Disturbing trend in Wildlife

 Subject: Disturbing trend in Wildlife The photos below capture a disturbing trend that is beginning to affect
 wildlife in the USA . Animals that were formerly self-sufficient are now
 showing signs of belonging to the Democratic Party….. as they have
 apparently learned to just sit and wait for the government to step in and
 provide for their care and sustenance. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Still wating

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where the hell is my dinner?

Let Palin Be Palin

  Let Palin Be Palin
Why the left is scared to death of McCain’s running mate.
by William Kristol
09/08/2008, Volume 013, Issue 48

A spectre is haunting the liberal elites of New York and Washington–the spectre of a young, attractive, unapologetic conservatism, rising out of the American countryside, free of the taint (fair or unfair) of the Bush administration and the recent Republican Congress, able to invigorate a McCain administration and to govern beyond it.

That spectre has a name–Sarah Palin, the 44-year-old governor of Alaska chosen by John McCain on Friday to be his running mate. There she is: a working woman who’s a proud wife and mother; a traditionalist in important matters who’s broken through all kinds of barriers; a reformer who’s a Republican; a challenger of a corrupt good-old-boy establishment who’s a conservative; a successful woman whose life is unapologetically grounded in religious belief; a lady who’s a leader.

So what we will see in the next days and weeks–what we have already seen in the hours after her nomination–is an effort by all the powers of the old liberalism, both in the Democratic party and the mainstream media, to exorcise this spectre. They will ridicule her and patronize her. They will distort her words and caricature her biography. They will appeal, sometimes explicitly, to anti-small town and anti-religious prejudice. All of this will be in the cause of trying to prevent the American people from arriving at their own judgment of Sarah Palin.

That’s why Palin’s spectacular performance in her introduction in Dayton was so important. Her remarks were cogent and compelling. Her presentation of herself was shrewd and savvy. I heard from many who watched Palin–many of them not predisposed to support her–about how moved they were by her remarks, her composure, and her story. She will have a chance to shine again Wednesday night at the Republican convention.

But before and after that, she’ll be swimming in political waters infested with sharks. Her nickname when she was the starting point guard on an Alaska high school championship basketball team was “Sarah Barracuda.” I suspect she’ll take care of herself better than many expect.

But the McCain campaign can help. The choice of Palin was McCain’s own. Many of his staff expected, and favored, other more conventional candidates. The campaign may be tempted to overreact when one rash sentence or foolish comment by Palin from 10 or 15 years ago is dragged up by Democratic opposition research and magnified by a credulous and complicit media.

The McCain campaign will have to keep its cool. It will have to provide facts and context, and to hit back where appropriate. But it cannot become obsessed with playing defense. It should allow Palin to deal with the charges directly and resist the temptation to try to shield her from the media. Palin is potentially a huge asset to McCain. He took the gamble–wisely, we think–of putting her on the ticket. McCain’s choice of Palin was McCain being McCain. Now his campaign will have to let Palin be Palin.

There will be rocky moments. But they will fade if the McCain campaign lets Palin’s journey take its natural course over the next two months. Millions of Americans–mostly but not only women, mostly but not only Republicans and conservatives–seemed to get a sense of energy and enjoyment and pride, not just from her nomination, but especially from her smashing opening performance. Palin will be a compelling and mold-breaking example for lots of Americans who are told every day that to be even a bit conservative or Christian or old-fashioned is bad form. In this respect, Palin can become an inspirational figure and powerful symbol. The left senses this, which is why they want to discredit her quickly.

A key moment for Palin will be the vice presidential debate, to be held at Washington University in St. Louis on October 2. One liberal commentator–a former U.S. ambassador and not normally an unabashed vulgarian–licked his chops Friday afternoon: “To steal an old adage of former Secretary of State James Baker .  .  . putting Sarah Palin into a debate with Joe Biden is going to be like throwing Howdy Doody into a knife fight!”

Charming. And if Palin holds her own against Biden, as she is fully capable of doing? McCain will then have succeeded in combining with his own huge advantage in experience and judgment, a politician of great promise in his vice presidential slot who will make Joe Biden look like a tiresome relic. McCain’s willingness to take a chance on Palin could turn what looked, after Obama’s impressive speech Thursday night in Denver, like a long two months for Republicans and conservatives, into a campaign of excitement and–dare we say it?–hope, which will culminate on November 4 in victory.

