Alaska


Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Bachmann: A Conservative Call to Acti…“, posted with vodpod

Thanks to RJ at Paul Revere’s Riders for posting this clip. This government has to be brought under control. Get involved. Post your comments. Get involved and do it NOW. Obama’s agenda is an Obammunist nation, followed by a socialist NWO with one world governance. They will live in luxery sucking the life blood from people like the leeches they are. They will not lift the third world to our standard of living but will drive this nation down to the level of Obama’s native Kenya. We must start now and effect a change in 2012 and finish by 2012. Thereafter we must be forever vigilent.

Please pass this video around. Re-post it or e-mail the link.

Advertisements

SPformagazinecoverImage1

October 16, 2009 4:0

By Sarah Palin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Nzc2ZjhjY2MwMWUyM2M4NTM5YWRjYTcwMTEzZTNjMTc#more

Want to host your very own radio show for free???
Go now to http://www.uswebtalkradio.com

Makes more sense than the total BS coming out of Washington D. C. Source.

Our politicians on both sides just don’t get it. Time for a house cleaning or a change like a dirty diaper on a baby. Start now, make a change in 2010 and finish no later than 2012.

By SARAH PALIN

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

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

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

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

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

View Full Image

Associated Press .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. Palin, Sen. John McCain’s running mate in the 2008 presidential election, was governor of Alaska from December 2006 to July 2009.

Source

August 23, 2009

Sarah Palin for President campaign begins

By Neil Brian Goldberg

Confucius say: “It is often following crowd who push leader forward.”

…and so the Sarah Palin for President campaign begins, but there are some issues which must be addressed right off.

Why does there appear to be so much animosity toward Sarah Palin?

Well, there’s no denying that Sarah fought and defeated the powerful, corrupt, and deeply entrenched “old boy” establishment, bringing decency and benevolence into the state government. Who does she think she is?

…then Sarah Palin twisted the arms of the struggling oil companies, forcing them to pay thousands of dollars to each Alaskan family — how dare she rock the boat.

She ran a clean administration, and despite every sinister and desperate attempt, via contrived ethics charges by pathetic political wannabes, to create a false appearance of impropriety, Sarah’s record remains clean. (All the more reason to be suspicious of her…)

She also gave birth to a down-syndrome baby. Realizing what an extra burden such a child would be, she could have so easily disposed of the problem, what with her political career and the rest of the family’s needs to consider, it certainly would have been understandable, but this does highlight one of Sarah’s major flaws — she has a true heart, not very PC.

Sarah lacks experience. This is true. She has no idea how to work those sleazy back-room deals for suitcases full of dirty money.

She will not be skilled at slipping those secret daggers in the backs of those who count on her to save the country. Not good at lying, she cannot be bribed, not selfish enough; even so naïve as to believe in goodness … and … God — oh no — no no, absolutely a big problem.

It must also be admitted, and there is no way round it, that her detractors on TV have indeed made some incontrovertible points. No matter what your thoughts on this campaign, you cannot deny the absolute facts they have established about Sarah Palin, and these are:

No matter how you dress up a lewd, vulgar, tasteless pig; even with a stunning red suit, a sharp hairdo, and attractive glasses — even if you put perfect lipstick on her — it will not be Sarah Palin — it will still just be Tina Fay, selling herself. There is no getting around this particular point of truth.

The honest, courageous, intelligent, noble, and able Sarah Palin remains unchangingly our Sarah, God’s offering to America, perhaps our last chance for a true incorruptible leader, with angel fire in her eyes, and Divine lightning in her fists.

…and the pathetic dressed up pig remains, exactly and only what it is, lewd, vulgar, bought and sold, and as far removed from Sarah Palin, as the West is from the East.

So how do we begin this campaign — “Sarah Palin for President”?

The first thing to realize is that all of our problems originate from some form of corruption — we will not have that problem with Sarah.

There are plenty of righteous geniuses to hire for advice. All that is needed is someone who reveres and cherishes the real America, based on the Constitution, with the ultimate purpose of freedom, prosperity, and security, making the best choices after honestly considering such advice.

Next, being sure of what we want, we simply begin this “Sarah for President” campaign.

We know that money is necessary, so, as a show of faith and solid intention, take ten or twenty dollars — today — and stash it away for the “Money Bomb” moment which is on its way. On that Money Bomb day — faithfully pull that bill out and send it in! By placing that money aside now — we have begun our campaign.

Next, begin to spread the word. The Sarah Palin Campaign for President has begun. Set aside your donations, spread the word, form local groups ready to work for her in the near future, defend her good name at every turn, shun the likes of David Litterman, his sponsors, and the network which collaborate with the verbal rape of young women (Sarah’s daughters).

