Government Mandates: Newt Gingrich and the Art of the Con Explained

Now there are about 300 pages that are pretty good, a little over 10 percent, but they should be part of the replace document.

~ Newt Gingrich on ObamaCare

A good con always has an element of the truth. It’s essential. Not only does it make the con easier to pull off, even the best of con men can only lie so much without giving themselves away.

When I wrote that Newt Gingrich was more dangerous than the current occupant of the White House [and that I could prove it] I took readers down memory lane, pointing to all of the radical “progressive” votes and positions Newt has taken since 1979, many he still holds today. But my main focus was Newt’s incredible skill as a con man.

Newt is absolutely one of the best we’ve ever seen. This cat can look you in the eye, tell you his position on a particular issue, which is normally far left of mainstream America, then convince you that you didn’t just hear what you just heard.

This is a man who, when news came out he had been paid somewhere around $1.8 million from the corrupt Freddie Mac organization, was able to convince many of his followers that it was for “history lessons!” [and do it with a straight face]

One of the biggest cons Newt is pulling, is his on going effort to make people think he doesn’t support pretty much everything included in ObamaCare.

Newt constantly says he doesn’t support the individual mandate “in ObamaCare” and this is the truth. Newt does not support the individual mandate in ObamaCare but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t support the individual mandate!

This is how smart Newt is. And make no mistake, Newt is highly intelligent. Newt knows that he can ramble on and on about the individual mandate in ObamaCare and only the most observant, only those who actually know Newt’s real position on the matter will call BS. The average voter just hears Newt is opposed to individual mandates, and moves on.

Worse than that, after hearing Newt doesn’t support the individual mandate [in ObamaCare] when presented with the facts that Newt actually DOES support individual mandates, as long as it’s in HIS plan, victims of Newt’s con get angry, and will often call you a liar. Or they go into a long explanation telling you that Newt gave a long explanation about it all.

Newt can talk longer, and say less, than anyone in politics today.

Even when shown video proof of Newt supporting individual mandates on many occasions, including as late as May of this year, victims of Newt’s con will tell you that you are wrong.

That’s how good Newt is, and why he must never be allowed back in elected office.

Newt absolutely supports individual mandates. Newt teamed up with Hillary Clinton back in 2005, not only pushing for government mandated health insurance, but showering Hillary with praise in the process.

Now I think Newt is a true believer, just as he is in the man-made global warming hoax. That said, the $37 million he has been paid by various drug and insurance companies, all with a keen interest in seeing mandated health care insurance become law, wasn’t for “history lessons!”

Newt says he’s against a “single payer system” of health care. This is likely true, at least as I and many others think of single pay systems, which generally means government run health care, where all of the doctors, nurses, etc. are employees of the government, and the government owns all of the hospitals and controls all of the health care.

The government determines who gets care, and at what level. Those death panels Sarah Palin pointed out, the panels of government drones who determine who gets life saving care, and who is deemed “expendable.” Come to mind.

While continuing my research on Newt, I came across yet more evidence of the con.

Talking Points Memo notes that Newt claims he doesn’t want a single payer system, but champions his mandates as a “300 million payer system.” Newt is very good with words, and this sort of seemingly off the cuff, throwaway line, is just another intricate part of the con.

Newt understands that Americans fear government controlled heath care, and rightly so. He also knows that when most people hear “single payer” they think government controlled health care. So, in one supposed throwaway line, Newt can say he’s against government run health care, while still supporting individual mandates, and get away with it! The only thing people hear is he doesn’t support government run health care.

This is brilliant. I mean absolutely brilliant.

The more you study it, you can’t help but realize what an elegant con this is. If Newt was using his skills for good, rather than evil, one could really admire the skill in which Newt is pulling this off!

And before anyone goes off, just let me remind you, government mandates of this kind ARE evil. They are also immoral, and unconstitutional. Government mandates, such as those Newt is supporting, have already been ruled unconstitutional in the lower courts. We’re only waiting on the Supreme Court to make the final call.

As a matter of fact, Judge Roger Vinson ruled ObamaCare unconstitutional, based on the mandates, in January of this year, five full months BEFORE Newt was last giving his complete support for … individual mandates!

For such a supposed brilliant man, you’d think he’d have backed away from such a high profile issue.

Not sure if he’s just earning that $37 million, or if he’s such a true believer, he doesn’t care what the courts, or the Constitution, say. With his record of supporting radical “progressive” policies, who the hell can be sure what is true. Hey, it may be a bit of both.

From TPM:

Newt Gingrich has attacked Mitt Romney on the issue of the individual health insurance mandate, while chalking up his own past support for the idea as an indiscretion in the 1990’s. But as it turns out, those 1990’s stretch all the way to 2005 — and beyond, to 2008 — when Gingrich gave as passionate an explanation of the mandate idea as any current supporter could ever muster.

On his own web site, Gingrich’s campaign explains: “In the 1990s, Newt and many other conservatives, such as the Heritage Foundation, proposed a mandate to purchase health insurance as the alternative to Hillarycare. However, the problems outlined above caused Newt to come to the principled conclusion that a mandate to purchase health insurance was unconstitutional, unworkable and counterproductive to lowering the cost of healthcare.”

However, in a YouTube video flagged by Health Care for America Now, as recently as 2005, well beyond the 1990s, Newt was vociferously championing the mandate — just a few years before Democrats took it up, and in the process reversing pretty much all past support for it among some Republicans.

At a forum in 2005, alongside then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and former Sen. John Breaux (D-LA), Gingrich explained the tradeoffs that both the right and the left would have to make in health care: For the right, some transfer of wealth is involved in providing health care for the working poor, the disabled, and other groups. And for the left, individuals should still have control over their health care, rather than total government management.

“I mean, I am very opposed to a single-payer system — but I’m actually in favor of a 300 million-payer system. Because one of my conclusions in the last six years, and founding the Center for Health Transformation, and looking at the whole system is, unless you have a hundred percent coverage, you can’t have the right preventive care, and you can’t have a rational system, because the cost-shifts are so irrational, and create second-order problems.”

This led Gingrich to a few conclusions of how to implement such a system: Convert Medicaid into a health insurance voucher system as it applies to the working poor (on the rationale that the creation of food-stamps do not involve the government running its own grocery stores); Create very large risk pools for individuals to purchase insurance (i.e., exchanges); and minimize insurance companies from cherry-picking customers.

