Pot Meets Kettle: Mitt Romney Is Attacking President Obama On Job Creation

By Gary P Jackson

So Mitt Romney comes out of hiding once again to talk about jobs. Never mind the rest of the political world is talking foreign entanglements and energy policy.

Writing in USA Today, Romney attacks the President on jobs, and throws out a few focus group tested talking points.

Now granted jobs are a big issue, with true unemployment stuck in the mid-teens, but is Mitt Romney really the “go to guy” on job creation? Mitt’s record in both business and as Governor of Massachusetts says not just no, but HELL NO!

Back in mid-February of this year Mitt came out rambling incoherently about jobs and ObamaCare, seemingly oblivious to the fact that he, not Obama, is the father of socialized medicine in America. At the time, we reminded everyone that in February of 2010, Mitt tried the same thing with no success.

Hmm, February, groundhogs ….

Mitt’s problem with this, and most issues, is credibility. Oh he talks a good game, but when in a position to play, he’s a miserable failure, not a competent Executive.

The Republican contender was the governor of Massachusetts from January 2003 to January 2007. And during that time, according to the U.S. Labor Department, the state ranked 47th in the entire country in jobs growth. Fourth from last.

The only ones that did worse? Ohio, Michigan and Louisiana. In other words, two rustbelt states and another that lost its biggest city to a hurricane.

The Massachusetts jobs growth over that period, a pitiful 0.9%, badly lagged other high-skill, high-wage, knowledge economy states like New York (2.7%), California (4.7%) and North Carolina (7.6%).

The national average: More than 5%.

This was after four years. So far Obama has been in office for just one year. How was Romney’s performance by his first anniversary?

Fiftieth out of fifty.

That’s right. In Romney’s first year in charge, Massachusetts ranked dead last in America in jobs growth.

Fiftieth out of fifty in job creation, and Romney has the temerity to call Obama out. It would be comical if it wasn’t so tragic!

Read more about Romney’s real record on job creation here.

Oh I know, Mitt’s a “businessman” and did well running Bain Capital. Well, yeah, HE did. The employees of the companies his “churn and burn” outfit bought and sold? Not so much.

You can read how Bain Capital destroyed jobs here.

There are a lot of people who think Mitt Romney is up to the task of being President. The problem with that is his record says the exact opposite.

Lack of quality jobs is a major issue in this country, but Romney has already proven that he doesn’t have the slightest clue how to remedy the problem. He had four years as Governor of his state to show America what he was made of. He failed miserably.

Mitt Romney calling President Obama out on job creation is the ultimate “pot calling the kettle black” moment!

We need real leadership in this country. Someone with a PROVEN record of successful leadership. Someone who has managed budgets, created huge surpluses, and actually created jobs. Romney is not our guy.

Caveat emptor

Advertisement

Why Taxing The Hell Out Of The Rich Won’t Get It Done

Is America really broke? Michael Moore (and others) tells us that there are oceans of cash being hoarded by the wealthy. But Iowahawk (iowahawk.typepad.com) did a little addition, and armed with these statistics Bill and the ‘Hawk blow a hole in the “hoarding” lie big enough to fit a documentary filmmaker through.

By Gary P Jackson

Bill Whittle teamed up with writer, and hot rodder extraordinaire, David Burge [Iowahawk] to explain why the left’s quaint little idea of taxing the hell out of the rich, in order to fix our budget woes, is a fool’s errand.

Burge is a national treasure, and his website is a must read! Check his Iowahawk blog here.

Sarah Palin Not all That Pleased With Obama’s Insane Energy Policy [And Neither Are We!]

By Gary P Jackson

Energy is the lifeblood of any economy. No energy, no economy. Barack Obama’s energy policies, whether by design or sheer ignorance, will end up with America having less energy available, and Americans paying a heck of a lot more for it.

One of the reasons we support Sarah Palin so strongly is her expertise in the energy field. Her hands on experience is invaluable.

As Whitney Pitcher pointed out earlier, when President Obama gave his big energy speech, he couldn’t resist taking a shot at Sarah and her “Drill baby, drill” philosophy.

After hearing Obama’s uninspiring drivel, Sarah had a few choice words: [emphasis mine]

FLASHBACK: What We Were Saying One Year Ago About Obama’s Failed Energy Policy

It’s unbelievable (literally) the rhetoric coming from President Obama today. This is coming from he who is manipulating the U.S. energy supply. President Obama is once again giving lip service to a “new energy proposal“; but let’s remember the last time he trotted out a “new energy proposal” – nearly a year ago to the day. The main difference is today we have $4 a gallon gas in some places in the country. This is no accident. This administration is not a passive observer to the trends that have inflated oil prices to dangerous levels. His war on domestic oil and gas exploration and production has caused us pain at the pump, endangered our already sluggish economic recovery, and threatened our national security.

Through a process of what candidate Obama once called “gradual adjustment,” American consumers have seen prices at the pump rise 67 percent since he took office. Meanwhile, the vast undeveloped reserves that could help to keep prices at the pump affordable remain locked up because of President Obama’s deliberate unwillingness to drill here and drill now. We’re subsidizing offshore drilling in Brazil and purchasing energy from them, instead of drilling ourselves and keeping those dollars circulating in our own economy to generate jobs here. The President said today, “There are no quick fixes.” He’s been in office for nearly three years now, and he’s about to launch his $1 billion re-election campaign. When can we expect any “fixes” from him? How high does the price of energy have to go?

So, here’s a little flashback to what I wrote on March 31, 2010, at National Review Online’s The Corner:

Many Americans fear that President Obama’s new energy proposal is once again “all talk and no real action,” this time in an effort to shore up fading support for the Democrats’ job-killing cap-and-trade (a.k.a. cap-and-tax) proposals. Behind the rhetoric lie new drilling bans and leasing delays; soon to follow are burdensome new environmental regulations. Instead of “drill, baby, drill,” the more you look into this the more you realize it’s “stall, baby, stall.”

