Monthly Archives: October 2010

CBS Affiliate KTVA Caught Conspiring Against Joe Miller

By Stacy Drake

It has been suspected for some time now that the Alaska media has been playing favorites in their coverage of the Senate race between Joe Miller, Lisa Murkowski, and Scott McAdams. Media bias is one thing, but what Anchorage CBS affiliate KTVA got caught doing is even more outrageous. Their reporters were overheard on a message left on Miller campaign spokesman Randy DeSoto’s voicemail actually plotting stories to release that would smear Joe Miller’s campaign and those associated with it. BigGovernment reports:

The voices [on the voicemail] are believed to be those of the news director for CBS Anchorage affiliate KTVA, along with assignment editor Nick McDermott, and other reporters, openly discussing creating, if not fabricating, two stories about Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, Joe Miller.

The following is a transcript of a call recorded after CBS Alaska affiliate KTVA called Joe Miller’s Senate campaign spokesperson. The call failed to disconnect properly. It was later authenticated by McDermott, who sent a text to Randy DeSoto stating, “Damn iPhone… I left you a long message. I thought I hung up. Sorry.”

To view a transcript of the recoded conversation between the reporters, click here.

Clearly the reporters were conspiring to set up some type of smear of Joe Miller. With glee, they even cite a recent controversy over an incident involving the Rand Paul campaign, while discussing how they would spread the story via social media after whatever incident they had in mind came off. It also brings to mind another recent episode that ended with Jerry Brown’s California gubernatorial campaign being caught up in controversy when someone from Brown’s camp called Brown’s opponent, Republican Meg Whitman, a “whore.”

Truly shocking to hear the joy these so-called “reporters” get as they plot to trash other people. It is especially disturbing considering these are the people who the public are supposed to trust to give them honest facts about key issues such as Senatorial candidates during elections. KTVA has some serious explaining to do.

Hot Air posted KTVA’s response to the allegations:

A press release issued Saturday October 30, 2010, by the Joe Miller campaign claims that KTVA personnel, “openly discuss creating, if not fabricating, two stories about Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, Joe Miller.” KTVA General Manager Jerry Bever says, “It’s unfortunate that this recording has happened. It’s unfortunate because it does not accurately reflect the journalistic standards of our newsroom and the garbled context will no doubt leave more questions than answers. The Miller campaign’s analysis of the recording is incorrect in many material ways ranging from personnel involved in the conversation, the interpretation of conversation snippets and the reported transcript of the perceived garbled conversation.”

“While the recording is real, the allegations are untrue,” said Bever. “The recording was the result of a cell phone not being hung up after a call was placed to Randy DeSoto, Joe Miller campaign spokesperson, Thursday afternoon to discuss Joe Miller’s appearance on that evening’s newscast. That phone call was placed near the end of a coverage planning meeting in our newsroom regarding that evening’s Miller rally in downtown Anchorage. The group of KTVA news personnel was reviewing potential “what-if” scenarios, discussing the likelihood of events at the rally and how KTVA might logistically disseminate any breaking news.”

Bever continues, “The perception that this garbled, out of context recording may leave is unfortunate, but to allege that our staff was discussing or planning to create or fabricate stories regarding candidate Miller is absurd. The complete conversation was about what others might be able to do to cause disruption within the Miller campaign, not what KTVA could do.”

While Bever would not discuss any personnel issues linked with the recording, Bever says “Have we had internal discussions about the level of professionalism we need to bring to our conversations, internally and externally? Of course we have, this is a lesson to learn from.”

Dan Riehl at Big Journalism later commented and posted the response from the Joe Miller’s campaign:

The following brief statement has been released from the U.S. Senate campaign of Republican Joe Miller regarding audio posted on Big Government and Big Journalism last night:

Now the media has gone from trying to create stories to openly lying. The audio was pulled directly from the voicemail message. Nothing was altered. “Everything that was recorded on my phone is what we released without change,” said Randy Desoto.

Neither Big Government, nor Big Journalism altered the audio before publication, either.