“I know I risk not sounding as right-wing as I should, to fit the billing,” Newt said at one point, which did indeed trigger some audience laughs.

Notice Newt actually takes a shot at the “right wing” here. A con man enjoys the con, he revels in the lie. He will often take great pleasure in actually letting his victims know they are being conned, without actually telling them.

It’s perverted, a sickness. Interesting to watch, and even admire, but a con man like Newt is dangerous if ever put in a position of power.

If listen to what Newt is saying, and the manner in which he says it, he comes off as reasonable and confident. He uses praises like “principled conclusion” to declare his dislike of mandates in HillaryCare. Newt goes so far to call these mandates “unconstitutional, unworkable and counterproductive to lowering the cost of healthcare,” While at the very same time pushing …. you guessed it …. INDIVIDUAL MANDATES!

You know those movies where you almost find yourself admiring the bad guy, the crook?

Folks, individual mandates are individual mandates. It doesn’t matter which “progressive” is trying to shove them down your throat. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Newt Gingrich all want the same end result. They all want to force you to do something.

Remember the key words from Newt though:

…. unless you have a hundred percent coverage, you can’t have the right preventive care, and you can’t have a rational system, because the cost-shifts are so irrational, and create second-order problems.

”

Note the words “rational” and “irrational” to make his case FOR the individual mandate.

Who wouldn’t think it wasn’t irrational to propose a system to cover every American, that didn’t FORCE every American to pay into it. A Big Government scheme like this can ONLY work if everyone is forced to participate!

Now in a FREE society, with market driven services, including health care, one has the right to choose if they want to purchase any product, or not, including health insurance.

In a society that places a premium on individual Freedom and Liberty [like ours] we also realize the need for personal responsibility. In other words, its up to you. Of course, we are a compassionate society, so just because someone decides they have better uses for their money, than having insurance in the event they have major health issues, we don’t just turn our backs on them.

Though Newt claims to be against single payer, he is most definitely NOT against government run health care. In fact, he’s looking to “tranform” the system we have now. Even though Newt might not want to see the government completely take over health care, i.e. own the hospitals and pay the staff, he is very much advocating government control the industry.

Here’s Newt in the video we’re discussing:

Notice that right off the bat Newt uses the phrase “transfer of funds.” Certainly more articulate than Obama and his commie buddies shouting “share the wealth!” But it means the same.

Folks we are watching one of our nation’s greatest con artists practicing his craft with precision and even grace!

Newt Gingrich is giving a full throated support of individual mandates and government controlled health care, while denouncing the other guy’s plan for individual mandates and government controlled health care!

Again, it would be a beautiful thing, if it wasn’t so downright evil!

Newt can look you in the eye and tell you that he doesn’t support the individual mandates in HillaryCare and ObamaCare, and he’ll be telling you the truth.

It’s important for him to tell you this, and even believe it himself, or the con wouldn’t work. As good as he is, he’d give himself away, even to those who don’t really pay attention to exactly what he is saying.

On the other hand, while he’s denouncing the other guys, his on plan produces almost identical results. HillaryCare, ObamaCare, and NewtCare all end up with the federal government controlling you and your health care. All three plans DEMAND that you purchase insurance, or risk penalties. All three take away personal Liberty and Freedom.

We do need some health care reforms in this country.

Common sense reforms.

Things like law suit reform, that shuts down the ambulance chasing lawyers. This is a huge problem that drives the cost of health care through the roof. Doctors are forced either pay outrageous malpractice insurance premiums, or quit. Many unnecessary tests are run, as a bit of CYA for the doctors who remain.

One of the few things Rick Perry got right in Texas was championing law suit reform.

Before major reforms, Texas was home base to all of the ambulance chasing lawyers, and the entire system was out of control.

Now all of the ambulance chasers have moved on to friendlier ground, and almost 10,000 doctors have moved to Texas seeking refuge from law suit happy attorneys. Our health care is world class, and doctors are free to practice medicine without having to practice CYA medicine as well.

There are other factors, like the 10s of millions of illegal aliens who receive free health care, often by showing up in emergency rooms, where hospitals are required to treat them, regardless of ability to pay.

A common sense solution to our illegal alien problem would go a long way toward reducing the costs of medical care in our country. We have a moral obligation to treat those who need life saving treatment, whether they are here legally or not. Fixing the illegal problem is essential.

It is my great hope that readers will take this look into how Newt cons the American people, and apply it to his other positions.

Newt really is a brilliant man, when it comes to supporting radical “progressive” ideas, while claiming he does not. He may be the very best we’ve ever seen. But in the end, a con man is still a con man.

Newt is a con man, a liar, and a highly corrupt influence peddler who has been paid 10s of millions of dollars for his efforts. He is the exact sort of life long political insider Conservatives are trying to drive from politics forever.

And with Newt, we better be successful too!

A reminder of what Ronald Reagan said of people like Newt:

Advertisement

Newt Gingrich’s Curious Love of Ethanol Subsidies: Follow The Money!

By Gary P Jackson

Ever wonder why Newt Gingrich supports ethanol subsidies, something Conservatives want eliminated?

Newt even used his speech at the Ronald Reagan Dinner on Friday night to talk up ethanol subsidies, at a time even Iowas realize it’s time to end them.

Back in May of this year, Newt started one of his “Big Conversations” about ethanol, claiming it was “good for the economy.” [snort]

From Eastern Iowa Government:

One of the keys will be an American energy plan that will include traditional forms of energy – coal, natural gas and nuclear, for example – as well as wind, solar and biofuels, including ethanol.

Ethanol is in a much different place than when he first voted for “gasohol” back in 1984, Gingrich said.

“My original goal was to help launch a biofuels industry because I felt we had a chance to increase the income not just to farmers, but if you go to these small towns, some of the best paying jobs are at the ethanol refinery,” he said.

Now the industry has matured and with the development of flexible-fuel vehicles it is competitive in a way different than it was 30 years ago, Gingrich continued. Ethanol can be produced for about 80 cents a gallon less than what the U.S. pays for overseas oil.

“So I take very seriously threats to undermine and destroy the ethanol industry both because it’s good for natural security and good for the economy and it’s particularly good for people in rural America,” Gingrich said. “If I have to choose to send money to Iowa or South Dakota or Illinois or to send it to Iran, Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, I pick sending it to American farmers to create American jobs to keep American money at home.”

More here.

