A Note on Craig Medred's Joe McCarthy Style Attacks on Gov. Palin

Who would have thought that Craig Medred of the Alaska Dispatch would be the modern embodiment of Joe McCarthy? The leftist media would lead you to believe it is Sen. Ted Cruz, but I would suggest that Craig Medred of the Alaska Dispatch fits the bill far better than Senator Cruz, with the obvious difference that Medred is not a Senator.

Recently, Medred wrote a rather amusing and misguided essay on the Sarah Palin's talk at C-PAC 2013. The essay attempts to portray the former Governor’s comments as an example of Karl Marx's ideology and that these ideas are in some way aligned with the Communist Manifesto. I’m not certain if he was signaling to Democrats that she is secretly one of them, or was he signaling to mainstream Republicans that she is not one of them? Hum.. hard to say with Medred. He certainly was taking the "Communist" charge to her in a rather Joe McCarthy manner. From what I have read from the Alaska Dispatch, Medred's intentions were not likely honorable toward the former Governor.

So, let’s dive into that good ol’ break up muck for a moment and look specifically at the issues. Here is what Palin said that gave birth to Medred's essay:

Read your Constitution Alaskans. Realize that the natural resources that God has created for mankind's use, are not owned by the big multi-national conglomerates and the monopolies. They're owned by The People. They don't own them, so don't let them own you. You have a right for those resources to be developed for our use.

Here is what Medred wrote as a response:

It is this "owner state" idea Palin flaunted before CPAC. It is a radical concept born of the Communist Manifesto, which argued that workers should own the means of production instead of being mere cogs in the machinery of businesses driven by individuals -- the so-called "bourgeoisie."

The provision in the Alaska Constitution for the use of resources to benefit Alaskans has its grounding in the body of organic law established by the founding fathers. The founding fathers did not want state and local governments to be burdened with the problem that plagued the Continental Congress: How to fund government. The solution that arrived at was a “set aside” program of land grants. This was originally posited in the Northwest Ordinances, and the notions were carried into other areas of statehood law, or organic law as it is commonly called. Particularly noteworthy is the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.  As each state entered the union,  “land grants” were established so that government could use these lands to generate revenue to fund state government functions.

Thus, Craig Medred is incorrect as a matter of historical record. Palin’s comments addressed the provisions put in place by the founding fathers that became enshrined later in Alaska's Constitution at a later date. While the framers of the Alaska Constitution lived after Karl Marx, the body of law upon which it rests stems from an older body of literature established by the founding fathers of the United States.  As a matter of historical record, the founding fathers lived long before Karl Marx. Karl Marx was born in 1818, long after the founding fathers were in power, and most of the founding documents were in place before Marx was born. In fact, it is far more likely that Marx found his inspiration in America’s founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson rather than the other way around. Palin’s reference was to something that predated Karl Marx. Medred makes an error in his comparison, one that shows his rather amateurish and juvenile understanding of the evolution of political economy.

Or does Craig Medred think the framers of the Alaska Constitution were Maxists? If so then perhaps Vic Fischer can speak to that issue, since he is still alive,  but I suspect most of the members of that group were not avid followers of Karl Marx.  Rather they were likely avid followers of Thomas Jefferson and other contributors to the body of law regarding statehood matters. The last time I checked, Karl Marx made no serious contribution to that body of law in the United States. The last time I checked, Thomas Jefferson did.

 In case Mr. Medred has not looked across the United States, there are these things called Land Grant Universities that were given land to use to generate revenue and sustain the functions of government. No one before this time has suggested that other state governors are Marxists for relying on land grant provisions, and it is rather amusing.  To suggest that suddenly Governor Palin is attempting to move toward a Marxist inspired society through state government use of resources is simply aburd. It is akin to naming Pocahontas a revolutionary war hero.

The  notion of funding  state government through revenues generated from resources was grounded in how monarchs generated revenue to sustain their lavish lifestyles. Every one of the original colonies began with some form of a royal charter whereby the crown received a share of the profits. The novel idea that the founding fathers had was that rather than these proceeds going to support the lavish lifestyle of a royal personhood and their court was that these revenues would go to the coffers of state government for use as the people of that state decided. That was the radical notion of the founding fathers and this notion has carried through organic law in the United States.

Good students of organic law would recognize this. Medred’s essay revealed his ignorance in these matters. His ignorance also revealed his ignorance on how this organic concept was enshrined in our state’s constitution, something that has embodied bi-partisan support throughout the history of Alaska. While it is certain that Marx studied Thomas Jefferson's work along with that of other constitutional framers, I am quite certain that the framers could not have possibly studied Karl Marx.


Now, I have never met Governor Palin, and I have never discussed her CPAC speech with her. However, I am quite certain she was correctly referring to the state and the nation’s founding documents, and not the communist manifesto or any other writings of Karl Marx. Most of Marx’s work was contemporary with the Civil War, not the American Revolution. Indeed, I kind of suspect that Governor Palin’s comments were grounded in the work of Thomas Jefferson, for that is who laid the framework for what would ultimately be organic law in the United States. I sort of suspect that the Governor was thinking about the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 that was the basis of the Alaskan Constitutional Provision on resource use to which she referred. In case Medred has not read it, it can be located here.