Both Politico and the Washington Post appear content to embarrass themselves by pushing a response from CBS-KTVA which Ed Morrissey termed “absurd,” in addition to some propaganda and an attempt at obfuscation from the Soros-funded Media Matters in its weak attempts to attack the messenger, be that Breitbart, Inc., or former Governor Sarah Palin.

We stand fully behind the original posting and view KTVA’s response as unserious, amounting to little more than, who are you going to believe, us or your lying ears?

The published audio and transcript of KTVA reporters conspiring against the Miller campaign make the truth abundantly clear for all to see and hear. A call to KTVA’s Nick McDermott made prior to publication has yet to be returned. In the event CBS-KTVA opts to issue a genuine response to these serious charges, we will publish it when received.

For now, all there is, is KTVA General Manager Jerry Bever’s ridiculous characterization the Miller campaign describes as a lie. It is difficult to disagree with that characterization. Consequently, as unfortunate as it may be, as things stand, we see no reason for Alaskans to trust CBS-KTVA’s campaign 2010 coverage given their unwillingness to honestly address concerns raised by their reporters disturbing behavior.



Filed under In The News, Politics

President George W Bush Throws Out Ceremonial First Pitch At World Series

By Gary P Jackson

Presidents Bush 41 and Bush 43 go to the mound and George W Bush throws out the ceremonial first pitch in Game 4 of the World Series in Arlington, Texas.

No “mom jeans” needed.

Nolan Ryan caught the ball.

Click on the photo to see video.


Filed under In The News

But Of Course: Communist Party Of America Throws It’s Support Behind Obama And The Democrats

Jarvis Tyner speaks in Detroit on October 7 on the need for an all-out mobilization to defeat Tea Party and other right wing Republican candidates.

By Gary P Jackson

Surprise, surprise! Radical Communist Jarvis Tyner is backing his fellow travelers who have taken over the democrat party. He’s trying to fire up the crazies to take on American Patriots in the Tea Party movement who are trying to save our nation from certain destruction.

From our friends in New Zealand at the New Zeal blog.

Communist Party USA Leader Openly Backs Obama and the Democrats

Jarvis Tyner, national executive vice-chair of the Communist Party USA, spoke in Detroit October 7, on the need to for “left and progressive” minded people to help insure a huge voter turnout for the midterm election.

Tyner is uncompromising in his support for the Democrats and Communist Party “friend” Barack Obama.

The Communists understand what is at stake in these elections. Do you?

Let us not forget, recently the Socialist Party of America announced the names of 70 members of Congress who are also Marxists, and members of the Socialist Party caucus.

The must radical elements of humanity, violent Communists, Socialists ….  Marxists all …. are who now control the democrat party. These disciples of Lennon and Marx are evil. There is no other way to describe them.

Remember this when you vote on Tuesday.

You have a choice: Leave radicals, supported by the absolute worst of what society has to offer, in power, or vote for Common Sense candidates who will restore this nation to sanity.


Filed under In The News, Politics

Christine O’Donnell On The Campaign Trail

By Gary P Jackson

Here’s some great video of Christine O’Donnell on the campaign trail. Good look at the real Christine, not one the media tried to sell you.

This is an important election. Go to Christine’s website and see how you can make sure she is the next Senator from Delaware, and the 41st vote against anything the Obama regime and Congress try during the lame duck session.

Remember, this is a special election, and Christine will be seated immediately, and be part of the lame duck Congress.

Leave a comment

Filed under In The News, Politics

Sarah Palin Makes A Surprise Visit In West Virginia

By Gary P Jackson

Sarah Palin made a surprise stop in Wheeling, West Virginia on Saturday. Sarah made her remarks and was then interviewed by Tea Party HD. She is fired up!

1 Comment

Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

Time To Vote America

Get out and vote like your life depends on it, because it does!

1 Comment

Filed under In The News, Politics

Breaking: Sarah Palin Interviews Barack Obama

Sarah interviews Barry.

Courtesy C. Steven Tucker.


Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

That’s Texas!

God blessed Texas!