Anyone who has spent any time researching ethanol knows it’s a junk fuel. It’s not as energy dense as gasoline. This means if you take an equal amount of gasoline and an equal amount of ethanol, the gasoline will do more work. Anyone who’s looked at the federally mandated window sticker on “flex fuel” vehicles will notice there are two sets of gas mileage figures. One for gasoline, one for ethanol. [E85]

Fuel mileage suffers significantly when E85 is substituted for gasoline.

Ethanol is also very corrosive, and destroys internal combustion engines over time. It’s so corrosive it can’t even be shipped through the extensive pipeline system in place. Instead, it must be trucked everywhere it goes.

Ethanol is one of the dumbest solutions as a motorfuel ever devised. Henry Ford figured this out in the days of the Model T. Back then, the quality of gasoline was no where near what it is today, and Ford was looking for a solution. He quickly figured out ethanol was a bad idea.

Between growing the corn, watering it, fertilizing it, harvesting it, processing it, and hauling it all by truck, ethanol creates far more pollution than gasoline and it’s production ever could.

And let’s not even talk about the immorality of using food for fuel. Corn is one of the world’s food staples, and thanks to this failed experiment, food prices around the world are up. Third world countries are hardest hit.

Oh, and ethanol is so economically nonviable, federal and state governments spend billions propping it up. Without government subsidies ethanol would go away because it’s simply too expensive. It can’t compete with any basic motorfuel in price. This at a time the federal government is over $14 trillion in debt!

We could go on all day discussing ethanol, but one of the best quick reads is Big Corn and Ethanol Hoax by Dr Walter Williams.

Knowing how hard Newt has pushed all of the so-called “green agenda” since the 1980s, when he sponsored the “Global Warming Prevention Act (H.R. 1078)” I decided to do a little digging.

You see Newt is a guy who is always for sale, and will sell out Conservatism, and the nation, in a heartbeat.

We’ve already looked at what is one of Newt’s worse betrayals, the selling of his soul to Freddie Mac for a mere $300,000.

UPDATED: It seems Newt actually got somewhere between $1.6 and $1.8 million to shill for Freddie Mac, not the original $300,000 Newt admitted he received.

Newt’s interference with Conservatives who wanted to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is one of the reasons nothing was done, and why our entire economy collapsed in 2008. And why Republicans were eventually blamed, and Obama got elected. So if you lost you’re money, are out of work, and don’t like Obama, you have Newt to thank.

A corrupt as he is, Newt’s voice carries weight, and gives cover to the democrats. Like it or not, Newt is a “Republican” [in name only] so when he backs the far left, as he always does, he gives aid and comfort to them. Makes it appear Conservatives are actually on board with whatever nonsense they are peddling.

Now on to ethanol. According to The Center for Public Integrity Newt has taken in hundreds of thousands of dollars as a consultant to Big Ethanol. [emphasis mine]

“I am not a lobbyist for ethanol,” Newt Gingrich declared in a mid-winter spat with the editors of The Wall Street Journal over his support for government subsidies for alternative fuel.

But Gingrich was a hired consultant to a major ethanol lobbying group—at more than $300,000 a year.

According to IRS records, the ethanol group Growth Energy paid Gingrich’s consulting firm $312,500 in 2009.The former House Speaker was the organization’s top-paid consultant, according to the records. His pay was one of the group’s largest single expenditures, as it took in and spent about $11 million to promote ethanol and to lobby for federal incentives for its use.

In a Growth Energy publication, Gingrich was listed as a consultant who offered advice on “strategy and communication issues” and who “will speak positively on ethanol related topics to media.”

Chris Thorne, a Growth Energy spokesman, said Gingrich was not hired again in 2010. The group was organized by ethanol producers from the Midwest in late 2008, Thorne said. Its members sought Gingrich’s counsel when it started because “they were people who were never involved in DC politics before, and they were looking for someone who knew how to get things done.” The organization’s IRS report for 2010 is not yet available.

Gingrich’s support of ethanol subsidies does not fit well with conservative, free-market theory, said Thomas Schatz, the president of the public interest group Citizens Against Government Waste. And as voters express concerns over the soaring national debt, many in Congress, from both parties, are questioning the value of the $6 billion tax credit.

“At $6 billion, that is real money, even here in Washington,” Schatz told iWatch News.

“Not only is this tax credit expensive and unnecessary, it has produced many unfavorable consequences including higher food prices, lower fuel efficiency and increased incidences of engine damage in motor vehicles,” CAGW says in a report on its website.

Gingrich’s spokesman, Rick Tyler, did not reply to an email or to two voice messages left on his telephone. The former House Speaker, a leading conservative theorist, writer and speechmaker, is currently pondering a run for president.

Gingrich has worked as a booster of alternative fuels, and warned about the dangers of climate change, even as his political committee has continued taking large donations from the fossil fuel industry.

In 2008, Gingrich appeared with then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a public service advertisement about the dangers of global warming.

“Our country must take action to address climate change,” Gingrich said, sitting by Pelosi’s side, in an ad produced by former Vice President Al Gore’s organization, the Alliance for Climate Protection.

Ethanol is “very, very important from an environmental standpoint…if you’re concerned about global warming, not supporting ethanol makes absolutely no sense, and if you’re concerned about carbon loading of the atmosphere, supporting ethanol is a major step in the right direction,” Gingrich told a Growth Energy event in January 2009.

When conservative critics objected to Gingrich’s alliance with Pelosi and Gore, the former Speaker defended his stand, saying it was sound strategy.

“There is a big difference between left-wing environmentalism that wants higher taxes, bigger government, more bureaucracy, more regulation, more red tape, and more litigation and a Green Conservatism that wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes to find a way to creatively invent the kind of environmental future we all want to live in,” Gingrich wrote on his blog. “Unless we start making the case for the latter, we’re going to get the former. That’s why I took part in the ad.”

Reading the last few paragraphs makes me physically ill. Ethanol is not good for either the environment or the economy. The only one making out from ethanol are the producers and Newt!

You can more of the report here.

Notice how Newt claims to want a “conservative solution” to the issue rather than fight against the Big Government “green” agenda in the first place?

In other words surrendering rather than standing up for Conservative principles of Liberty, Freedom, and small government.

I used to think it was because he was a coward. But looking at patterns, I think it’s because he’s on the take.

What Newt is really saying is Big Government is fine as long as HE is the one running it.