I will agree with Medred that her comments could have been aimed at the Governor Parnell's tax changes. Gov. Palin did not say ACES, although it was likely that this is what she had in mind. She could have meant the LNG plant that has been stuck in the Labor and Resource Committee and only recently moved to finance. Perhaps she was referencing a piece of legislation that Rep. Hawker has been involved in regarding the creation of a corporation to construct the gas pipeline. Perhaps she was referencing the recent controversy among the ranks of the Alaska State Defense Forces.  Quite frankly, I think Governor Parnell would be wise to reread the Northwest Ordinance, particularly section 6. But that discussion would stray from our main point on what Governor Palin was referencing. She could have been referencing a hundred other matters before the state legislature.

Whether the Governor’s comments were aimed at any or all of the matters is beyond the point. Indeed, I suspect that Craig Medred and others miss the larger point that the former Governor appears to have on her  mind based on her writings, when taken as a body of serious literature. When considered with other comments, it is clear that the Governor is giving serious thought to how state governments should fund their functions.  In the past, Governor Palin has made it quite clear that governors need to look to other means to finance their governments rather than Federal Matching Funds and Tax revenue. Now that our national government is teetering on bankruptcy, the issue is becoming more important for consideration on the mind of all the governors across the United States, not just Alaska. Each state Governor, Alaska or anywhere else, would be wise to consider the provisions originally established in the Northwest Ordinance and carried into organic law to maintain services in the difficult times ahead.

What Medred's comments did was trivialize an issue that governors should seriously consider at some future meeting. It is very clear that our current executive branch seeks to undermine the 9th and 10th Amendment. Even the 9th district court has ruled that the federal government has stretched the commerce clause, and that is the most liberal court district court in the United States.


It would also be wise for Craig Medred to actually read the founding documents of this country and this state before he attempts to insert himself in matters he is ill equipped to speak upon. To do so otherwise makes him more Joe McCarthy than media personae, and more buffoon than serious thinker.

Palin's Geopolitical Prowess, Empowerment, and ACES Reform

There has been much said in the blogosphere about the changes to oil taxes that were passed in the Alaska State Senate this past week. Many loyal to Palin have seen it as a betrayal of trust by Parnell and the State Senate to what they consider Gov Palin’s major accomplishment. While ACES was extra-ordinary accomplishment by Gov Palin, changing it does not diminish her Governorship or her accomplishments. For those who consider alterations to ACES a black mark on her reputation, I would encourage them to consider the difference between a creation and a creator. Sarah Palin’s value rises far greater than that of a mere public policy document, and to confuse the two is a wee bit like hugging a tree to express one’s love for the Almighty.

To suggest that changing ACES diminishes Palin, or that Palin will be diminished by changes to ACES is pure balderdash. Government expenditures are growing through unfunded mandates. Oil revenue is declining because oil output is declining faster than the price of oil is rising. The budget is near collapsing, and I argued last year that we had already passed the tipping point in revenue. I called into question Governor Parnell’s own estimates as overly optimistic because it was predicated on a highly optimistic set of circumstances that I suspected would not materialize. They didn’t and I do wish I had been wrong. 

The situation may be direr today than it was back in the era when Alaska was considering ending the permanent fund that heralded Palin's rise to power and the ACES reform. It isn’t just financial. Back in that pre-ACES era, the state of Alaska (SOA) well had financial problems, but at least the Alaskan people had freedom and opportunity. Today's situation is far different and the failure is not ACES or Palin. However, circumstances and situations do require alterations to the arrangement of affairs, and Governor Parnell's tax change is a step in that direction. It is not complete, but it should do the job for the next few years. It isn't perfect, but it is politically viable and changes to the document that need to be made on economic linkages to the economy (which no one is addressing) can be made at a later time when industry viability is restored.

In changing the tax code, Alaskans are not killing Sarah Palin or marring her reputation. It is, without a doubt, one of the most emotional items on the docket for Alaskans.   Indeed, I would argue that those who tie Palin’s accomplishments to ACES alone are performing a disservice to the former Governor. If you think Sarah Palin was only ACES, then you really do not understand the forces that brought her to power or the people who rallied to her cause.   ACES was a small component of a greater empowerment agenda. It was not trivial, but it was the appetizer, the opening act, not the main item on the menu.  I would suggest that those who think it was only ACES to read more about the former Governor.

Palin’s contribution was the empowerment of the people against the establishment elite of both parties.  The tax code was only an example.

 The “new policy” or “modification to Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share (ACES)” or however you choose to view it, is not entirely finished, but is likely in the form it will be in to arrive at the Governor’s desk. At the time of this writing, it still has to wander its way through the State House of Representatives. I suspect the media attention around it will be cluttered with stories from days gone by of evil multi-nationals who will consume our flesh and eat our young. I suspect there will be blogs written on the left about the unraveling of the Palin agenda and Palin blogs written about the return of the corrupt elite.

Perhaps it is. But thanks to Palin, the dark mirror that masked the global elite has been shattered and we at least now know what devil with whom we are sleeping.  We certainly are aware of the resident evil emanating from the White House into the daily lives of those who live in the farthest reaches of the waning American empire. The world for which ACES was written is gone, an epoch to be revered, and a morsel to be savored. However, it is gone, and chewing the fat over Alaska's next chapter has gone on for too long because an emotional value that has been placed on a public policy document.  Far too many have enshrined Gov. Palin in ACES, doing both the former Governor and the state a great disservice.