1 Comment

Filed under In The News, Politics

Joe Miller Document Release is a Non-Scandal of Epic Proportions

By Stacy Drake

You have to hand it to Alaska politics. Nowhere else in the world can make such an issue out of online opinion polls or jackets…

After being an outside observer of this stuff for well over two years, I think I have a pretty good grasp on how this works. Conservative opposition (be they sponsored by the DNC or by VECO) use a willing media to hype up some supposed big scandal involving use of the court system to build said hype around, then release of targeted documents in order to build the perception of impropriety. Such was the case in the past with Democrat operatives abuse of the ethics system combined with their use of the media to attack Governor Palin. So it is somewhat disconcerting to see Lisa Murkowski implore those same tactics against Joe Miller in the lead up to the November 2nd election.

Due to a court order, Fairbanks North Star Borough released some of Joe Miller’s personnel records after a suit was filed by the Alaskan media following the leaking of records by a former mayor of the Borough, Jim Whitaker. According to the Alaska Dispatch:

The records released by the borough Tuesday in response to a lawsuit filed by Alaska Dispatch and joined by other news organizations add weight to allegations that surfaced this fall about Miller having found himself in hot water while working for the borough.

The media hyped the release of these records to the extent that some Conservatives were getting a little nervous about their contents. Once Miller spoke to the press about what was to be released, that nervousness quickly turned into laughter. After reading all the documents myself, that laughter has turned into eye rolling. I’m sure Murkowski supporters are felling a little underwhelmed right now.

I do have to hand it to the McAdams campaign for trying to stay above this nonsensical mudslinging. Scott McAdams has said he wants to stay focused on the issues. The fact that he and Joe Miller differ on the issues should be what Alaskans are focused on at this time. However, the Queen of Entitlement robbed Alaskans of that opportunity first by entering this race as a write-in, now by distracting voters away from both her record and the important topics facing this nation.

So let’s get to the content of the documents, but first a little background…

Joe Miller served in a part time position for the Fairbanks North Star Borough for seven years. He did resign his post, but it was NOT as a result of any wrongdoing on his part as has been suggested by the Murkowski campaign or their friends in the media. Stating in a press conference on Tuesday, the Miller campaign said that after serving the Borough for that duration, it was time to move on. Miller had planned to have knee surgery, which would have taken him out of of the office for an extended amount of time. Plus, there where ongoing policy issues at that time that he disagreed with. He cannot specify the details of those policy issues without Jim Whitaker agreeing to release documents regarding each matter.

The biggest piece of information the media is playing up from these records is the revelation that Joe Miller used government computers to take part in an online poll. Yes, that’s all they got out of this entire ordeal. An online poll…

Miller was asked during the last debate about this matter and confessed that what he did was wrong. Shortly after the incident took place, Miller offered to resign and was subsequently turned down by the Borough. His actually resignation took place two years AFTER what I’ll refer to as ‘online poll-gate.’ Miller admitted he made a mistake. He paid a price for that misstep and then he and the Borough moved on with the business of the day.

The Alaska Dispatch and other media outlets are trying to make a big deal out of the fact that the Miller campaign did not release these records earlier. One reason for that is that they did not want to compromise personal information belonging to others, such as private account numbers that were listed throughout certain pages. Joe Miller’s political opponents have even gone so far as to accuse him of covering up the Borough job entirely. That is simply not the case as he has posted this position on his Facebook page and on his online, Linked In profile. Joe Miller is an open book. All of his military records are publicly available on his website, and the scrutiny he has come under during this election process has been thorough to say the least.

The Miller campaign stated during a press conference that there were certain inaccuracies and claims made in the records released on Tuesday that they did not agree with. They said that there was a form included in the documents that discussed an issue about an insufficient notice given for his resignation from the Borough post. Miller says he had never seen that document before the release of these records.

The Murkowski camp has also been smearing Joe Miller by implying that he purposely deleted emails that were public record in order to cover something up. First of all, emails on the Borough’s server are backed up and can be retrieved at any time. The Borough IT professional verified this. Secondly, according to the Attorney General, not all emails are considered public. Thirdly, an individual who worked for the Borough wrote in one of the emails released in Tuesday’s batch that Joe Miller “kept a clean inbox” dealing with his daily mail. It was common for him to delete emails once he was done reading them.