Today the president said he’ll “consider potential areas for development in the mid and south Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, while studying and protecting sensitive areas in the Arctic.” As the former governor of one of America’s largest energy-producing states, a state oil and gas commissioner, and chair of the nation’s Interstate Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, I’ve seen plenty of such studies. What we need is action — action that results in the job growth and revenue that a robust drilling policy could provide. And let’s not forget that while Interior Department bureaucrats continue to hold up actual offshore drilling from taking place, Russia is moving full steam ahead on Arctic drilling, and China, Russia, and Venezuela are buying leases off the coast of Cuba.

As an Alaskan, I’m especially disheartened by the new ban on drilling in parts of the 49th state and the cancellation of lease sales in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. These areas contain rich oil and gas reserves whose development is key to our country’s energy security. As I told Secretary Salazar last April, “Arctic exploration and development is a slow, demanding process. Delays or major restrictions in accessing these resources for environmentally responsible development are not in the national interest or the interests of the State of Alaska.”

Since I wrote the above, we have even more evidence of the President’s anti-drilling agenda. We have the moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico as well as the de-facto moratorium in the Arctic. We have his 2012 budget that proposes to eliminate several vital oil and natural gas production tax incentives. We have his anti-drilling regulatory policies that have stymied responsible development. And the list goes on. The President says that we can’t “drill” our way out of the problem. But we can’t drive our cars on solar shingles either.

We have to live in the real world where we must continue to develop the conventional resources that we actually use right now to fuel our economy as we continue to look for a renewable source of energy. If we are looking for an affordable, environmentally friendly, and abundant domestic source of energy, why not turn to our own domestic supply of natural gas? Whether we use it to power natural-gas cars or to run natural-gas power plants that charge electric cars, natural gas is an ideal “bridge fuel” to a future when more renewable sources are available, affordable, and economically viable on their own. It’s a lot more viable than subsidizing boondoggles like these inefficient electric cars that no one wants.

I’m all for electric cars if you can develop one I can actually use in Alaska, where you can drive hundreds of miles without seeing many people, let alone many electrical sockets. But these electric and hybrid cars are not a quick fix because we still need an energy source to power them. That’s why I like natural gas, but we still have to drill for natural gas, and this administration doesn’t like drilling or apparently the jobs that come with responsible oil and natural gas development. They don’t have a coherent energy policy. They have piecemeal ideas for subsidizing impractical pet “green” projects.

I have always been in favor of an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy independence, but “all-of-the-above” means conventional resource development too. It means a coherent, practical, and forward-looking energy policy. I wish the President would understand this. The good news is there is nothing wrong with America’s energy policy that another good old-fashion election can’t solve. 2012 is just around the corner.

~ Sarah Palin

As I wrote last year in an article entitled: Obama Asks: “If We Can Put A Man On The Moon, Why Can’t We Give Up Oil?” Here’s Why It’s Impossible, Obama’s blue sky, unicorns and rainbows outlook on “green energy” is right out of Fantasyland.

For one thing, after decades of spending billions to subsidize various “renewable” energy projects, we are actually using less, not more, of these sources of energy. In other words, they only exist because we waste billions of hard earned taxpayer dollars to keep them on life support. From the article:

In 1949 nearly 91% of America’s total primary energy came from coal, oil, and natural gas. The balance came from renewables, with hydropower being a dominant contributor. By 2008 the market share for coal, oil and natural gas, along with nuclear, had grown to 92.5% of total primary energy in the U.S. with the remainder coming from renewables.

Given the raging hype over renewable energy sources, those numbers, which are readily available from the Energy Information Administration, are remarkable. Over the past six decades tens of billions of dollars have been spent on renewable and alternative energy schemes such as wind energy, solar energy, corn and other biofuels, and electric cars. All have aimed at cutting our hydrocarbon use. And yet only nuclear power, which went from zero to about 8.5% of the U.S. primary energy over that time frame, has managed to steal significant market share from coal, oil and natural gas.

In other words, despite these huge investments, renewables’ share of the energy market has been shrinking. What’s happening? While conspiracy theorists may want to believe that Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Nuclear are stifling the growth of renewables, the simple truth is that coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear can satisfy the Four Imperatives: power density, energy density, cost and scale.

The Four Imperatives provide a simplified way to analyze the physics and math that rule our energy and its delivery, the latter better known as power. Before going further we must differentiate between energy and power. If you recall your high school physics, the definitions are straightforward: Energy is the ability to do work; power is the rate at which work gets done. Put another way, energy is an amount; power is a rate. And rates are more telling than amounts.

Read more here.

Like Sarah Palin, I’m one of those “all of the above” people, when it comes to energy. I like the idea of finding alternative energy, as long as it works, is cost effective, and doesn’t need a government subsidy to exist. With that said, there are very few of these things that meet that criteria …. yet.

In the mean time, back in 2008 The Kiplinger Letter published a report detailing just exactly how much oil we have: [emphasis mine]

The U.S. is sitting on the world’s largest, untapped oil reserves

— reservoirs which energy experts know exist, but which have not yet been tapped and may not be attainable with current technology. In fact, such untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand — at today’s levels — for auto, truck, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.

Read more here.

Bear in mind, that was written in 2008. Since then, estimates of our recoverable oil have been revised upward by a considerable amount. Whitney Pitcher covered this for us earlier: [emphasis mine]

As Governor Palin mentioned in her tweet, Alaska has billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. The Natural Petroleum Reserve in Alaska alone is estimated to have 53 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Arctic is estimated to have 90 billion barrels of oil and 1. 67 quadrillion (1,670 trillion) cubic feet of natural gas. For some perspective, that is 1,670,000,000,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas.