The world in which Governor Palin wrote and implemented ACES was vastly different than it is today. In that world, the United States had a President who understood the importance of fossil fuels for the American Economy. In that world, America had an EPA which looked out for the people of the United States, rather than the interests of radical environmentalists and global elites. In that world, oil reserves were well established, and Alaska was enviable. Alaska had suffered two vastly different governors, Tony Knowles and Frank Murkowski. In the end, both had been considered by the residents all too cozy with the petroleum industry. The state was teetering on bankruptcy; but it was still a land of enormous opportunity and freedom.

Gov. Palin well understood the geopolitical context of Alaska and its importance to the oil industry in that era. Alaska did have some competition from other states in the U.S., but it was clearly the energy jewel in America, with rich, proven reserves.  While often berated by the media for not understanding the “Bush Doctrine,” Governor Palin well understood that Alaska’s other competitors were not places where experienced labor would want to live and the risks associated with those investments. Despotic nations like Venezuela and Libya were competitors, along with Russia, Saudi Arabia, and a host of places that the lacked the political climate that investors prefer. From the perspective of oil, Alaska was the best place to do business. True, it is cold, and requires unique gear. Politically, however, it was not even a contest.  Who would you rather do business with, Sarah Palin in Alaska or Momar Kaddafi, Hugo Chavez, Vladamir Putin, a Sharia Sheikh, or Iraq’s PM de jure?

In addition to a dangerous political environment in those other nations, there were also tax rates in those nations that were extra-ordinarily high.  Alaska’s political peace, safety, and freedom, coupled with low taxes were very profitable for oil companies and a low risk for investors. She understood that this peace and security gave Alaska a monopolistic position in the market place from which to reap quazi-rents from producers for the state.  By establishing a progressive state tax, she was able to secure the revenue for the state budget, rebuild the reserve, and maintain the dividend by exploiting that geopolitical advantage.

But there were also other important differences domestically and inside the state of Alaska from today’s Alaska and the Alaska of ACES.  Back then, elections in Alaska were still honest, or at least we believed them to be so.  In that world, a 70 year old Alaskan could cross the river to go home without search, seizure, and arrest by the National Parks Service. In that world, the Department of Homeland Security would never dream of flying Howitzers suspended from a helicopter over Fairbanks, Alaska in a display of authority under the guise of a training exercise. Had they done so, there would have been an outcry by our state legislators in both parties rather than silence granting approval by our governing officials.  In that world, the red, white, and blue meant something good and decent and the powdered blue hat purveyors of global harmony had the good sense to know they were guests, not the masters of the land.  In the world that Palin wrote ACES, Alaskans were citizens of an American Republic, not quazi serfs of an empire, and they  loved their country and sent their young to defend it.  They were not concerned about a the looming tyranny that seemed to be approaching from those who say they are Americans but do not seem to behave as such. It was a different world,  a different America, and a different Alaska.

Alaskans still had their uncommon freedom. This is no longer so.

ACES was a heroic move that saved the state. It made Gov Palin a folk hero to the people of Alaska. Even so, I never really regarded it as her major accomplishment. I also would not regard it as trivial.  But I always thought that it demonstrated Gov. Palin understanding of the world stage, and Alaska’s ability to capitalize on Alaska’s unique attributes in that area. That was her strength. For someone who the media claimed did not know foreign policy, I don’t recall any other Governor of any other state having to wrangle oil profits from Hugo Chavez. I don’t recall any other Governor’s name being on the minds of Middle Eastern sheiks, and I certainly did not see Vladamir Putin take notice of Alaska in the way he did during the Palin era.


ACES also demonstrated that Alaska could hold its own on the world stage. This was something that did not escape the attention of the Alaskan people. She was an Alaskan for the Alaskan people in word and in her actions.  She was simply doing her job as governor and helping the state achieve economic and energy independence. It was a case of a governor actually doing their job, which had become a novel concept in Alaska in the post Hickel era.

 What was important about the Palin years was not just Palin herself, but the empowerment of   Alaskans. They were able to break the bonds that silent globalist entities had placed on the state. The amber glass hiding certain puppet masters was exposed.  Palin proved what Alaskans learned in a by-gone era in the lessons in populism: when the political left and the political right formed an agreement that unified Alaskans, the state could exercise real power globally. In the Palin era, this was “the backbone.” It was a curious and powerful combination of those who had supported or deferred to Ted Stevens, Walter Hickel, and Joe Voegler.  In more recent years, the back bone was coopted by Senate Democrats under the guise of a bi-partisan majority. It began to push a radical socialist agenda under the guise of populist bi-partisanship. It was not something that anyone in the Palin movement would recognize from the Palin era. It became an arm of the Obama Agenda, and had to be eliminated. It required those who would prefer a quiet life in the woods to interject themselves into political contests that one would ordinarily ignore.  But it was an exercise of empowerment that harkened back to the Palin era and included large blocks over voters and groups to accomplish. The back bone had to be taken back to save our state, and the empowerment that Palin personified was used to change the state senate by the very people who had risen up in past times to put Palin in office.