Now back to Mayor Whitaker…

Jim Whitaker, former mayor of the Fairbanks North Star Borough is the person responsible for leaking these personnel records in the first place. A complaint has been filed against him for releasing confidential records without permission. While Whitaker is a Republican, don’t let that fool you. He endorsed Barack Obama in 2008 which led the then-mayor to a speaking role at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. At the time, he was touted as an example of Barack Obama’s ability to “bring people together.” We see all too clearly today what a farce that notion was.

In my opinion, this entire episode is political theater. As I stated in the beginning, well financed political operatives working with the media build these spectacles in Alaska on a regular basis. The build up of hype. The use of the court system. Then the actual findings, which usually prove that Conservative Alaskans are pretty squared away individuals. All of this is designed to grab headlines from a more than willing press, and distract the voters. As Joe Miller stated during the debate the other night, “the primary election was about the issues, and we won that race. The general has become about personal attacks.”

That’s what you call a shift in strategy. Lisa Murkowski has already run a race on the issues and she lost. So, she and her campaign made a conscious decision to change their tactics. From labeling the Tea Party as “extremists to questioning Joe Miller’s honor, everything the Murkowski has rested her fate on comes at the expense of completely trashing her opposition. Although she is considered a third party candidate, Lisa is well funded by those who need her to retain her position in DC to continue that cozy relationship with their congressional connection. I hope Alaskans see through Lisa Murkowski and the media spin in relation to the release of these documents. The issues facing this nation are too important to get tripped up by dirty political ploys.


Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin

A Time For Choosing: Celebrating “The Speech” By Ronald Reagan

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

~ Ronald Wilson Reagan

By Gary P Jackson

It was October 27th, 1964, forty-six years ago, today, that Ronald Reagan took to the stage in Los Angeles, Californian to speak to the nation. This televised speech, in support of Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, has become one of the most iconic political speeches of all time. Entitled A Time For Choosing, over the years, it has become known as simply “The Speech.”

So essential is this speech, it should be required viewing by every man, woman, and child in America, if not the world. Every school should teach a class on this speech alone.

This is the essential Reagan. This is simply one of the most powerful speeches ever given to a people. Reagan lays out a strong indictment of Socialism and how, even then, the democrat party was destroying individual Freedom, individual Liberty, individual prosperity, and in turn, destroying the nation.

Sadly, with few alterations, this speech could be given word for word today, and be spot on. Of course, we’d have to replace millions with billions, and billions with trillions, but the same problems we had in 1964 are still with us today, only magnified by astronomical amounts.

We went from worrying about creeping Socialism in our country, and the Communists overseas, to having a full blown Marxist in the White House! We now have Socialists openly demonstrating in the streets, along with union thugs, and the Socialist Party of America announcing that at least 70 democrats in Congress are members of their caucus!

How can this be?

Well, this has come to be partly because as powerful as Reagan’s speech was, as inspiring as it was, more people chose to give up much of their freedoms, for the promise of an imaginary Utopia, just as voters blindly did in 2008 when another snake oil salesman came along, by the name of Barack Obama.

Obama, combined with the Marxists who had already been in control of Congress for over a year, has managed to wreak havoc on the entire nation by instituting the same old failed policies that Progressive-Socialists like Woodrow Wilson and FDR tried in their day. The same Marxist policies that have failed world wide everywhere they have been tried, and led to completely failed societies, are now being tried by Obama and his fellow travelers, and yielding the same predictably disastrous results.

In 1964 America had a real choice between two ideologies: One that offered real Freedom, real Liberty, and real prosperity, or one that would further enslave them, one that would make them less free, and less prosperous. One that would create an atmosphere of government overreach that would make it incredibly difficult to reach the American dream our founders had.

The American people, for any number of reasons, chose a path that promised them the land of milk and honey, if only they would succumb to the state.

History shows that over the next two decades things got steadily worse, culminating with the Carter presidency, and the darkest days since the Great Depression. Miserable times to try and succeed or even survive.