Those kinds of numbers make even Obama’s deficit numbers seem small! She also mentioned that other states have large amounts of resources as well. For example, the Green River formation in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah is estimated to have 1.5 trillion barrels of oil–6 times as much as Saudi Arabia. There are 3-4.3 billion barrels of oil in the Bakken formation in North Dakota and Montana. Those a just a few examples of the abundance of God-given resources.

Read more here.

I’ve written a lot about the potential of natural gas as a motor fuel. This is the cleanest burning fuel there is. There’s a reason why we can cook with it in our homes with no ill effects. The technology needed to run an internal combustion engine on natural gas is mature.

Compressed natural gas, as well propane, has been powering cars, trucks, buses, farm equipment, and more, for nearly a century. Rather than invest billions of taxpayer dollars on pie-in-the-sky ideas, we could start working towards a natural gas powered fleet immediately. Many other nations already have a good number of their cars running on CNG.

In fact, the timing has never been better. With modern computerized engine management, variable valve timing, and pressurized direct fuel injection, today’s engines are ideally suited for the conversion. Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors already offer CNG powered vehicles. It would take little investment to offer even more CNG powered models.

And for those who may be worried about the availability, the automakers have this covered as well, making duel fuel vehicles than can run on either CNG or gasoline. Hundreds of thousands of these vehicles are in state and municipal fleets right now.

Although they are expensive, you can even purchase a compressor unit that can be installed in your home garage. If your home has natural gas service, these units can compress that gas and fill up your car, saving you a trip to the station. Again, they expensive [around $5000] now, but as with every new technology, as more people buy it, the price goes down.

Oh, and with minimal investment, any existing store that sells gasoline, and has natural gas service, can install a CNG fueling station.

The bottom line is with little effort, we could have a truly “green” fleet, and we could do it using OUR resources, not anyone else’s. We could be truly energy independent. Oh, and natural gas is less expensive than gasoline.

In her post, Sarah talks about electric cars. These things are still glorified golf carts. For those that don’t follow automotive history, in the early 1900s, through the 1920s, there were several automakers that built electric cars. These were popular with the ladies of the day, because one didn’t have to hand crank them like a Model T Ford, nor did one have to deal with refueling and other concerns. These cars were quite plush, offering many amenities ladies of the day appreciated. Some of these cars are still around today and still in fine working order.

Sadly, after spending untold billions of dollars, today’s electric cars are not much of an improvement over electric cars that were built over 100 years ago.

The Detroit Electric, one of the most popular of the day, actually went further on a charge than a Chevy Volt will! Of course, top speed was a tad less back then, so one can say the old and new are about equal when you factor in that difference.

It’s insane, and insanely expensive. The Volt, a barely usable automobile, costs more than some luxury cars. Oh, you get a big government rebate check when you buy one, but we are broke, and that’s just more money we are borrowing from the Chi-coms.

Now the tree huggers think they are accomplishing something by being “green,” but the fact is, the electricity needed to recharge the batteries in these things comes from coal powered plants in most cases. If “green” is the true objective, then this is a huge failure at every level.

Oh, and no one wants these things either. General Motors has a long history of building niche vehicles that no one wants. The Volt is no exception. According to AutoBlog, the industry news site, there were only 281 Chevy Volts sold in February 2011. They also report GM buried this embarrassment in their sales report.

Nissan offers an all electric vehicle, the Leaf. Only 67 of those left the dealer’s lot for a new home last month.

Billions were wasted on these things. In GM’s case, those billions were taxpayer dollars. This is why the government has no business picking winners and losers. They screw it up every time. The free market would have killed these mistakes off long ago.

It would be one thing if the United States had no natural resources, and was forced to try radical, unproven ideas, and recycle century old technology that was iffy then and iffy-er now. That, however, is not the case.

Fact is we are setting on the world’s largest stockpile of energy. We have centuries worth of oil, natural gas, and coal. There is no reason why we shouldn’t be developing these resources. We could be totally energy independent in short order, if we had the leadership to make it so.

Once that goal was met, we could then turn our efforts toward looking at alternatives that actually make sense and won’t need a government check to survive.

Sarah Palin is the one showing the leadership we need. Our nation’s future depends on it’s energy security. Energy independence is the key. It will not only make the nation secure, and less effected by world events, it will create jobs. Good paying jobs.

President Obama’s agenda is one designed to cripple America and redistribute wealth to other nations. While Sarah Palin is out there saying “Drill baby, drill” Obama is meeting with the Brazilian president and offering them money and assistance so that some day, in his words, we can be “Brazil’s best customer.” What kind of nonsense is that? It’s certainly not Winning The Future!

Obama has failed America in every way conceivable. It’s time to start working towards putting a competent leader in the White House. One who understands what this nation needs to get us back on track.

Run Sarah, run, so we can Drill baby, drill!

President Obama Knocks “Drill, Baby, Drill” in Energy Policy Speech

by Whitney Pitcher

As the Hill points out, in an uncharacteristic move, President Obama went off teleprompter to get in a dig at Governor Palin during his speech on energy this morning.

As shown in the clip above, President Obama stated:

But here’s the thing – we’ve been down this road before. Remember, it was just three years ago that gas prices topped $4 a gallon. I remember because I was in the middle of a Presidential campaign. Working folks haven’t forgotten that. It hit a lot of people pretty hard. But it was also the height of political season, so you had a lot of slogans and gimmicks and outraged politicians waving three-point-plans for two-dollar gas – you remember that-‘drill, baby,drill’-we were going through all that. And none of it would really do anything to solve the problem. There was a lot of hue and cry, a lot of fulminating and hand wringing, but nothing actually happened. Imagine that in Washington.