–William Kristol

What Sarah Brings Michael Medved

Analysis: Palin could complicate energy debate

Analysis: Palin could complicate energy debate
AP News
Saturday, August 30, 2008

If Democrats hoped to portray John McCain as captive to the oil industry, their task became more complicated with his selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as a running mate.

She is an ardent advocate for more drilling _ off Alaska, off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in the off-limits Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Yet she also not shied from confronting Exxon Mobil, BP and ConocoPhillips.

As the presidential campaign moves into high gear, McCain and Democratic nominee Barack Obama will duel over two overriding energy issues: whether to expand offshore oil drilling into areas long off-limits and whether to impose new taxes on oil companies enjoying tens of billions of dollars in windfall profits.

Palin is a popular governor in a state that for decades has been closely tied to oil. She may be a political novice, but she is hardly a newcomer when it comes to these two issues. Her emergence as McCain’s No. 2 and possibly the next vice president could shift the campaign’s energy debate.

When it comes to the oil industry is Palin friend or foe?

The answer may not be black or white but shades of gray.

“No one is closer to the oil industry than Governor Palin,” said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club in comments reflecting the views of a cross section of environmental activists. They cite her eagerness to embrace expanded offshore oil development, her lawsuit against further protection of polar bears so as not to hinder oil drilling in Alaska’s ice-filled waters and her ardent support to allow oil companies into the Alaska wildlife refuge.

Drilling in the refuge’s sliver of coastal tundra in northeastern Alaska _ an area viewed by environmentalists as a treasured wild place that also harbors 11 billion barrels of oil _ was believed to have been a dead issue. McCain opposes drilling there, as does Obama.

But that too might be changing.

The selection of Palin places the refuge’s “energy production front and center in the policy debate once again,” maintains Brian Kennedy, senior vice president of the Institute for Energy Research. The group has pushed for increased domestic oil production and has some oil companies among its sponsors.

While McCain has said he hasn’t changed his mind about drilling there, he also has said that he is willing to re-examine the issue.

When it comes to taxing oil companies, Palin’s selection might well be a doubled-edged knife for the McCain campaign.

Shortly after becoming governor in 2006, she pushed new oil taxes through the Alaska Legislature, saying the taxes proposed by her predecessor, Frank Murkowski, were too favorable to the oil companies. She was bucking Exxon Mobil, BP PLC and ConocoPhillips, which strongly opposed the legislation.

The new tax brought in an estimated $6 billion in the last budget year, bulging Alaska’s treasury with an expected surplus of as much as $9 billion. Thst enabled Palin to push a second initiative _ giving each Alaskan $1,200 to help them cope with high energy costs.

Sound familiar?

Obama has proposed taxing the windfall profits of the five biggest oil companies and giving people $1,000 to pay for high energy costs. Palin called such financial help “a tool that must be on the table” although she differs with Obama on where the money’s source.

Like McCain, Palin says a national windfall profits tax on oil companies will hinder domestic energy production. Democrats are expected to be quick to ask: If it’s good for Alaska, why isn’t it good for the country?

But Palin has bucked oil companies in other ways. She pushed for more competition for the construction of a $26 billion pipeline to bring natural gas from the North Slope to the lower 48 states by favoring the TransCanada pipeline project, backed by independent companies over one proposed by BP and ConocoPhillips. She has tangled with Exxon Mobil and other oil companies over their reluctance to develop gas fields on state land.

Republicans hope that will neutralize claims that the McCain ticket is too cozy with the oil industry and shift more of the energy debate away from oil taxes to the need for expanded offshore drilling and generally more domestic energy production _ issues on which Palin has been outspoken.

Don’t expect the Obama campaign, not to mention many of the environmentalists activists, to cooperate.

“Big Oil extended its reach into the campaign of John McCain,” said Margie Alt, executive director of Environment America, a federation of state-based environmental groups, after Palin’s selection became known.

Mark Hellenthal, a GOP pollster in Alaska sees it differently. In the state “she’s viewed … as almost anti-oil. She’s probably pro-oil from a national perspective, but she’s not in the pocket of Big Oil. She’s fought them at every step.”

___

On the Net:

Governor’s office: http://gov.state.ak.us/

___

EDITOR’S NOTE _ H. Josef Hebert has covered energy and environmental issues for The Associated Press since 1990. AP writer Steve Quinn in Juneau contributed to this report.