It may also be that Newt actually believes global warming is real. After all he was pushing legislation to some how stop it. If that’s the case, Newt’s sanity, as well as his lack of integrity, must be questioned.

Nothing wrong with being a lobbyist …. I mean “consultant” …. to any industry or individual. That’s the American way. But when you consistently work for those who are engaged in efforts that are destroying the nation, while claiming to be a “conservative” you are a liar and a con artist and you are hurting the Conservative cause.

A lot of people are swooning over Newt these days because, let’s face it, the Republican presidential field leaves a lot to be desired. Conservatives need to open their eyes. Newt is NOT one of us, and never has been. He’s been pretending to be one of us for some time, but he’s just another life long politician who will do and say anything to get elected.

Look at his actions since leaving office, and look at what he is saying now that he’s running for President.

The guy has flip-flopped more than Mitt Romney!

Newt is an expert at Sounding like a Conservative, but if you look at his decades long political career, you’ll be hard pressed to find many Conservative actions.

Since 2000, you won’t find any.

Oh, you’ll find him TALKING Conservative, but every ACTION he has taken has been in support of the far left.

Anyone can give speeches. Anyone can say all the right words. On the campaign trail in 2008 Barack Obama gave many lofty speeches and said all of the right words his audience wanted to hear.

We all know how that turned out.

Many people want Newt as our nominee simply because they’d love to see a debate between him and Obama.. Hell, so would I! But sadly, I understand that Newt’s words are meaningless. His words and his actions don’t match up. Never have.

The Newt, the conservative, you hear on the campaign trail is a fictional character. He doesn’t exist.

In reality Newt supports many of the things Obama and the rest of the far left does. He’s only talking “conservative” because it’s an election year. Nothing in Newt’s past suggests he says what he means or means what he says.

What’s really unforgivable is Newt is pushing a proven junk fuel [and getting paid handsomely to do it] when there is an actual alternative fuel that is cheap and simple:

Natural Gas.

We have 1.69 QUADRILLION cubic feet of natural gas in the arctic alone. The technology to run internal combustion engines on compressed natural gas [CNG] is decades old and very mature. We could switch the fleet over to CNG swiftly and relatively inexpensively.

Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors have been making CNG powered cars, trucks, and buses for decades. With computer aided fuel and engine management systems they have even been able to create duel fuel vehicles that can run on either gasoline or CNG. An incredible breakthrough. There are tens of thousands of these duel fuel vehicles in daily use all across the United States.

Natural gas is cheap, abundant, and as clean of a burning fuel as there is. It’s as close to a zero emissions fuel as you’re ever going to get. Remember, it burns clean enough we can use it to cook with.

If you ever go into a closed warehouse and see forklifts that are powered by internal combustion engines, you’ll note they are fueled by either CNG or propane. That’s because of the near zero emissions they produce. A gasoline powered unit would suffocate the workers at some point.

Oh, and CNG powered engines produce so little carbon, the oil stays clean, and engine wear is almost non-existent. Engine life is extended greatly. I speak from personal experience on this.

Natural gas is the miracle fuel people claim to want.

And yet, Newt Gingrich is still shilling for ethanol, the worst possible solution that exists. At least we now know why.

Think Newt won’t be as easily bought off if he’s sitting in the White House?

Think again!

Pete Rouse, Barack Obama’s Dirty Tricks Master

By Gary P Jackson

Pete Rouse, and the part he played in “Troopergate” or as Sarah Palin calls it, “Tazergate” is what first prompted me to start blogging. It was all of the research into Rouse, Obama, and their direct involvement with all of the various crazies in Alaska, that made me realize just exactly what kind of evil America would be facing with the newly elected, and at the time not yet in office, Obama regime.

Pete Rouse is now Barack Obama’s acting White House Chief of Staff, replacing Rahm Emanuel, who is leaving to run for Mayor of Chicago.

If you have been following Sarah Palin on Twitter, you’ll know that she has been most concerned with the fact the media doesn’t seem all too interested in the fact that Rouse, the ultimate D.C. insider, who hasn’t lived in Alaska since Reagan was in office, still votes absentee in the state.

As Stacy Drake points out in this great piece on Rouse, ABC’s Jake Tapper, one of the very few actual journalists in the lamestream media, had questions for the White House about Rouse. Tapper not only asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about Rouse’s voting problems, but about the fact Rouse was part of the efforts to destroy Sarah Palin. As is his usual reaction to any question that requires the truth, Gibbs blew Tapper off, giving no real answer at all.

Read all of Stacy’s great article here.

Let’s learn a bit more about Rouse, the man some call the 101st Senator, through what his fellow travelers say about him.

The notoriously left wing Anchorage Daily News ran this puff piece on Rouse right after the election:

He once helped run state government in Juneau, played shortstop in a local softball league, and he still votes as an Alaska resident.

But these days, Pete Rouse works in the White House, two doors from his close friend, President Barack Obama.

For 25 years as the consummate Democratic insider in the U.S. Senate, Rouse played a quiet role as the backdoor connection for Alaska’s all-Republican delegation to the other side of the aisle in Congress. He was the longtime chief of staff for Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., the one-time Senate majority leader, and starting in 2004 Rouse took on the same job for a promising young freshman senator from Illinois.

Today, as special adviser to Obama, Rouse is in the innermost circle of the West Wing. His office sits between chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and communications director David Axelrod (for fans of “The West Wing” television series, that would be Josh Lyman’s office).

His Alaska roots run deeper than those of almost anyone reading these words. His mother, the daughter of Japanese immigrants, grew up in Anchorage starting in World War I, when it was a railroad construction town. His cousin was the longtime municipal attorney for the City of Palmer.

But Rouse himself was born on the East Coast and had never been west of Denver when he flew to Alaska in late 1978 to visit a friend, Alaska’s newly elected Republican lieutenant governor, Terry Miller.

Rouse ended up working as Miller’s chief of staff for the final four years of Gov. Jay Hammond’s administration. It was a great experience, Rouse said, a time when Juneau was filled with young idealists eager to grapple with the state’s new oil money, infrastructure need and unformed social policies.

“Juneau at the time was 19,000 people, but it was really a town on the move in terms of young, well-educated people excited by these policy issues,” he recalled.

[ … ]

Rouse also brought a team of political veterans, many from the Daschle camp, into the Obama campaign.