However, in his prepared remarks released to the press, this portion of his speech reads (emphasis mine):

But here’s the thing – we’ve been down this road before. Remember, it was just three years ago that gas prices topped $4 a gallon. Working folks haven’t forgotten that. It hit a lot of people pretty hard. But it was also the height of political season, so you had a lot of slogans and gimmicks and outraged politicians waving three-point-plans for two-dollar gas – when none of it would really do anything to solve the problem. Imagine that in Washington.

President Obama characterizes Governor Palin as an “outraged politician”. However, the Obama administration  has repeatedly claimed they don’t think about Governor Palin. This is not the first time that President Obama has taken a political shot at Governor Palin’s comment during a policy speech. In his speech in September of 2009 where he tried to sell his form of health care reform, he stated that the claim that Obamacare include “death panels” was “a lie, plain, and simple”. Of course, it has been shown again and again that “death panels”, rationing via bureaucratic decision making, are present in Obamacare. We have addressed this numerous times, here, here, here, and here to name a few.

Beyond the political shot at Governor Palin during what was supposed to be a policy speech, it is clear that President Obama sees every speech as a campaign speech. In 2008, Republicans, namely Governor Palin, saw “drill,baby, drill” as a mantra representing a solution to make America energy independent. However, when the America people bought the “hope and change” mantra over the “drill,baby,drill” mantra, there’s little wonder that ” nothing actually happened”, as President Obama said. Hope and change is little more than a platitude, yet in many ways, it is indicative of the energy policy that President Obama has implemented since he was elected.

Governor Palin has highlighted many of the wrong-headed energy initiatives that President Obama has touted are unproven and can only be pushed because liberals hope that they work. In her Facebook post earlier today, Governor Palin highlighted the “boondoggle” of President Obama’s support of electric cars:

It’s a lot more viable than subsidizing boondoggles like these inefficient electric cars that no one wants. I’m all for electric cars if you can develop one I can actually use in Alaska, where you can drive hundreds of miles without seeing many people, let alone many electrical sockets. But these electric and hybrid cars are not a quick fix because we still need an energy source to power them.

The promotion of electric cars as a means of reducing Americans dependence on energy is laughable, as the majority of the time these electric cars will be charged using electricity generated from fossil fuels, and like Governor Palin said electric cars are horribly impractical in many areas like Alaska.

Beyond this “hope and change” energy policy idea, President Obama is right to say that “nothing has happened”, because despite his claims that his administration has increased drilling, the opposite has happened. Yes, he has advocated for drilling, but his biggest recent push for drilling has been in Brazil, not America. He has been slow to issue deep water drilling permits, and a few of these have been for projects that started prior to last year’s oil spill, not new projects. Additionally, the EPA redtape has held up Arctic drilling for Shell until 2012. If he has promoted drilling, it’s akin to someone tying a runner’s shoes together, then telling them to go run a mile.

President Obama continues to also falsely claim that America has only 2% of the world’s oil resources. American Solutions highlights the fact that this number is taken from only taking into account the reserves where we are already drilling–not the billions and billions of untapped barrels of oil that we are currently not accessing, due in large part to what Governor Palin has characterized as a “moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico as well as the de-facto moratorium in the Arctic”. The 2% of worldwide oil resources is only in light of the fact that we are not drilling for oil where we do have it. In fact, a recent Congressional study showed that America has recoverable more fossil fuel–oil, natural gas, and coal–resources than any other country in the world. Governor Palin has often said that we have the resources, the workers, and the ingenuity for energy independence, all we need is the political will:

Cars and businesses cannot be fueled and homes cannot be heated by an energy policy of “hope and change”. However, when “drill, baby drill” is implemented bringing economic, monetary, energy, and national security, it not only contributes to an “all-of-the-above approach” to energy independence, but also addressing many problems we face in America.

As Governor Palin says, “2012 can’t come soon enough”.

Thank you to Sheya at C4P for providing both video clips.

News Round-Up: Stuff You Should Know

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny

~ Thomas Jefferson

By Gary P Jackson

With everything going on we never have enough hours in the day to comment on it all. Here’s some of the important stories we’ve read lately and think you should read as well:

John Nolte:

20 Days of Left-Wing Thuggery in Wisconsin: When Will Obama, Democrats, and MSM Call for Civility?

Rebel Pundit:

Communist Revolutionary Comes out of the Shadows to Protest in Chicago

>On March 10th, 2011 in Chicago, IL, Chicago Socialists.org and Immigrant Youth Justice League joined forces to stage a protest. In this video one of the protesters gives his views on America’s founding based on slavery and oppression, as well as the need to create a whole new world with a “real communist revolution“.

Gateway Pundit:

BARACK OBAMA: We Want Illegal Aliens to Succeed (Video)

Related:

Jim Hoft:

SEIU Partners with Obama’s Conservation Youth Corps

William A. Jacobson:

Wisconsin County Chair: Unions don’t care “as long as they got theirs“

RightToWork:

Wisconsin AFSCME Union Bosses Face Federal Charges for Illegally Seizing Forced Dues for Politics

William A. Jacobson:

Union Thug Protesters Destroy Recall Petitions

Tony Lee:

Sarah Palin’s Potentially Inclusive Message In India

IOTW:

“He Caved In Like a Punk… Following The White Man”

John Hayward:

The Syrian Bloodbath …. The dark mirror of the Obama Doctrine

Rebecca Millette:

Shades of Soylent Green: “Biotech co. using cell lines from aborted babies in food enhancement testing“

LARGO, Florida, March 29, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Pepsico, Kraft Foods, and Nestlé are among the corporations partnered with a biotech company found using aborted fetal cell lines to test food flavor enhancers, according to a pro-life watchdog group.

The internationally recognized biotech company, Senomyx, boasts innovation and success in “flavour programs” designed to reduce MSG, sugar and salt in food and beverage products. Senomyx notes their collaborators provide them research and development funding plus royalties on sales of products using their flavor ingredients.