These changes have not been done in a dark place, but in the public purview with the full knowledge of the people. For me to read bloggers suggesting that these tax changes were done in some dark corner under slight of hand to perpetrate some evil on the people shows they are not keeping current on the events of Alaska. There was nothing sneaky here, and any Senate Democrat who suggests that is being dishonest. This is not the first legislative session on this bill. It has been studied, evaluated, and examined in the open. Alaskans are well aware of the dice we are rolling. It is a hand we are being forced into: turning to bankrupt federal government or applying supply side economics?


 Palin’s empowerment of the Alaskans people was something the establishment and ruling elite took note;  that fledging colony that had been allowed to enter statehood 50 years earlier was no longer a mere cesspool of serfs, political and economic refugees that could readily be forgotten and managed. The rest of the world took note that this radical little cadre in the ice box had not been indoctrinated in global governance, and that its people still held ideas that still resonated with the rest of the American people. It became apparent that the dangerous concepts such as personal sovereignty, limited government, and inalienable rights that were taught in camp fire session in the woods of Alaska had somehow crept into the mainstream thought and political dialogue. Alaska’s notions of liberty and freedom and habit of reading the Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist papers began to infect America. Ultimately, Gov. Palin paid a high personal and professional price in the forms of various attacks from the establishment of the left and right, and  that is what led to her resignation, not ACES.

The Palin attacks were not because of oil per se, but this recognition of the America’s founding principles that became personified through her.  It was the recognition that these dangerous notions of a sovereign people born with rights from God, of the value of the individual as a citizen not a serf of the global elite, and the power of the people could radically reverse the globalists agenda into a state worthy of its star on the field of blue. That is what Sarah Palin really represented and in that context, ACES pales in comparison.

 ACES is hard to change for that reason.  It is a chink in the armor in the minds of Alaskans. It is a recognition that Alaska does not have a place on the world stage anymore; indeed it is not even a blip the halls of Congress. It is a confession, try as we might to pretend otherwise, that Barack Obama and radical EPA agents are running the show, and driving up production costs and prices. It is the recognition that the powder blue hats and green ooze blooded creatures exercise authority in our land through an alphabet of agencies and regulations that are strange to our ears, and seem to not have come from an authority for which anyone voted or consented. Oil prices are  rising through their actions as they raise production costs. It is not translating into new fields or state profits. Indeed, there are often times when the EPA is fighting another branch of the EPA, over restrictions, permits, and province and nothing gets accomplished or produced. They have become a strangle hold on production.


Remember, the high tax rates in Aces were predicated on greedy oil companies, not skyrocketing costs due to environmental regulation by a group of radical environmental terrorist who now hold positions in the EPA. The latter contingency never entered anyone's mind when ACES was passed. Nor did anyone ever believe we should model Alaska after a socialist nation.

 The peace between the political left and political right cracked last year as the left defended Barack Obama and openly and actively pursued his agenda and fashion Alaska as a socialist entity. They have been about this “under the wire”  in our state senate over the past year 4 years and did a great job of disguising “study it more” as a thorough and methodical approach to reform. I can even tell you the precise moment that the back bone broke: 11:14 am on January 23, 2012. It was the final straw and the gauntlet was thrown crashing to the ground. It was the speech that transformed the reform of ACES to something entirely different that is something the Senate Democrats were never able to comprehend.  To listen to Democrat state senators, such as Hollis French, argue that we should be like Norway was over the top. It became about more than money, and it became about the preservation of private property ownership, free market capitalism, and the American way of life. Even moderate Democrats could no longer stomach the “Let’s be like Norway” speeches from Hollis French. The more he talked about Alaska should be like Norway, the more Alaskans understood that if we didn’t make some kind of changes quickly, our very existence would be radically altered to look like a poster child for socialism. To have Vic Fisher rolled out yet again as some great authority on economic development is revolting to those in the populist cause and an rather insulting to the senses of interior residents who know full well that the southeast is using those oil profits to subsidize their docks and tourism industry infrastructure at the expense at the rest of the state. To listen to Sen. Gary Stevens misconstrue the words of Jay Hammond to justify "do nothing" as an economic policy dictated in the Alaska Constitution to enrich his own interests is an insult to the historical record and the Alaskan intellect, particularly when he has enriched his own district with no small number of subsidies. Bert Stedman has built a veritable empire in like manner and has been no small part of the problem. Keeping the people segmented and ignorant was the key to their success. Last summer, even their own constituents began to invite people down to see the display of vast pork that dots our coastal areas to the detriment of interior residents.  To suggest the rest of the state live off ice cold air pudding as they use profits from ACES to enrich their fiefdoms and starve the rest of the state was too much for any Alaskan to bear. The injustices were decried up and down the George Parks highway and a greater unity was fostered among the interior residents.  It was these actions that fostered the creation of unity among people of the state who oppose socialism, radical economic terrorism through the green agenda, stupid people, and Muslim appeasement. Oil companies fall naturally oppose these groups.