“When Pete went to work for Barack, what Barack got — and I don’t think he realized it — was the only network in Democratic circles that from both a policy and political perspective came close to the Clinton network,” political consultant Anita Dunn told the Post recently.

By last August, Rouse had shifted to working full-time for the campaign. An Obama campaign trip to Alaska was almost a certainty, he said, until Gov. Sarah Palin was tapped for the Republican vice-presidential nominee. Pre-Palin, he said, the campaign felt it had a chance to win the heavily Republican state, based on the enthusiasm shown in caucuses for Obama.

[ … ]

One of Rouse’s best friends in Alaska is state Sen. Kim Elton, D-Juneau. Rouse was the one who recruited Elton, a former journalist, into politics to work for Miller. Elton said Rouse is always eager for e-mailed photos of Romeo, the black wolf often photographed around Juneau.

Elton said he followed the presidential race through Rouse, backing Obama early on the strength of his friend’s endorsement. But he told Rouse he couldn’t talk about Palin once she was named to the Republican ticket. As chairman of the Legislative Council, Elton played a central role in the Legislature’s “Troopergate” investigation of the governor, which Republicans complained was being run by Obama supporters.

You can read more of the ADN’s love letter to Rouse here.

Besides the syrupy nature of the Anchorage Daily News piece, one thing that stands out in this deal is the close, personal friendship Pete Rouse has with former State Senator Kim Elton. As the article points out, Elton played a key role in the “Troopergate” witch hunt. Of course Elton lies when he says he and Rouse didn’t discuss “Troopergate.” In an earlier piece I wrote: Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, And The Cost Of Fighting Chicago Thug Politics, I had this to say about Rouse, Elton and “Troopergate.”:

Obama’s crew “reached out” to the Alaska State Troopers Union, no doubt using his ties to the incredibly corrupt SEIU/ACORN cabal as his calling card. Once Obama got involved, the slime machine went into overdrive.

A lot has been written, and as we all know, the so-called Branchflower Report, which claimed Sarah had broken no laws, but “overstepped her authority” was completely and totally discredited, by independent investigator, Timothy Petumenos, who was working on behalf of the Alaska State Personnel Board.

Not only did he find that Sarah had done nothing wrong in firing Walt Monegan, an “at will” employee who served at the pleasure of the Governor, and could be fired for any reason, or none at all, he also noted that the Obama smear crew, Elton, French, and the rest, had actually cited the wrong statute in their shameless attacks.

Didn’t matter though. What Obama was looking for was an “October surprise” and he got it, as the bogus Branchflower Report was released just three days before the election. The damage was done.

For a “job well done” Barack Obama appointed Rouse’s buddy Senator Kim Elton to a make work job at the U.S. Department of the Interior. As we now know, this was the first of many such pay-play-deals the Obama regime would attempt. Think Blagojevich, Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff just to name a few.

Now our buddy Pete Rouse wasn’t done though. Again, Rouse is connected in Alaska. Good old Pete was charged with creating what we call Obama’s Alaska Mafia. This is a group of hate bloggers, thugs, nerdowells, and Marxist-democrat party operatives.

These hate bloggers were given access to some of the nation’s leading news organizations and told to crank out the lies, half truths, rumors, and hate. Most notably in this bunch are Jeanne Devon and Shannyn Moore, who were given access to the smut peddling Huffington Post, which Obama’s media partners often use as a “credible source.”

We’ve written extensively about the Alaska Mafia, the hatemongers, and all of the dirty tricks, coordinated by Rouse, so I won’t rehash, but if you’d like a good overview, read more here.

Pete Rouse, along with fellow “Alaskan” Anita Dunn, who helped former Alaska Governor Tony Knowles in his failed attempt to defeat Sarah Palin is her run for Governor, will likely play a key roles in the 2012 presidential election when Sarah Palin, the likely Republican nominee faces off with their boss, Barack Obama for the White House.

Americans need to keep an eye on Pete Rouse, Obama’s dirty tricks master, from now until the end of the Obama regime. He’s proven he is capable of almost anything, and his network of Alaskan Marxists, and hate bloggers will be cranking it up to eleven the second Sarah Palin officially announces her campaign.

Speaking of that morally bankrupt bunch of losers, Naked Emperor News put together a great video that ties all of this together. Though Jeanne Devon fought, with some success, to have this thing banned, it’s back on You Tube. This kinda says it all:

It’s On…Sarah Palin vs Al Gore: Lets have A Debate!

Sarah Palin has a solid, hard hitting Op-Ed in today’s edition of the Washington Post. Once again, in light of the fact this global warming hoax has been exposed, she demands Obama to boycott Copenhagen.

From WaPo:

Copenhagen’s Political Science

By Sarah Palin

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

With the publication of damaging e-mails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.

“Climate-gate,” as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle — the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won’t change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.

The e-mails reveal that leading climate “experts” deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What’s more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate.

This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I’ve always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of “climate change impacts” was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska’s economy and the nation’s, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development.

Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits — not pursuing a political agenda. That’s not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate — far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska’s communities and infrastructure.

But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can’t say with assurance that man’s activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen — which actually allow them to increase their emissions — President Obama’s proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign). That’s not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress’s cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people.

In fact, we’re not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia’s Parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold.

In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the United States will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a “deal.” Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats’ cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs — particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science.

Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicized conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen

Sarah references this video in her piece. We’ve posted it before, but frankly it needs to be played all day, every day, as long as this global warming hoax is still being shoved down our throats:

Now, the Clown Prince of all of this, the most unabashed liar in history, Al Gore is weighing in. Remember now, Al Gore has already turned his little scam into a personal bank in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and if cap and trade passes, stands to make billions.

Nothing wrong with making money….unless it comes from the destruction of the world’s economies and enslaves the entire world’s population, and denies all peoples freedom and liberty. At that point, there’s something very, very wrong.

Readers know exactly where I stand. I think Gore, Obama, and absolutely everyone pushing this lie should at minimum be jailed for the rest of their lives. They are committing treason. These policies will not only destroy the United States, they will destroy the world.

You know, if Gore actually lived the lifestyle he wants to force you into, it might be something, but well, this guy is the biggest hypocrite alive today.

As Newsbusters Noel Sheppard reported a while back:

Hypocrisy Update: Al Gore’s Home Uses 20 Times the Energy of Average American’s

In another classic example of liberals telling Americans to “Do As I Say, Not As I Do,” Dr. Global Warming Himself, aka Al Gore, has been identified by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research as talking a good game about energy conservation while not walking the walk.