Alveda King:

The Tide Is Turning

Standing4Palin:

The Palin Inter-State Strategy

Watts Up With That?:

Gallup’s public opinion on global warming? Dead last

FOX Nation:

AP Fact Check Destroys Obama’s Libya Speech

Smart Girl Politics:

The EPA is screwing with your food

See Also:

Adam Brown:

The 5 Most Ridiculously Over-Hyped Health Scares of All Time

Adrienne Ross:

Governor Palin and the Politics of Competition

Star Parker:

Why Liberals Hate Clarence Thomas and Sarah Palin

HillBuzz:

Douglas Murray….simply AWESOME

Rasmussen:

Only 16% think country would be better off if most incumbents in Congress were reelected

New Jersey Jewish News:

Christie defends Hamas Connected Muslim lawyer he nominated to Superior Court

Canada Free Press:

Do Republicans Understand?

Moonbattery:

Toronto Ignores Earth Hour

Bussiness Insider:

CAUGHT ON TAPE: Former SEIU Official Reveals Secret Plan To Destroy JP Morgan, Crash The Stock Market, And Redistribute Wealth In America

Previous Headlines

Sarah Palin Sets The Media Straight On Alaska’s Film Production Tax Credit

By Gary P Jackson

For Sarah Palin, setting the corrupt media straight is a full time job. The latest lie has to do with tax credits the producers of Sarah Palin’s Alaska received. Sarah issued this statement: [emphasis mine]

Goodness, cleaning up the sloppiness of reporters could be a full time job. In response to The Daily Caller’s online inquiry, I gave them a statement that the writer buried on his story’s second page (which most people won’t even notice – I didn’t even notice it) after he spent the first page completely spinning a situation to give the impression that Alaska’s film production tax credit legislation was somehow solely my idea hatched up to benefit the Palins years before I was ever involved in a documentary series on TLC/Discovery Channel. Here’s setting the record straight: As Governor, I signed into law a popular bipartisan bill that was crafted and passed by others and has resulted in numerous Alaska-based productions that are airing today. The only alternative to signing the legislature’s work product would have been for me to veto their legislation, which would have been useless. Besides all that, their legislation worked.

This bill was not some secret big government agenda. These Alaskan legislators just wanted Alaska to be able to compete with the many other states that offer similar incentives. As I noted in my statement (which was curiously buried by The Daily Caller – whose editor-in-chief was recently called on the carpet for publicly using a degrading term to describe women), I can’t speak for the film tax credit programs in other states, but the program in Alaska has been effective. The bipartisan legislation I signed into law in 2008 was borne out of elected lawmakers’ frustration with the fact that shows and films about Alaska were mostly filmed elsewhere. They wanted to incentivize production companies to film in Alaska instead of Canada, Washington state, or Maine. Their bill worked, and as the legislation’s supporters will testify, the state’s economy enjoys the benefits of having this production money circulating right here at home. It was so successful that state lawmakers now want to renew the film production tax credits for another ten years.

Keep in mind that we don’t have a state income tax, state sales tax, or state property tax in Alaska. Our state government is predominately funded by oil and gas revenue. Essentially we are using revenue generated from the development of Alaska’s natural resources in order to diversify our economy and create jobs beyond just resource development. Not only does this help promote a new film industry in Alaska, it obviously also has the added benefit of encouraging our tourism industry. These shows and films about Alaska act as perfect tourist advertisements for our state. People come here to experience what they see on the shows filmed here. The dramatic increase in Alaska-based television shows and films are testament to the fact that this legislation worked, and it’s exciting to see our state showcased and appreciated. There has been more film productions here than ever before, and the economic benefit of filming here exceeds the tax credit.

And another point missed by this reporter: apparently The Daily Caller’s conspiracy theory must be that I did all of this not even to benefit myself but Mark Burnett Productions. As I tried to explain to the writer at The Daily Caller, if you believe in this bizarre scenario then why not ask the sponsors, drafters, and supporters of this legislation that would boost job creation if they crafted this bill years ago in order to benefit Sarah Palin.

Any suggestion that I somehow did something wrong by signing this legislation is ridiculous. The accusation hinges on the notion that I signed the legislation into law knowing that it would personally benefit me. That’s totally absurd. It wasn’t even my bill, and obviously I had no intention of benefiting from it when I signed it into law in 2008 because I had no idea I would be involved in a documentary series years later. If you’re going to accuse me of benefiting from legislation I signed into law, why stop there?

Go ahead and accuse me of “benefiting” from the legislation my administration actually did craft – like for example, our oil and gas evaluation legislation (ACES).

You could say I “benefited” from it in the sense that due to ACES the state where I live (Alaska) now enjoys a $12 billion surplus. In fact, you could say that as an Alaskan, I benefited from all of the legislation I championed or signed as governor – just as every Alaskan benefited.

As I also tried to tell the reporter, it’s also a false accusation to suggest that signing this bipartisan bill somehow goes against my position on the proper role of government. I’ve said many times that government can play an appropriate role in incentivizing business, creating infrastructure, and leveling the playing field to foster competition so the market picks winners and losers, instead of bureaucrats burdening businesses and picking winners and losers.

Again, I can’t speak for what other states do, but Alaska’s film production tax credit program was an effective way to incentivize a new industry that would diversify our economy. It worked.

The lawmakers’ successful legislation fit Alaska’s economy, as our economy is quite unique from other states’ due to our oil and gas revenue. Perhaps it would behoove people to learn much more about the 49th state’s young economy before making broad accusations about the efficacy of business programs. People who live in ivory towers don’t understand the real world where governors and lawmakers actually have to fight to attract business and jobs to their states.

One final thought: having to set the record straight on my Facebook page yet again is further proof that the media can’t be trusted even to print a statement in a manner that people can read.

– Sarah Palin

You know the detractors of Sarah Palin are getting desperate when this is all they have left to bang her over the head with.