Weekend Reads Re: Governor Palin Et Al Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 9:05 AM

First, Governor Palin is not merely, as Jay describes her, “all-American”, but hyper-American. What other country in the developed world produces beauty queens who hunt caribou and serve up a terrific moose stew? As an immigrant, I’m not saying I came to the United States purely to meet chicks like that, but it was certainly high on my list of priorities. And for the gun-totin’ Miss Wasilla then to go on to become Governor while having five kids makes it an even more uniquely American story. Next to her resume, a guy who’s done nothing but serve in the phony-baloney job of “community organizer” and write multiple autobiographies looks like just another creepily self-absorbed lifelong member of the full-time political class that infests every advanced democracy….

Third, real people don’t define “experience” as appearing on unwatched Sunday-morning talk shows every week for 35 years and having been around long enough to have got both the War on Terror and the Cold War wrong. (On the first point, at the Gun Owners of New Hampshire dinner in the 2000 campaign, I remember Orrin Hatch telling me sadly that he was stunned to discover how few Granite State voters knew who he was.) Sarah Palin and Barack Obama are more or less the same age, but Governor Palin has run a state and a town and a commercial fishing operation, whereas (to reprise a famous line on the Rev Jackson) Senator Obama ain’t run nothin’ but his mouth. She’s done the stuff he’s merely a poseur about. Post-partisan? She took on her own party’s corrupt political culture directly while Obama was sucking up to Wright and Ayers and being just another get-along Chicago machine pol (see his campaign’s thuggish attempt to throttle Stanley Kurtz and Milt Rosenberg on WGN the other night).

Does chick mate spell checkmate for McCain?

Media’s full court press against Palin

Media’s full court press against Palin

Ed Lasky

The political flamethrowers have been unleashed on Governor Sarah Palin.
The media is not just trying to attack her on experience grounds (she has a far more successful record of accomplishment than either Joe Biden or Barack Obama) but now are trying to besmirch her character and image-two of her most appealing qualities.

How?

Two quick examples of the media’s desire to characterize here as a traitor to her political patrons.

A decade later, the nickname [Sarah Barracuda] resurfaced when she was a 28-year-old political novice on the Wasilla City Council. She turned on a veteran council member who had coaxed her to run for office, blocking a bill that would have steered business to his garbage-hauling firm.
The moniker was revived once again in 2003, when Alaska’s governor, whom she would later unseat, appointed her to a state oil-and-gas commission. As a brand-new member, she challenged the ethics of the panel’s leader, the chairman of state’s Republican Party, forcing him ultimately to resign.
Another example from the same Washington Post article (just to hammer the point):
Her swift ascent to the governorship, and now to a vice presidential nomination, is regarded by some in Alaska as a case of fortunate timing, for someone who possesses the right outsider’s tactics at the right political moment. Others cite driving ambition and instinctive opportunism — a willingness to turn on political patrons to get ahead.
This sentence denigrates her own political triumph (first woman Governor of Alaska and one who assumed office at a young age) by describing her victory as the result of fortunate timing. To compound the insult the writers depict her “instinctive opportunism-a willingness to turn on political patrons to get ahead”.
Of course, the other interpretation would be more truthful and accurate.
She took on a notoriously corrupt political establishment and took great risks in battling her own party to ensure miscreants were identified and corrupt practices ended..
Now contrast that with Barack Obama who has run on the issue of ethics reform. In fact, he ran on the same issue in Chicago-both at the state level and when he ran for the role of a US Senator. As David Freddoso points out  in his superlative new book ” The case Against Barack Obama” (and as others have also pointed out), Obama’s claim to be a reformer was a fraud. He helped defeat reformers in Illinois-despite his campaign promises (props) that he would reform the corrupt political machine of Chicago.. He solidified the control of corrupt politicians such as State Senate President Emil Jones (who returned the favor by tacking Obama’s name on pieces of legislation Barack Obama had very little-if anything-to do with) and the father and son team of John and Todd Stroger.

Obama, of course, had as his political patron and chief fundraiser, Tony Rezko-a man who was just convicted  in a case involving political corruption (“pay to play”).

Palin saw corruption and fought the establishment to end it; Barack Obama was a creature of corruption and sought to strengthen it.

Did he “turn on” his political patrons? No, despite their corruption that robbed and weakened the citizens of Illinois? No..he bolstered them.

How about that perspective?