In a press release published Monday just hours after the conclusion of the Academy Awards, the “independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization” reported (emphasis mine throughout, h/t Drudge): “Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.”

The release marvelously continued:

“Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).”

Lest we not forget that in his celluloid tribute to junk science, “the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.”

As a frame of reference, “[t]he average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy.”

By contrast, in 2006, Dr. Global Warming “devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.”

The release elaborated:

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Yet, the really delicious hypocrisy was still to come: “Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.”

Isn’t that just ducky? This charlatan goes around the world telling people that they need to conserve energy to save the planet, and his consumption increased by almost 14 percent.

What a crock! As a result, the press release aptly concluded:

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In the immortal words of Our Gang’s Farina, you said a mouthful.

UPDATE (Ken Shepherd | 2/27/2007, 09:12 EST): The Anchoress has a good critique at her site, where she notes that President Bush’s Crawford ranch is and has been eco-friendlier than Gore’s mansion for years, although the press rarely if ever give the president credit for that.

Now bear in mind this home is just one of four that he owns. Again, nothing wrong with owning four homes or four thousand homes, but when you are going around hysterically screaming like a rabid hyena that the “earth is on fire” and demand people return to a 13th century lifestyle, well, then there are some things that need explaining.

Also, while Gore preaches that the internal combustion engine is the “greatest threat to mankind,” the guy flies on a Gulfstream private jet everywhere. Nothing wrong with that either, for most people.

I imagine every unapologetic capitalist has dreamed of reaching the level of success that allows you to travel by private jet. But most of us are not crooks, liars, and/or deranged! The Gulfstream is a fine luxury aircraft. It is also the least fuel efficient private jet one can own!

And this is from a guy who is screaming that the world is en fuego!

Andrea Mitchell over at MSNBC reports this:

In an interview that will air on MSNBC at 1:00 pm ET today, Al Gore rebutted Sarah Palin’s Washington Post op-ed and Facebook postings that question the science on climate change given the “Climate-gate” controversy.

In response, Gore said that “the deniers are persisting in an era of unreality. The entire North Polar icecap is disappearing before our eyes… What do they think is happening?”

He said we’ve seen record storms, droughts, fires — and the effects taking place are exactly as predicted by these scientists for years.

Asked about Palin’s charge on Facebook that these are “doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood,” Gore replied that the scientific community has worked on this issue for 20 years. “It’s a principle in physics. It’s like gravity. It exists.”

Gore attributed the partisan divide (in recent Pew polls) over climate change in part to the fact that people believed to be the leadership of the modern Republican Party has adopted a global-warming-denier attitude. He said that 100% of the people who changed their opinion about global warming are conservative, adding that climate change should be a bipartisan issue like it used to be. He cited Lindsey Graham as one example of a Republican leader who accepts the science.

When asked about President Obama’s proposal for Copenhagen being even less than the Clinton-Gore proposal for Kyoto in 1997, the former vice president said. “It’s weaker than it should be, but it’s a crucial first step.” Gore added that Obama — with whom he met on Monday — shouldn’t be expected to make commitments beyond what Congress is willing to do.

And was it a mistake to do health care first, since climate change is now delayed in the Senate? Gore responded that “hindsight is 20/20.” If they had known that health care would take this long maybe they would have made different calculations, Gore said. But he noted that Obama has consistently made climate change one of his top priorities.

But: “I would always like to see more done.”

As usual, pretty much everything out of the Goreacle’s mouth, from the word hello, is a lie. The Polar Ice caps are not melting. Once can look at any number of polls, and guess what, belief in the global warming hoax is at an all time low. And when asked about priorities, people always place “climate change” dead last as things they care about.

From Newsmax:

Belief in Global Warming at All-Time Low — BEFORE Climategate

A new poll reveals that the percentage of Americans who believe carbon dioxide emissions will cause global warming has dropped dramatically in recent years.

And that poll by Harris Interactive was conducted between Nov. 2 and 11 — before the so-called “climategate” controversy erupted, calling into question the validity of some of the science supporting manmade global warming.

The poll found that the percentage of American who believe in global warming has dropped from 75 percent in 2001 and 71 percent in 2007 to just 51 percent.

At the same time, the percentage of those who do not believe in global warming has risen from 19 percent in 2001 and 23 percent in 2007 to 29 percent today, and the percentage who are unsure has climbed from 6 percent to 21 percent since 2001.

“The 51 percent who believe emissions will cause climate change is by far the lowest number recorded in any Harris Poll since we started asking this question 12 years ago,” Harris Interactive disclosed.

Opinions differed sharply along party lines — 73 percent of Democrats believe in manmade global warming, compared to 28 percent of Republicans and 49 percent of Independents.

As for the upcoming international conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, only 28 percent of those polled knew that the main topic to be discussed is global warming and climate change. Nearly 10 percent said the economic crisis would be the topic, while smaller numbers cited nuclear weapons, health and epidemics, terrorism, international trade, or drugs.

Six days after the poll closed, on Nov. 17, someone hacked a server used by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, and disseminated more than a thousand e-mails and other documents.

Climate change skeptics charge that the e-mails show collusion by climate scientists to skew scientific information in favor of manmade global warming.

The leaked documents “show that prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of manmade global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data, plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing, and concealed apparently buggy computer code from being disclosed under the Freedom of Information law,” CBS News reported.

One climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research was quoted as saying: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

This is bound to be time for a nice video break!

I wrote yesterday about the lunacy of all of this, and referenced the previous climate hysteria over “global cooling” and the coming ice age that alarmists were running around like Chicken Littles about in the 1970’s.

Forbes Magazine’s Gary Sutton also touches on this and the poor quality of climate research:

The Fiction Of Climate Science

Why the climatologists get it wrong.

Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed “the coming ice age.”

Random House dutifully printed “THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age.” This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported “many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age.”

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: “During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age.”

You can’t blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed’s mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today’s scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work.

In 2002 I stood in a room of the Smithsonian. One entire wall charted the cooling of our globe over the last 60 million years. This was no straight line. The curve had two steep dips followed by leveling. There were no significant warming periods. Smithsonian scientists inscribed it across some 20 feet of plaster, with timelines.