 This by no means should suggest we are all now Conoco Phillips; everyone knows that someday our paths will again depart. But for the moment, the enemy of our enemy is our friend, or at least, our temporary political ally. Will these companies “rape, pillage, and plunder,” and eat lobster dinners on our dime as Sen. Wolechoski suggests? Probably. But at least we will get tip money, or the orders to produce the plates upon which those dinners are eaten, and that is better than what we are getting today. Under the current regime, the state is not even getting tip money; that all goes to those in the ecotourism industry in the southeast and the rest of the state is left to starve. There is has been no new production, just the trickling of legacy wells like an old man with prostate problems. There are new hires to meet new federal regulations, but there is no substantial number of new hires that are connected to in an increase production. It is a classic case of the southeast tourism business raiding the state coffers just as assuredly as the oil companies did in times past. If you seek to find crony capitalism, look there, not in the Interior.

But, I digress from my main message...

The world is a different place today. True, some of Alaska’s global competitors are no better off. Libya is even more hazardous than it was in the Palin years. Saudi Arabia is facing the recognition that its reserves are dwindling faster than they have cared to admit. The Middle East remains dangerous and Arab Spring has taken a new meaning in the English vernacular. Norway, that once safe quiet place seems to look differently than it did a few years past, and may well resemble a Middle Eastern nation by the end of the decade. But other competitors have or will improve their competitive posture in attracting investment dollars. Hugo Chaves is dead, and things are changing in Venezuela and the political risk of investing in that nation may diminish over the next few years. Russia and China are no longer the bad political risks they once were and are actually considered more favorable for business than America. Even worse, they have formed an alliance of sorts, at least for now. This hurts Alaska significantly. This is a direct result of Barack Obama’s foreign policy of appeasement and neglect of spheres of influence, not Governor Palin’s ACES.

Even more challenging for Alaskans, other states with better tax climates and more pleasant amenities have risen on the scene as major producers due to changes in technology and discoveries. North Dakota’s rise on the oil stage so radically damaged Alaska’s economy that one would be hard pressed to walk down the streets of North Dakota and not meet someone from Alaska. Villages have become ghost towns as the quiet stampede to the fields of North Dakota have drained Alaska’ best and brightest just as quickly as the fields of Afghanistan and Bosnia did in times pasts. Oil wells in Texas that went out of production 100 years ago are seeing new life and Alaskan emigrants report having fun with Texans by suggesting they are from northern California. Pennsylvania is seeing a rebirth in production, and even Illinois is seeing a revitalization of its fields. While I could say many unpleasant things about Governor Quinn, he is no Hugo Chavez. Illinois may have high tax rates, but compared to Alaska’s tax rates, they are a bargain. All of these states have meteorological blessings that elude Alaska’s North Slope and have culminated to conspire against the America’s jewel of the north.

Economically, Alaska has to sweeten the pot to get back into the game, or it face its own demise.  What form this will take has been debated more extensively than any other subject I have seen debated in Alaska. There are people for the tax change, there are fewer against it, and there are people packing their bags. We know, as a state, what we have to do. We don’t want to do it. We have all watched the hearings, testified, written letters, made phone calls and read revisions, amendments, and amendments to the amendments.  360North is on everywhere, even on security televisions behind the counter of small rural dry goods stores. As DHS Chinooks practice lifting Howitzers and flying them overhead, the rest of Alaska pauses what they are doing to watch the oil tax hearings with one eye, and the skies with another. The testimony comes on, and chat boxes come alive, helicopter blades whir overhead and people who have never met, and likely never will, are discussing the matter. Unlike the Federal government, this is not being done in the dark behind closed doors or in inconvenient times and places that escape detection. Anyone who doesn’t know what is going on is willingly ignorant. This has gone on for two years, and represents no small amount of work on the part of those elected, and those who helped elect them. The urgency of the matter is well appreciated by the residents of the state.  

 It isn’t just the money. Every one of the problems that Alaska has faced came on the heels of either a failed foreign policy of appeasement or devastating domestic policy of rebranded socialism of Barack Obama’s administration. So please, both Palin supporters and haters, do not take the change in taxes as anything more than it is, simply an application of supply side economics in an environment where the competitors have similar political risks and better amenities. It is not an indictment of her, and it if it an indictment of anyone it is Barack Obama, not Sarah Palin. It is not a vindication of anyone, including Frank Murkowski. It simply is what it is, a necessity to adapt to a changing world where those who were once enemies are friends, and those who were friends are no longer qualified for the title. 

Gov. Sarah Palin’s major achievement was not simply ACES. ACES is a document that governs the affairs and arrangements of people and resources. Arrangements can be renegotiated as times and circumstances and parties dictate. It was AN accomplishment and an important one. But that was not Gov. Palin’s final act, nor will it, in the final analysis, be her most important contribution. That has yet to be written and can only be written by Gov. Palin herself.  But the Palin legacy, for Alaskans, indeed for all Americans, is the empowerment to determine our destiny, and the battle for freedom seeking people to unite, to take back the ruling authority from establishment elite in both parties,  to preserve and reestablish our economic and political liberty embodied in our constitution and to pursue the blessings of liberty. Anything else sells her short and fails to value her true contribution to the Alaskan and the American spirit.