Anyone who watches TLC, the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, and National Geographic knows the tax credits that were created during Sarah’s time as Governor are working like a charm. You have shows like The Deadliest Catch on Discovery, Ice Road truckers and Axe Men on the History Channel, and Alaska State Troopers on National Geographic, just to name a few. These shows, and others, have brought the magnificent state of Alaska into the world’s living room. No doubt it’s helped the local economies, as production crews spend money, and helped the state’s tourism business.

Before this was done, many shows about Alaska were filmed elsewhere. As Sarah points out, Canada and Washington have been used as stand-ins for Alaska. Most famously, the 1990’s hit television show Northern Exposure, which starred Janine Turner and Rob Morrow. The Golden Globe winning series was set in the fictional town Cicely, Alaska, but was actually filmed in Roslyn, Washington.

Many cities and states have film commissions that offer tax incentives to production companies. There is a lot of filming in and around Austin, Texas, for example. There is a vibrant film industry in the city because of the credits offers.

Hollywood was built on it. New York City has a film commission. And lest you think this isn’t necessary, one needs to remember that a lot of TV shows, especially those set in eastern cities, have been filmed in Canada, where it’s cheaper to film, and the government not only offers tax credits, but often cash incentives as well. Which brings us to the next point, tax credits [or tax exemptions, if you will] are not monies paid out, but simply tax monies not collected.

These incentives work. They attract filmmakers to Alaska. [or wherever they are offered] In turn, these filmmakers, their cast and crew, spend money in the local economy. And of course, in the case of the sort of shows coming out of Alaska, most definitely attract tourists.

The small tax credit the production company that created Sarah Palin’s Alaska received is chump change considering the advertising benefit the state’s tourism bureau received.

In world of sports marketing there is a firm called Joyce Julius & Associates. Their focus is analyzing the number of “impressions” someone watching an event gets of a sponsor’s product. This is especially effective in NASCAR and NHRA Drag Racing.

JJ&A looks at how many times a viewer is exposed to the sponsor’s product, and even grades the quality of the exposure. Time on the air, placement of the sponsor’s logo, and other criteria is used. JJ&A will then write detailed reports for the sponsors, who use these reports to evaluate whether or not they are getting their money’s worth from their marketing partnership with any given team.

When you look at the nine episodes of Sarah Palin’s Alaska, and add up the total high quality impressions of Alaska’s natural beauty the viewer was treated to, I’d say the state of Alaska come out way ahead. The same can’t be said for Tucker Carlson and his rag, The Daily Caller.

Caption This

Man Caused Disasters

Fact Checking President Obama’s Lack of Leadership on Libya

by Whitney Pitcher

As Conservatives4Palin shared on Mediaite’s poor “attempt” at semantics checking of Governor Palin’s appearance with Greta van Susteren , surprisingly the Associated Press provided a pretty scathing fact check of President Obama’s speech on Libya. Using 18% of the number of staff that the AP used to fact check Governor Palin’s book Going Rogue, they addressed President Obama’s misrepresentation of America’s role in NATO, the unclear statement of America’s military mission, a lack of a clear communication of America’s interests in Libya, his false claim that Gadhafi’s advances have been stopped, and the false claim that America intervenes in all unjust and tyrannical situations that it verbal condemns.  Beyond these fact-checked claims, as Governor Palin put it last night, “the Obama doctrine is still full of chaos and questions”. He did not make himself clear. Additionally, as usual, he pointed back at the Bush administration for what he perceived as failures, and for praising supposed successes that haven’t shown . However, the overarching false claim is that President Obama stated that “real leadership” has taken place.

The first area that the AP addressed was President Obama’s discussion of America’s role within NATO. While President Obama stated that as a coalition, NATO would be taking a leading role and the US would be be supporting,  the AP points out that America provides 22% of NATO’s budget, and much of its personnel leadership. Essentially, there is some inconsistency in the state role of America in Libya. However, beyond his words, President Obama’s action lacked proper leadership. The NATO leader of military operations in Libya is a Canadian,yet when he spoke with world leaders in a secure conference call, he included France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Canadian leadership was not included. As America is very much a leader in NATO, it shows a lack of leadership when key players aren’t included in important discussions.

The AP also addressed that President Obama stated America’s military mission was saving lives, but at the same time, the efforts also seemed to allow the rebels to advance. Additionally, President Obama’s military mission was understated and his diplomatic and political missions were overstated. Beyond this inconsistency, President Obama tried to tie America’s efforts in hastening the ousting of Gadhafi to America’s interest in the world. Governor Palin addressed both the mission’s effect on the Libyans and on Americans last night:

It’s very disappointing that we didn’t hear that commitment from our president, that America’s interests lie in Qaddafi being ousted. And without that being met, you know, I have to again ask why in the world will our military might be used according to the U.N. and Arab League desires and NATO’s leadership in this skirmish or this war or whatever it is that Obama calls it or doesn’t want to call it.

[…]

Well, if we were going to protect civilians, doesn’t that mean, then, getting rid of the bad guy? And hasn’t the president already said that Qaddafi’s the bad guy? He said that some weeks ago, when those of us who supported the no-fly zone said, yes, get in there and act. Get rid of him then. And then the tune changed coming from the White House and…

This presents another aspect of President Obama’s failed leadership–choosing his own channels of approval for his chosen mission. The AP addressed that it is disingenuous for President Obama to say America is handing over the reins to NATO when America funds and leads NATO to a great degree. At the same time, this pseudo change in optics does not show America’s leadership, but rather a willingness to allow others to lead in areas where President Obama has placed American troops. Beyond this, President Obama even admitted that he went to NATO, the UN, and the Arab League before consulting with Congress. A lot of questions have been raised about the Constitutionality of President Obama’s actions, the rhetorical and substantive  differences between “intervention” and ” declaring war”, and a whole host of other issues. Suffice it to say, President Obama sought the input and approval of worldwide governing bodies prior to ” consulting” with Congress, in essence pruning off one branch of government and grafting in three others when it comes to the “kinetic military action” in Libya.