It took those two decades, from the time Reagan gave “The Speech” until 1980, before America was ready to listen to common sense, and elect Ronald Reagan, who became one of our greatest Presidents, and brought America back to greatness. Sadly, we forgot the lesson Reagan was trying to teach the nation in 1964, and would teach the nation throughout his eight years in office.

Well, here we are, forty-six years later, and frankly, we don’t have two decades. Folks, we don’t have two years. Thanks to the radical and dangerous policies of Obama and his Marxist-democrat party, America is staring into the abyss. We’ve never been so close to total destruction in our nation’s history.

This time, instead of bombs, and invading armies, it’s economic destruction we face. A destruction just as devastating as any nuclear weapon, or invading army could render. The insane policies of the Obama regime, and his enablers, have us right at the edge.

On October 27th, 1964 it was a time for choosing. On November 2, 2010 it will be a time for choosing again. History shows us what happens when we make the right choices, and what happens when we make the wrong choices.

What choice will you make? Will you stand up for Freedom and Liberty, for the Rule of Law, for the American Way, or will you just go with the flow, vote for the status quo, and certain destruction?

As Sarah Palin is fond of saying, only dead fish go with the flow, and in this case, if we don’t change course in this country, and change course drastically, we’ll all be dead fish.

Below is a complete transcript of Reagan’s speech, with links to historical references.

Program Announcer:

Ladies and gentlemen, we take pride in presenting a thoughtful address by Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan:


Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn’t been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, “We’ve never had it so good.”

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn’t something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector’s share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven’t balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We’ve raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don’t own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we’ve just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it’s been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to.” And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down: [up] man’s old — old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the “Great Society,” or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they’ve been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, “The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.” Another voice says, “The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.” Or, “Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.” Senator Fulbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as “our moral teacher and our leader,” and he says he is “hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.” He must “be freed,” so that he “can do for us” what he knows “is best.” And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as “the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government” — this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Now, we have no better example of this than government’s involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming — that’s regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we’ve spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don’t grow.

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he’ll find out that we’ve had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He’ll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He’ll find that they’ve also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn’t keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

At the same time, there’s been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There’s now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can’t tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how — who are farmers to know what’s best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a “more compatible use of the land.” The President tells us he’s now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we’ve only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they’ve taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we’ve sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.

They’ve just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you’re depressed, lie down and be depressed.

We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they’re going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer — and they’ve had almost 30 years of it — shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we’re told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We’re spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you’ll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we’d be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

Now — so now we declare “war on poverty,” or “You, too, can be a Bobby Baker.” Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we’re spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have — and remember, this new program doesn’t replace any, it just duplicates existing programs — do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn’t duplicated. This is the youth feature. We’re now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we’re going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we’re going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who’d come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She’s eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who’d already done that very thing.

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we’re denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we’re always “against” things — we’re never “for” anything.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

Now — we’re for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we’ve accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we’re against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They’ve called it “insurance” to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term “insurance” to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they’re doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary — his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he’s 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can’t put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they’re due — that the cupboard isn’t bare?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can’t we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn’t you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we’re for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we’re against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They’ve come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar’s worth, and not 45 cents worth?

I think we’re for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we’re against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world’s population. I think we’re against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.

I think we’re for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we’re against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We’re helping 107. We’ve spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.

Federal employees — federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation’s work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man’s property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.

Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, “If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States.” I think that’s exactly what he will do.

But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn’t the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died — because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

Now it doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the — or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men — that we’re to choose just between two personalities.

Well what of this man that they would destroy — and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I’ve been privileged to know him “when.” I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I’ve never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn’t work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, “Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such,” and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he’d load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, “There aren’t many left who care what happens to her. I’d like her to know I care.” This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, “There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start.” This is not a man who could carelessly send other people’s sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I’ve discussed academic, unless we realize we’re in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy “accommodation.” And they say if we’ll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he’ll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer — not an easy answer — but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Now let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace — and you can have it in the next second — surrender.

Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face — that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand — the ultimatum. And what then — when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin — just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this — this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits — not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

Thank you very much.


Filed under In The News, Politics, sarah palin