Republicans in the Twilight Zone

What exactly is going on inside the GOP? Have they lost their minds?  The Congressional leadership appears to have sold out to the Democrats and Rinoism, the home office for party officials appears to have “gone wobbly,” and the party communications apparatus appear to be missing clear opportunities to score gains among the American people. I feel like I am watching something from the twilight zone. 

First, there is the mighty Congressional Leadership, particularly Speaker Boehner, but also certain voices in among the Senate Republicans. Apparently, Speaker Boehner has cultivated something that looks like a bi-partisan majority. (For Alaskans, that is what we just got rid of in the Alaska Senate.) This “bi-partisan” majority certainly is not something obvious from committee assignments, but is one that exists in voting blocks.  Through a group of “moderate” Republicans and Democrats most of the issues of value to conservatives, such as Obama Care, tax reform, and spending cuts, are being swept under the rug.   It apparently escaped Speaker Boehner’s attention that he became Speaker through the Tea Party influence.

Leaders in both houses of Congress seem be capitulaters rather than the defenders and voices of fiscal conservatism that we hoped they would be. Newt Gingrich had asserted early into the 2013 legislative season that there seemed to be a surrender caucus forming among the GOP Congressional leadership. He sure seems to be on the money in his observations.  Just as media personalities such as Bill Maher begin to talk about liberals losing him on the issue of taxes, Senate Republicans like Lindsey Graham and John McCain seem to be interested in raising taxes rather than tax cuts that would increase revenue. (Note to Senator Graham: I knew about your dinner plans and I live in Northern rural Alaska; not much of a "secret."). Once again,  Republicans are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Rather than being strong and holding firm, they appear to be caving and going all wobbly.

Second,  we have the members of the home office of the RNC. Rather than basking in the glow of CPAC and the swelling numbers of the conservative movement and winning the future, they issue a report on pandering to constituencies by the consultant class. You know, the report that never once mentions "Get Out the Vote (GOTV)." If there was ever a master of chilling hope for the future of the party, it is Reince Priebus. Rather than sitting on the report for a week, or rather than releasing it prior to CPAC to give speakers an opportunity to respond to it, the timing of the report’s release demonstrated that the Republican Party is absolutely not interested in anything that the conservative movement has to offer, short of money and votes. The document itself is a master piece of consultant class on how the Republican Party can become the party of Democrat lite and engage in niche pandering.  It is a document that attempts to use the franchise model to counter a competing franchise and counter niche marketing with niche marketing. In this aspect, it fails miserably. Particularly troublesome is the document’s recommendations on pandering to constituencies rather than Americans. It grants voter niches rather than unifying Americans.

Third is the communication aspect of the GOP. Beyond troublesome, the timing of the release of the document shows a lack of sincerity by the party with respect to the very group they hope to solicit support.   As they released the report, they appeared absent from defending Ted Cruz, a leading Hispanic voice in the party and freshman Senator. As the lead counsel on the Heller decision, media outlets like the Morning Joe trashed Cruz as “ignorant” of the Heller decision!  It was an easy defense! Where was the party’s communications apparatus? Well, the quiet was deafening, and they certainly were not defending Cruz! The casual observer might think they were part of the attack!

I noticed that they seemed more content to attack Sarah Palin rather than defend Ted Cruz! Prominent on Breitbart's web site was a story about Tucker Carlson of the Daily Caller making snarky comments about Sarah Palin's activities. I noticed Karl Rove's cagey responses on Sarah Palin's CPAC speech, but I did not see the party out there defending Senator Cruz. Indeed, I wondered when Tucker Carlson switched his party affiliation to D, for he certainly sounded more D than R on St. Patricks' Day.

It seemed that the party apparatus was enjoying a dish of Palin flesh rather than corned beef, black beans, and green tea.

Where has the communications arm of the party been at all? Why would any minority ever support the GOP at this point? The GOP threw the Tea Party under the bus after coming to power through their ranks. They had Congressman Allen West. They threw him under the bus in his re-election effort. They attack Sarah Palin at every turn, then wonder why the Democrat's "War on Women" meme stuck.  Do they not get that their actions suggests a lack of sincerity on the part of the RNC. Do they not see it is their own actions that give the meme credibility?

Indeed, the party apparatus has been rather absent. Rather than pushing back on issues, they seem all too cheerful to capitulate to Obama’s agenda, all too willing to throw their own future leaders and past supporters under the bus.  It really does seem to be a surrender caucus.

I have a news flash for the RNC. Do you want to grown the Republican Party? How about building on your strengths?  Do you want the support of minority Americans? How this is: defend the ones you have. Quit throwing American conservatives, particularly those who are members of minority constituencies, under the bus. Minority constituencies see this, and they conclude you are pandering and lack sincerity.  Do you want the support of women? Quit attacking Sarah Palin.  These groups can’t hear your message because your actions communicate a lack of sincerity.

No American, minority or otherwise, will regard your voice as sincere when you go all wobbly when the rubber meets the road.  Here is what people see: The Congressional leadership threw the Tea Party concerns out the window and failed to defend them in the media. The party leadership failed to back the minority conservatives once they are in office. Indeed, they seem to participate in the feeding frenzy of attack.  They see a consultant class running the party that is all to happy to take their money but not the least bit interested in what they think. The people on the ground don't need a consultant to hear it, they KNOW because it is in their face. Quit telling me what you THINK you know and start listening to what people have to SAY.