The AP also addressed the problem with President Obama’s assertion that America always intervenes when there is a foreign atrocity and human rights are being violated, when reality shows the Obama administration is selective, as Governor Palin addressed last night herself:

Well, he did not articulate really what our purpose was, except some inconsistent humanitarian effort there in Libya. And yet the inconsistency lies with the questions now being asked, well, why not Darfur, why not North Korea? What are we going to do about Syria? All these other areas where I guess America could intervene with our power and resources to help humanity.

Governor Palin has highlighted President Obama’s inconsistency on humanitarian efforts and human rights violations in Iran and elsewhere in the past as well. The focus here is not to say where America should or shouldn’t intervene or where we should devote resources, but instead to highlight President Obama’s inconsistency and false claims.

As is his trademark, President Obama pointed back to the Bush administration and what he sees as failures with the war in Iraq and mentions the success of uprisings in Egypt when there is more concern about Egypt’s current trajectory of leadership. President Obama can’t seem to make up his mind. While the war and Iraq has cost a lot of money and sadly a lot of American lives, President Obama tends to blame President Bush for these costs, yet tends to take credit for the successes in Iraq, referencing in his speech that Iraq is now “left to its people” and combat troops are gone. The Obama administration wants to point fingers to the Bush administration to apportion blame in the costs and time devoted to Iraq, but want to take credit for the success, even as far as Vice President stating a little over a year ago that Iraq (the war that Obama opposed as a Senator) was one of the President’s greatest achievements. In his speech, President Obama praised what has happened in Egypt saying it had inspired and changed our hopes and was inspired by how young people were involced. However, as Governor Palin warned in January, with Mubarak out of power in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood with their lack of regard for Israel, women’s rights,and other things, has taken a greater role in creating a new government and the young people of Egypt are not a political driving force.

President Obama’s most laughable claim is that what he has done has shown “real leadership in Libya”. President Obama’s speech did not clarify what America’s true interests were in Libya. He did not give a picture of an endgame, nor a clear idea of what role our military will take in these NATO led efforts. He rose more questions than answers in his speech. Governor Palin characterized the Obama doctrine as “full of chaos and questions” and his leadership as “intervention by ad hoc policy”. In essence, Governor Palin highlighted the biggest false “fact” of President Obama’s speech–real leadership has not been shown.

Sarah Palin: Barack Obama’s Post American Theory of Intervention

I think it was a profoundly disappointing speech because it proved that the Obama doctrine is still full of chaos and questions…Why in the world would our military might be used according to the UN and Arab League’s desires and NATO’s leadership in this skirmish or this war or whatever it is that Obama calls it?

~ Sarah Palin

By Gary P Jackson

On Monday night Sarah Palin went On The Record with Greta Van Susteren to talk about Barack Obama’s incoherent speech on Libya. Sarah takes the speech apart piece by piece.

Governor Palin–Point Guard or Cheerleader?

by Whitney Pitcher

In recent weeks, it seems that the chorus of voices telling Governor Palin what she should or should not do has grown louder and louder. Earlier this week, Bill Kristol asserted that Governor Palin should not and could not be the GOP nominee for President in 2012. Andrew Breitbart and Ann Coulter have also weighed in recently on Governor Palin’s presidential possibilities, both of them stating that it would be a “step down” for her to run for the presidency or that the presidency is “beneath her”. Breitbart and others have asserted that Governor Palin’s best place in politics would be as Kingmaker or Queenmaker–cheering on from the sidelines those who are in the game. All of these assertions begs the question–can you really ask a point guard to take the role of a cheerleader?

In Kristol’s assertion about Governor Palin’s potential for a 2012 run and nomination, he first disrespects both Governor Palin and the American electorate. Kristol stated that Governor Palin was ” unlikely to be the Republican nominee, and to be honest I think she probably shouldn’t be the Republican nominee for president”. In response to Kristol’s ridiculous statement, Mark Levin tweeted on Wednesday:

Thanks Bill but, frankly, who asked? We believe in the real democracy project here, and the people will decide. http://fb.me/UJLwfH2d

Levin is right. To be sure, pundits’ and talking heads’ jobs involve discussing political campaigns, polls, and the viability and potential of possible candidates. However, Kristol said Governor Palin shouldn’t be the Republican nominee, which is not his call to make. That judgement is left to the American people through their vote, not the pundocracy through their megaphone. Kristol is entitled to his opinion, but he’s not entitled to shape the opinion of the entire electorate.

Kristol also laughably stated that Governor Palin hadn’t taken the lead on the issues since stepping aide from the Governor’s office:

I thought she had a real chance to take the lead on a few policy issues, do a little more in terms of framing the policy agenda. I don’t think she’s done that.

Governor Palin has taken the lead on several issues since stepping aside from the Governor’s office. Dare I say, she’s effectively been running point for the conservative offense since she was announced as Senator McCain’s running mate. Governor Palin has both taken the lead on many issues and has even influenced the Obama administration to take action on a few occasions. Governor Palin made a strong statement on the war an Afghanistan in Augusts of 2009 signing on to a letter to President Obama with Bill Kristol himself–something he seemingly forgot. Governor Palin’s famous “death panel” Facebook post laid out the problems of rationing, bioethical concerns, and the improper role of government in the health care reform proposal of Democrats. She framed the debate by framing both the rhetoric and the policy. She has taken a lead on the issues by warning of the problems of quantitative easing and the resulting rise in commodity prices that would follow. She is the only potential Presidential candidate to endorse Congressman Ryan’s roadmap— a serious and effective way to address entitlement reform and our massive national debt. Of course, no one can call plays on the issue of energy independence better than Governor Palin, recognizing both the problems with the inhibitory policies of the current administration and the solutions needed to make America energy independent. When President Obama showed a complete lack of leadership and total ineptness following the oil spill in the Gulf last Spring, Governor Palin encouraged him to meet with the head of BP to appropriately address the spill, and eight days later, President Obama did. During the uprisings in Egypt, Governor Palin called for President Obama to also ensure that the people of Iran were equally supported in their struggle for freedom, and the next day President Obama made a statement to call for the Iranian people to be allowed freedom. In short, Governor Palin has taken indeed taken the lead.