Last year, I went back. That fresco is painted over. The same curve hides behind smoked glass, shrunk to three feet but showing the same cooling trend. Hey, why should the Smithsonian put its tax-free status at risk? If the politicians decide to whip up public fear in a different direction, get with it, oh ye subsidized servants. Downplay that embarrassing old chart and maybe nobody will notice.

Sorry, I noticed.

It’s the job of elected officials to whip up panic. They then get re-elected. Their supporters fall in line.

Al Gore thought he might ride his global warming crusade back toward the White House. If you saw his movie, which opened showing cattle on his farm, you start to understand how shallow this is. The United Nations says that cattle, farting and belching methane, create more global warming than all the SUVs in the world. Even more laughably, Al and his camera crew flew first class for that film, consuming 50% more jet fuel per seat-mile than coach fliers, while his Tennessee mansion sucks as much carbon as 20 average homes.

His PR folks say he’s “carbon neutral” due to some trades. I’m unsure of how that works, but, maybe there’s a tribe in the Sudan that cannot have a campfire for the next hundred years to cover Al’s energy gluttony. I’m just not sophisticated enough to know how that stuff works. But I do understand he flies a private jet when the camera crew is gone.

The fall of Saigon in the ’70s may have distracted the shrill pronouncements about the imminent ice age. Science’s prediction of “A full-blown, 10,000 year ice age,” came from its March 1, 1975 issue. The Christian Science Monitor observed that armadillos were retreating south from Nebraska to escape the “global cooling” in its Aug. 27, 1974 issue.

That armadillo caveat seems reminiscent of today’s tales of polar bears drowning due to glaciers disappearing.

While scientists march to the drumbeat of grant money, at least trees don’t lie. Their growth rings show what’s happened no matter which philosophy is in power. Tree rings show a mini ice age in Europe about the time Stradivarius crafted his violins. Chilled Alpine Spruce gave him tighter wood so the instruments sang with a new purity. But England had to give up the wines that the Romans cultivated while our globe cooled, switching from grapes to colder weather grains and learning to take comfort with beer, whisky and ales.

Yet many centuries earlier, during a global warming, Greenland was green. And so it stayed and was settled by Vikings for generations until global cooling came along. Leif Ericsson even made it to Newfoundland. His shallow draft boats, perfect for sailing and rowing up rivers to conquer villages, wouldn’t have stood a chance against a baby iceberg.

Those sustained temperature swings, all before the evil economic benefits of oil consumption, suggest there are factors at work besides humans.

Today, as I peck out these words, the weather channel is broadcasting views of a freakish and early snow falling on Dallas. The Iowa state extension service reports that the record corn crop expected this year will have unusually large kernels, thanks to “relatively cool August and September temperatures.” And on Jan. 16, 2007, NPR went politically incorrect, briefly, by reporting that “An unusually harsh winter frost, the worst in 20 years, killed much of the California citrus, avocados and flower crops.”

To be fair, those reports are short-term swings. But the longer term changes are no more compelling, unless you include the ice ages, and then, perhaps, the panic attempts of the 1970s were right. Is it possible that if we put more CO2 in the air, we’d forestall the next ice age?

I can ask “outrageous” questions like that because I’m not dependent upon government money for my livelihood. From the witch doctors of old to the elected officials today, scaring the bejesus out of the populace maintains their status.

Sadly, the public just learned that our scientific community hid data and censored critics. Maybe the feds should drop this crusade and focus on our health care crisis. They should, of course, ignore the life insurance statistics that show every class of American and both genders are living longer than ever. That’s another inconvenient fact.

Think about this a minute. Some of the very same “scientists,” and geniuses in Congress and Big Government, who are screaming we must “do something or else” over this global warming hoax, are these same brain surgeons who were telling the world 30 years ago that the whole world wold look like Alaska! (As in really, really cold!)

I seem to remember these loons back then were talking about ways to actually send up soot and other particles into the atmosphere to “insulate the world.” These people have been certifiably insane for a long, long time!

I’m actually glad to see Gore respond to Sarah. Al Gore is notorious for never debating anyone, or answering any kind of questions about his lies. Sarah Palin on the other hand is known for taking people head on. You know that she will now respond to Gore, just as she has others who have questioned her.

Sarah has famously taken up residence in the president’s head after just destroying him on health care. So much so that he is addressing her while giving joint addresses to Congress and the nation! If she can do that to our “brilliant” president. What can she do to Al Gore?

Personally, I’d love to see a televised debate. Texas energy billionaire T. Boone Pickens has offered to debate Gore on numerous occasions, even to the point of offering up millions of dollars for charity, to no avail.

I envision a live pay-per-view event between the Goreacle and the ‘Cuda!

As I see it: You have a known, and serious, environmentalist who is grounded in reality and common sense. A woman who has dealt with both energy and the environment as her state’s chief regulator, and has an exemplary record.

A Governor who lead the nation in setting a path for her state to get 50 percent of it’s energy renewable sources by 2025. Exactly double the figure that Barack Obama proposed, but has done absolutely nothing to actually make anything happen, to move his proposal along.

A citizen who has a genuine love for the land. A genuine love for nature.

Then you have Al Gore, a Divinity school drop out who score barely passing grades in math and science. A total hack and hypocrite at every level.

At best, Al Gore is a loon, and actually believes the nonsense that he is peddling. But more likely, he’s like every other corrupt democrat/communist in America. Like Obama and his buddies at the Chicago Climate Exchange, and everyone else pushing things like cap and trade, Gore is set to make billions of dollars, off of this hoax!

That makes Al Gore a crook. A crook who makes Bernie Madoff look like a saint!

I read a comment yesterday that sums up “global warming” or “climate change” as well as it can be done. Global warming is the “pet rock” of the 21st Century. A big scam!

A big honking scam!

So let’s have a pay-per-view debate!

Let’s see the Arctic Fox take on the Goreacle. Take all of the millions of dollars it will raise and donate the money to charities that benefit our brave men and women in the military!

Some smart promoter needs to make this happen!

My money is on Sarah Palin!

Surprise! George Soros Behind Ethics Complaint Against Governor Sarah Palin

I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!

Remember the flap Governor Sarah Palin had to endure during the election cycle over her wardrobe? Did you ever wonder how such a non-story was turned into a big deal?

Let’s review the facts: Governor Palin was vetted for months as a potential running mate for Senator McCain, however, the decision to choose her came very late in the campaign – almost on the eve on the Republican National Convention.