Oh, and RNC, quit attacking Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin empowers women. You do realize that when you do that, you give the "War on Women" mantra credibility, right? You do realize that Sarah Palin has a loyal cadre of supporters? Has it escaped your attention that Alaska elected a record number of conservative women to their state legislature?  In case it escaped your attention, the Senators in the filibuster were all candidates that Palin strongly backed?

Americans of all colors do not value appeasers, capitulaters, wussies, and weasels. The only thing about a flaccid posture is that it is all over the place. You can’t say you want a strong America when you are a weak on your values. Get your communications apparatus revved up and start defending Cruz. Get it revved up and start educating the American people that lower taxes mean more revenue. Get to the bottom of Benghazi, for even Democrats are saying there are impeachable offenses in that investigation.  Get it revved up on how a strong economy is the best defense of America. Promote American exceptionalism as something to be valued by all Americans.  

And GOP, where is your offense against Nanny State, gun grabbing Bloomberg?

The twilight zone appears before sun rise and sunset. A GOP with a back bone will rise; a GOP without one will set. If you want the party to rise, grow a back bone.  

An Apology That Misses the Mark

Never mind that Senator McCain's apology was overshadowed by C-PAC, particularly Gov. Palin's talk.

It was, after all, an apology, and a public one that that. Kudos, Sen. McCain.

However, it missed the mark.

I'm not saying he should not have apologized to the Senators in the filibuster. Sen McCain clearly violated Reagan's 11th commandment, and he did it on the Senate Floor.  The Wacko Birds comment was minuscule compared to the grand flogging in which he participated with Sen. Graham and Sen. Durbin on the Senate Floor, despite the fact that Sens. Paul, Cruz, Lee and others never once attacked Sen. McCain and Graham during the filibuster.  The comment by Sen. McCain  was followed up by the "Wacko Birds" comment.

However, it is good that the apology was aired on Fox News. I hope it is followed up with a statement on the Senate floor.

However, the apology missed the mark. Further, it showed that Sen. McCain remains clueless about the exact matter for which he should be apologizing.

The big event that emerged from the filibuster was not simply the lack of clarity on the drone policy. You don't have to be a member of Ron Paul's campaign to want that. That was something long overdue, but it did not need to occur during the Brennan confirmation. But there was something more important that came from the filibuster that Sen. McCain seems to still ignore: the secrecy with which policy is conducted in the United States. By policy, I don't mean necessarily merely our drone policy, but policy in all arenas, including fiscal policy.

The timing of the filibuster was crucial, for it exposed the secret meetings that Senate Republicans were having with the President on tax hikes. I would contend that the true value of the filibuster was to expose this secret meeting and to show how far our Republic has strayed from the path set out by our founding fathers.
Senator McCain may recall that there was a time in the not so distant past where fiscal policy was debated in public hearings. There was a time in the not so distant past where the question of raising taxes, cutting taxes, and the like were discussed openly in public hearings.  That seems to no longer be the case. Rather than public debate on the issue of taxation, what the filibuster highlighted was the reason why many senators were not at the filibuster: they were in a secret meeting with the President on raising taxes.

Senator McCain, Graham, et al, could have been  part of the filibuster and turning the attention of the nation on the problems with Brennan as CIA Director, the problems with our drone policy, and Benghazi. Rather, this group decided it would be better to have secret fiscal policy meetings with the President. They chose to exclude the fiscal conservatives. In doing so, they chose to be divisive, and go against their party leadership. In doing so, they decided to play President Obama's game of secrecy, rather than be part of the larger public process.

Senator McCain, why don't you apologize for what, and to whom, you should be apologizing? Apologize for dropping the ball on Benghazi when you should have been out there on this issue. Apologize for not being available to shape the conversation on the Brennan filibuster on issues related to Brennan, Benghazi, and our drone policy.

But most of all, apologize to the American people for the on-going secrecy on fiscal policy. Apologize to not holding Barack Obama accountable for not just his wrong doing in Benghazi, but in his domestic policy.

Oh, and I am still waiting for an apology on the hobbit comment. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.

To see John McCain's Apology, click here.

Filibustered Drones & Filleted Honor

Rand Paul performed an excellent service for our nation forcing the Obama administration to clarify their views on the use of drones on US soil regarding US citizens. It was long overdue, and it still may not be entirely resolved. While Rand Paul may be satisfied with the answer, I am not. I think the filibuster should have continued and it should have included drones overseas, Benghazi, Brennan's role in Benghazi, and the location of the President on 9-11-13. Those in the liberty movement know I tweeted heavily about it, and made a social media stink attempting to get Benghazi into the filibuster.

 However, that is not the subject of this blog. I want to talk about those who sat with Obama.  Let's consider the current composition of the Republicans in the Senate as of 3/7/13. There are now 3 groups. The group that "stood with Rand," the group that "was no where to be found," and those who "sat with Obama." Now there is also an intermediate group of "both," those who "stood with Rand," and then "sat with Obama," including Senators Chambliss and Toomey, and then there is Ron Johnson, who "sat with Obama" and then "stood with Rand" as an after dinner exercise, and Tim Scott and Mitch McConnell who were no where to be found but showed up in the final hours to stand with Rand.  I can see someone not knowing it was "going down" or being stuck on the other end of town unable to get there. But I am entirely baffled by those who dined with Obama. 