In spite of the fact that Governor Palin has indeed led on the issues, people like Andrew Breitbart assert that she would be better suited to be a cheerleader for other conservatives:

“I think the presidency is beneath her,” the conservative media activist told GQ. “There’s more power in being Oprah Winfrey than in being Barack Obama. It would be my goal for Palin to become Oprah and be the ultimate kingmaker for 20-odd years.”

There’s a lot to say about the influence over culture that a figure like Oprah has. In recent years with the increase in the use of social media and a 24/7 news cycle, people have the opportunity to influence the political landscape without taking a definitive lead on the policy. This is how Governor Palin has the potential to be what Breitbart characterizes as the “ultimate kingmaker”, or essentially a cheerleader. In this role of cheerleader, Governor Palin would be a voice of support for the ideas and policies being in acted on the “court” and for those who seek to play the game. However, there’s no room for leadership when you’re relegated to the role of cheerleader, and as mentioned earlier Governor Palin has lead on so many issues both in her firm stances on issues and in her stellar gubernatorial achievements ranging from energy independence to frugal budgeting to ethics reform. Governor Palin uses social media and traditional media effectively, but she uses media as a tool, not as a her operational framework.Her ability to influence is enhanced by the media, but not driven by it.

In Breitbart’s comments he indicates that he thinks that greater power lies in being an “Oprah” figure than in being a president, and Ann Coulter’s comments indicate that she thinks Governor Palin would lose influence and power by running for President. These two individuals are missing two critical points in their argument–the political shift in leadership that would occur if Governor Palin is elected president and the unique perspective held by Governor Palin regarding elected office.

In their comments, Breitbart and Coulter must be conceding that if Governor Palin doesn’t run for the presidency in 2012 that President Obama will be re-elected. How else can they assert that Governor Palin maintains her “power” only if she does not run? Governor Palin’s current political “power and influence” lie in the fact that she provides the most stark contrast of President Obama and his policies. Through her ability to community effectively, Governor Palin has been able to frame the debate rhetorically as well. Governor Palin replacing President Obama in the Oval Office, in a sense, changes her level of influence. Being placed in presidential leadership mean that she no longer provides the stark contrast in policy because she becomes both the new point of comparison and the President. Governor Palin’s new level of influence now lies not in the contrast between herself and President Obama, but in her ability to clean up the mess that she has been exposing in her previous unelected level of influence. In their assertions, both Coulter and Breitbart have created a false argument.

Influential in their own right, Breitbart’s and Coulter’s influence differs from Governor Palin’s. They need to understand that Governor Palin does not view the Presidency as a position of power, but as a position of service. In choosing to run for president, Governor Palin is seeking how to serve, not how to obtain power. In her interview with Greta van Susteren on Wednesday night, Governor Palin laid out what characteristics she would desire in a President and why she might choose to run (emphasis mine):

I’m tempted [to run], because I’m still wondering who the heck is going to be out there willing to serve the American people for the right reasons. Not for ego, not for special interests. Not with partisanship that will get in the way to do what is right to get the economy back on the right track and strengthen national security. Who else is out there who wants to do this?

If Governor Palin chooses to run, it will be because she’s motivated by how she can best serve, not how she can gain greater power. This is servant leadership–a term perhaps not too often used outside of evangelical circles–but indicative of a point guard seeking to assist, not to score. The decision to serve as “America’s point guard” lies with Governor Palin and the American electorate, not with pundits who want push the narrative of the Establishment or project their own ideals of power and influence on Governor Palin.

UPDATED: Jim Nolte, editor of Big Hollywood, has a piece up today where he speaks about Andrew Breitbart’s comments. Here is what he says in part:

Anyone who knows me or who has followed me on Twitter knows that all Sarah Palin has to do is point to the broken glass she wants me to crawl over. I’ve never seen anyone put through such a cruel, mean-spirited, public meat grinder where their family, womb, faith, gender, dialect, looks and culture are all fair game for the worst kinds of smears. And because she has survived this unprecedented evil with such grace and dignity – Sarah Palin is my hero. And of course I want her to be president. But when Andrew says that he sees her as the Oprah of the right; once again, he’s seeing the bigger picture — the pop culture landscape that shapes and defines our politics in ways not enough people on our side understand (you better believe the Left gets it).

There ’s only one Sarah Palin and she would make for one outstanding president, and like Andrew I will vote for her in a heartbeat and fight for her every step of the way. But it’s just a fact that the price of a President Sarah Palin is a hole in the crucial pop culture war that only she can fill. And only a wicked, journOlisting MSM would attempt to spin into a negative a man publicly declaring that he would like to see this one person lead the charge in a battle that has defined his life more than any other.

Andrew Breitbart has been nothing if not supportive of Governor Palin, but the role that he feel she should fill is more of one that is solely cultural, whereas many other Palin supporters would like to see her fill a role that is more political, and thus would transcend political and cultural lines. I agree with Nolte in the fact that, yes, perhaps a President Palin would leave a hole in the “pop culture war”. However, isn’t it more important that a gap in presidential leadership be filled? Governor Palin and her family will make the decision as to whether or not she will seek the presidency or whether she will continue to fight the battle on a different plane. No matter what that decision is, she has my unequivocal support.