Start making signs, get your bumper sticker, start raising potential donors, start working as if the election were in three months, and don’t let up.

There is talk that Sarah will run on a third party — what shall it be called — why of course — THE TEA PARTY.

Work, talk, donate time money and materials. Realize what is actually at stake and fight. Fight as if freedom itself depended on it.

Most of all, become a prayer warrior, and beg God for the future of America.

Re-ignite your angry voice of moral outrage, and stop talking about “Taking Back Your Country.”

Talk about “Keeping Your Country,” it is already yours. Saying you “want it back” is a subtle admission of surrender — that you have lost, that your country has been taken. We do not want to “Take America Back,” we, and Sarah, intend to keep our Country — it is already ours, and it will remain ours.

Every desk, every computer, every building, vehicle, government plane, desk, chair, the pens they write with and the paper they write on, all are the property of the people of these United States. The government owns nothing. It produces nothing, and has no claim whatsoever to anything. It rules only with our permission, and derives all that it uses from the labors and donations of the American people. All else is illegal, all else it treason against the people who fund and build everything in and of this nation.

Sarah Palin knows this, that is why she is our President-to-be, and that is why we the people who still have eyes to see and ears to hear, do now, with a great passion for freedom, and with unbounded faith, gratitude and reverence for the original Constitution of the United States of America — we the people do hereby declare the beginning of the unstoppable, victorious, and blessed by God…

SARAH PALIN FOR PRESIDENT CAMPAIGN

© Neil Brian Goldberg

Source

I have not seen anything on this directly from Sarah Palin, but hope the writer is correct. Now is the time to start. We need a breath of fresh air not Chicago dirty politics in our nation’s capitol.

Democrats can take a lesson on cap-and-tax

By Rep. Don Young | Sunday, August 9, 2009

On July 24, Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and John Kerry of Massachusetts took to The Washington Post to attack former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s opposition to the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax legislation and her overall energy philosophy.

Mrs. Palin correctly criticized the scheme presented in the legislation sponsored by Democratic Reps. Henry A. Waxman of California and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts. By only citing a report from the left-of-liberal Center for American Progress, Mr. Kerry and Mrs. Boxer naively underestimate the effects the legislation will have on the American economy. Other, more mainstream organizations, such as the Brookings Institution and the Black Chamber of Commerce, disagree.

Waxman-Markey artificially creates competition between cheap, abundant energy and unreliable, expensive renewable forms, compelling utilities to use heavily subsidized, politically correct “renewable energy” while thousands who work producing traditional energy lose their jobs.

All the while, American industry will flee to other countries where they can power their assembly lines with cheaper energy. Because nearly four decades of obscene subsidies for wind and solar power haven’t worked, Waxman-Markey ups the ante and engages in societal re-engineering and fundamental restructuring of America’s energy supply.

Read the entire story at The Washington Times.

I am not a McCain supporter but the U. S. threw away the opportunity to elect a competent VP with common sense in favor of a smooth talking inept community organizer and a clown. Congress likewise has mostly become a joke powered by the duo of Pelosi/Reid. Let’s change this fiasco in 2012.

State Home Page ALASKA.GOV Governor Departments Jobs myAlaska
Office of the Governor

News and Announcements
spacerState of Alaska > Governor > News > News Details

Another Ethics Complaint Dismissed Print Now Printer Friendly

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
No. 09-186

Another Ethics Complaint Dismissed

July 24, 2009, Anchorage, Alaska – The Personnel Board has announced that another ethics complaint against Governor Sarah Palin has been dismissed.

The complaint, the sixth filed by Anchorage resident Andree McLeod, accused the governor of violating the Ethics Act by receiving her salary while campaigning for vice president. The accusation, lodged Monday, was dismissed as legally flawed and factually devoid of merit.

Governor Palin remained on duty, conducted state business, and communicated with her staff and her constituents. “Andree McLeod has failed to prevail on any of the ethics complaints she has filed against the governor,” said Mike Nizich, Palin’s chief of staff. “It appears her agenda is clear – she’s abusing the ethics laws to harass public officials.”

By Sarah Palin

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America’s unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won’t bring jobs. Our nation’s debt is unsustainable, and the federal government’s reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:

I am deeply concerned about President Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy.

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will “necessarily skyrocket.” So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, “poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity.”

We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.

In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.

We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama’s plan will result in the latter.

For so many reasons, we can’t afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.

Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?

Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama’s energy cap-and-tax plan.

The writer, a Republican, is governor of Alaska.

Thank’s to Theodore’s World for posting this along with the following picture which shows the real Sarah Palin. That is how she should have campaigned, not dressed` in McCain handler’s garb.

SPformagazinecoverImage1

And here is a related article by Martin Feldstein on the folly of unilateral cap and trade.

Next Page »