While Sarah and Todd Palin make a nice living, they are not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination; this is a middle class family. When one considers that Alaska’s climate and culture is a tad different than the lower 48, it makes sense that some new duds, fit for the campaign, and her position in it, were certainly required.

Constructing a wardrobe and assembling a team to prepare a political candidate for the national spotlight is not uncommon, in fact, it is ‘business as usual’ in every campaign, with virtually every politician for national office. The media ignored that fact and focused on Michelle Obama’s frugal clothing expenditures (a public relations stunt that the media endorsed and supported) and, at the same time, needlessly and shamelessly attacked Governor Palin.

This is what happened: The GOP and a man named Jeff Larson, who is a longtime Republican advisor, and was the chief executive of the host committee for the convention, decided the wardrobe was a good idea. It was Jeff Larson who bought and paid for the clothes. Campaign finance laws, of course, dictated that the GOP reimburse Larson for his expenditure, and they did.

What the critics of Governor Palin, who just wouldn’t let this go and sought to portray her as a “shopaholic,” missed is the fact that most of the wardrobe purchased was actually sent back almost immediately, because they were the wrong size, indicating the Governor didn’t do the shopping. Most people know what sizes they wear.

But why was this even a story, let alone a 24/7 circus?

Two words, George Soros!

For those who don’t know who George Soros is, think Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the super villain from the James Bond movies, or if you will, a less endearing version of Mike Meyer’s “Dr Evil”.

Soros is an Eastern European socialist who made billions of dollars through currency and commodities speculation. He is credited with the serious devaluation of the British pound note back in 1992. He is said to be the man who “broke the Bank of England.”
In 2002, Soros was convicted of insider trading in France, a felony, and fined $2.3 million dollars.

Recently, Soros was quoted as being very pleased with the current economic situation in America. Could it be that he is speculating on the American dollar?

What does this mean?

Well, politically, George Soros is an extreme leftist. He, of course, is a huge supporter of President Barack Obama.

The way Soros works, in my opinion, is a bit nefarious – at best. Rather than be out front and advocate his socialist policies, Soros funds dozens of far-left front groups; some with innocent enough sounding names, but, based on my research, these groups promote left-leaning schemes, nonetheless.

These groups and foundations support everything from open borders, to the legalization of most drugs, to abortion on demand. George Soros’ funded “programs” also promote the liberal agenda being taught in schools.

Some of Mr. Soros’ endeavors include: MoveOn.org, The Open Society Institute, USAction, Center For American Progress, Americans United For Change, and many more, including Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

CREW is the group who filed the clothes complaint against Governor Palin, and, in conjunction with Soros’ many activist organizations, as well as “friends” in the media, kept the story going well past its normal shelf life.

CREW is a shadowy group. Depending on the source, you will find that CREW was either founded in 2001 by left-wing activists Norm Eisen (an attorney) and Louis Mayberg (a prominent Democrat donor, and co-founder of the Maryland-based mutual fund management firm ProFund Advisors LLC).

Or…

CREW was founded by Melanie Sloan, in 2003. Ms. Sloan is listed as the Executive Director on CREW’s website. As you see, she references 2003. “CREW was founded in 2003 by Melanie Sloan, a former U.S. Attorney.”

Confusing at best.

CREW’s “Form 990” IRS filing for 2001 lists Mr. Mayberg as one of its three Founding Directors; the other two are Daniel Berger (a high-profile Democrat donor who in 2004 made a $100,000 contribution to America Coming Together, another Soros-funded entity) and Mark Penn (a fellow at the New Politics Institute, yet another Soros foundation, and a top Democrat strategist and pollster who not only played a key role in Bill Clinton’s 1996 presidential campaign, but also served as head of “message and strategy” for Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign)

Although CREW denies any ties to George Soros, they indeed receive funds from the Democracy Alliance, the Tides Foundation, as well as the Open Society Institute – all Soros front groups.

CREW seeks to construe itself as “non-partisan,” however, most of their efforts target Republicans.

This group is not exempt from its own ethical quagmires: One issue involves an ethics complaint filed against The Center for Union Facts, an anti-union group, and its sister organization, the Center for Consumer Freedom, which CREW claimed are “front organizations for for-profit industry entities.”

The problem is that it appears this effort was funded by the Service Employees International Union; a group with heavy. ties to ACORN and to Soros himself in the form of contributions amounting to $75,000.

Perhaps CREW should take a good look inside its closet before filing unwarranted claims about someone else’s wardrobe.

Back to the issue at hand: like every other resolved ethics complaint filed by the unruly left against Governor Palin, this clothing ethics complaint filed with the FEC by CREW was shot down: the FEC ruled that no laws were broken.

Upon investigation, it appears that CREW prefers filing ethics complaints over actually litigating them. In fact, CREW actually changed its mission statement several times, pointedly de-emphasizing litigation.

CREW’s main purpose seems to be to file ethics complaints against a prominent, high profile target with the primary intention of seeking negative media exposure as opposed to pursuing real issues.

The “target” is marked for attack; CREW gains its destructive publicity, and then moves on to the next target. What is the purpose of this strategy if there is no successful prosecution of claims? CREW knows that the charges will be plastered on the front page of every newspaper and will be the lead story on every news channel, coast to coast, for days or even months. Of course, when the charges are thrown out, that little bit of news gets buried in a tiny blurb, deep in the newspaper, on page A18.

This has most certainly been the strategy used against Governor Palin. Numerous phony, and, sometimes, almost comical “ethics complaints” have been filed against Governor Palin since she has become a national figure and the front runner for the 2012 Republican nomination for President.

The filing of these nonsensical complaints (13 of which have been thrown out), made huge headlines nationwide, and yet little, if any, news coverage has been devoted to their resolutions.

Finally, it’s been established that George Soros is a committed socialist. It is very troubling that such a rich man can use his wealth for such un-American activities; and it is even more troubling to see many Americans either unaware or unconcerned while these anti-American actions take place.

Americans can and should hold public officials accountable for their actions. However, it’s unethical (and an oxymoron) for groups like CREW to use a valid legal procedure to damage careers and harass their political targets with phony ethics charges and feigned outrage.

Is this the America you want to live in?

Do you want an America where a far left socialist has access to the highest offices in the country and the ability to get his anti-American agenda enacted?

Well, sadly, with George Soros, that’s exactly what you have right now.

The question is, what are you willing to do about it?

Now is a time for choosing.