On Fox News, Sen. Paul indicated that he really didn't know he was going to filibuster until he was at the Senate Floor. Somehow, I doubt that and I think he had, at the very least, mulled over the idea, and speculated on the possibility. That is not to detract from the nobility of his quest, but I have a hard time believing he had not at least speculated on the possibility in the back of his mind.  Furthermore, Sen. Toomey indicated he wasn't really sure there was going to be a dinner until that day. In other words, a series of maybes sort of came together. It is indeed interesting, that Toomey, Chambliss, and Barrasso, the later being regarded as particularly "RINO" by many, should have made it to both the dinner and to the filibuster.

How did these series of uncertain events come together? Could there have been some kind of thoughtful consideration on the part of the most senior Democrats such as Sen. Reid and Sen. Durbin with the President to make it happen? It was certainly advantageous for them to do so, particularly for President Obama.  From President Obama's perspective, it was a way to keep the most fiscally conservative Senators away from secret tax hike discussions.  It is well known that Sen. Paul, Lee, Cruz, and Rubio are fiscal conservatives who would have resisted any effort to raise taxes.  During Obama's dinner with the Senators, he was able to negotiate support for a $600 billion tax revenue increase without the "extreme" voices at the table.  It is highly unlikely that this could have been achieved with them there.


From my perspective, it seems that both sides were set up for failure. On one hand, the most conservative Senators were "kept busy" with the drone issue and away from the tax hike negotiations. The Democrats might have also thought they would get some outrageous statements to use in future political campaigns. On the other hand, Obama was able to talk to those inclined to RINO-ism without Tea Party influence.  If it all went wrong, Obama believed he could discredit those at the filibuster for their "extreme" language or discredit those at the dinner for being traitors to their party, for they were meeting with the president in secret without their party leadership. 

This prompts one to speculate about those who went to the dinner with the President, particularly those who went to BOTH the filibuster and the dinner? Did they know what they were going to talk about with the President? Seriously, why would a group of senators go to dinner with Obama without the Party Leadership? Did Mitch McConnell's absence, and the absence of people like Barrasso, Kirk, Collins, and Murkowski not tip off these guys that something was wrong? 

What exactly did they think they would do without their party leadership? Lead a coup against Mitch McConnell? Seriously? Form a "Country First" super RINO caucus? What was in their BRAIN????  Did they think it would not be found out?  Did they not sense that they were being set up?

This is a group of Senators who  said they were about holding the President accountable on Benghazi and fiscal conservative principles.  Yet, they were no where to be found to raise the issue of the use of drones, monitoring of drones, John Brennan's role in Benghazi, or even where the President was during Benghazi in the filibuster discussion.  Certainly the issue of "who was monitoring the drones during Benghazi" would have been topical? Certainly the issue of indefinite detention regarding the youtube channel holder who is still in jail for the "horrible video" would have been topical in the filibuster? Certain the question of "Where are the Benghazi surivors?" would have been topical, particularly when one considers Brennan's role in Benghazi. While Sen. Paul did not raise them, it does not excuse the others who COULD have been there to do so.

Instead, they chose to dine at one of the most expensive restaurants in Washington D.C. dining with the very President they claim to be investigating. They squandered an opportunity to be great patriots to be part of the "beautiful people" and dine as a celebrity with one of the most corrupt men to ever sit in the White House.  Rather than rising patriotism, they dined with someone who many regard as a devil.  

How can they eat dinner with Obama on HIS DIME, and then expect us, or anyone else, to take them seriously? Or even worse, eat with Obama on OUR dime to negotiate a major tax hike in secret and then expect us to regard them as fiscal conservatives? Especially when we find out Obama was negotiating a $600 Billion tax hike with them?

The President has a majority in the Senate. He does not need these Senators for squat. What did they think was his agenda? How many times on TV were they told that Obama wants to destroy the Republican Party?  Why did they comply? When they saw Rand Paul was filibustering, why didn't they cancel?  Why were they more loyal to dinner with the President than the issues in the filibuster and a chance to expose the issues involved in Benghazi that have eluded the media cycle?

Did they not observe, in 2010, what happened to those Rs that supported the President? What did they think would be the reaction of their own party? Between the Democratic challenge and the Tea Party challengers, many of those folks have gone to the wayside. Did they think the voters would not find out?

Was it even not MORE shameful to listen to McCain and Graham excoriate their younger senators the next morning with the assistance of Sen. Durbin?  It was horrifying, saddening, and made McCain and Graham appear as traitors rather than elder statesman or patriots. Indeed, it was shameful, even the most mainstream Republicans could barely stomach to listen to them deride the younger Republican Senators. 

Did they not see that this was a set up to discredit them? To me, this is a special kind of stupid. There is no such thing as a free lunch; and there is never a free dinner.  They should have known better.  Now the Senate Republicans are so split they cannot even look at each other in an elevator.

 No one can blame the younger Senators for what they did, for it was a noble thing. Senators McCain and Lindsay, being two faced and engaging in secret negotiations with an evil, corrupt President? What was your noble thing in this matter?