I cannot understand how Sarah got her values, and I resent that every time I tell someone where I am from their first response is "do you know Sarah Palin?" Well, unfortunately, yes. Then I have to go into a 10 minute explanation of how we are completely and utterly different. Because you know, I'm from Wasilla and there's kind of a taint now. Plus, I am a patriot, and I think that word has been co-opted by people whose idea of what it means is incorrect and possibly immoral.
In my mind, a patriot is a person who reads, understands and lives by the values in the Constitution, and who wants America to be an ethical leader in the world. I don't want to be associated with this other woman from Wasilla whose values are so off.
So I just wanted you to know - not everyone from Wasilla agrees with S.P. or shares her ideas. I know you probably know that, but I'm just putting it out there, in writing.
And by the way, here's what I believe in that is different from S.P.
I understand the need for guns in Alaska. We hunted it, we shot it, we ate it. We did not however, believe it was a good idea to tote guns to school, or football games, or beer parties down by the lake, or other public places. Guns in my house were locked in a cabinet so secure even my Dad had a hard time getting them out. More guns is not good.
My family is Christian, and by that I mean we believed in the Golden Rule, and we respected the faiths and wisdom traditions of all creeds, people and nations. Including Muslims, Jews, and Atheists. We didn't view ourselves as better than people who were "different." We believed in tolerance, acceptance, forgiveness and helping people. We realized that radicals of any religious practice can be dangerous. We did not exclude people. Also - separation of Church & State: a good and necessary thing.
We had respect for nature. We knew that the fish, trees, lakes, rivers, coastline and wildlife of Alaska are precious and should never be over-hunted, over-fished, destroyed or compromised due to the demands of the oil and mining industries. "Drill Baby, Drill" is not aligned with this point of view.
We basically wanted the ability for ourselves and our neighbors to thrive, and be safe, and to live freely but in harmony with others. Much like FDR said in the Four Freedoms:

"In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.
That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb."

—Franklin D. Roosevelt, excerpted from the State of the Union Address to the Congress, January 6, 1941 

So no, no water-boarding. 

Whoever this woman is, thank you for speaking out!

If you want to hear FDR's speech regarding the four freedoms see above.  Every great leader should adhere to this.