Posted on 01/23/2010 10:19:54 AM PST by rabscuttle385
Paul Streitz has decided to call Sarah Palin by her real name, because she endorsed John McCain (who is trying to win a fifth term as Senator) and said she will campaign for him. Fanatic Palinites, such as the editors of the misnamed „conservatives4palin.com” website (they should rename it „liberals4palin.com”), lambasted him and called him a “backstabber”.
“If Paul Streitz’s support of Governor Palin is contingent upon his agreeing with every decision she makes or her selling out her deeply-held values, that’s unfortunate. While all support is appreciated, the governor has never been for sale. Ask the Alaska establishment, who learned that early in her political career.”
Palin has proven that she IS for sale – if one picks her for veep. She’s endorsed a despicable traitor because he chose her as his veep.
Palin is so dishonest (or so ignorant) that she didn’t even tell the truth about why she endorsed John McLame. She claimed that:
“John McCain is on fire to kill Obama’s government takeover of healthcare and that’s what I want to see.”
Which might be incorrect, because McCain favors the SAME policy on socialized medicine as Obama – he just might vote against this particular Act. McCain favors socialized medicine, as proven by Steven Warshawsky:
“McCain’s campaign website [of 2008 – ZM] demonstrates that his thinking on this issue is much closer to Hillary Clinton than Adam Smith. For example, McCain states that “controlling costs” is his top priority, and that “nothing short of a complete reform of the culture of our health system and the way we pay for it will suffice.” This is a recipe for massive government interference in the health care industry. McCain also supports universal coverage, claiming that “we can and must provide access to health care for all our citizens.” Completing the liberal trifecta, at the January 5 ABC NEWS debate, when Romney criticized McCain for “turn[ing] the pharmaceutical companies into the big bad guys,” McCain replied, “Well, they are.” Plainly, if he were president, McCain would serve as the Democrats’ “useful idiot” for their plan to impose socialized medicine on the nation.”
Also, I’ve heard from a friend that McCain will likely now try to save the socialized medicine bill. So on socialized medicine, McCain and Obama differ only about particular bills, NOT about the merits of socialized medicine itself.
What about the task of protecting the American people? No duty is more important than that one. But on that issue, McCain is also liberal and unreliable. Palin falsely claimed that:
“And his commitment and his leadership on national security to win the war on terror, that’s what we need. (…) national security, he gets it. He understands how to win.”
Palin is flat wrong. McCain is NOT committed to the task of defending the American people, and he’s not a leader on anything except liberal policies. He „doesn’t get it”. He doesn’t understand how to win the Global War on Terrorists, nor does he understand any defense issue or foreign policy issue confronting America now. I’ve written several articles pertaining to this guy, demonstrating what McCain’s specific policies are, and why they are wrong. So I’m not going to repeat those entire articles. Let me comment again on McCain’s policy on the GWOT, though, because that’s one specific issue that Palin mentioned.
John McCain does NOT say that America should attack its enemies before they attack America. He also endorsed Obama’s decision to close Guantanamo, and he opposes “enhanced interrogation techniques”, which are absolutely necessary to gain intel information and protect America.
McCain also buys the PC propaganda about the root causes of the Islamic threat. He believes that these root causes are “poverty, tyranny and despair”, and ignores what terrorists themselves say motivates them: the Quran, which contains several explicit commandments to kill nonbelievers.
In short, McCain doesn’t recognize the real nature of the Islamic threat, and he’s not prepared to combat it effectively. Anyone who isn’t prepared to combat it effectively is a person who doesn’t belong in the Senate. If the GWOT is the most important issue for you, McCain is undisputably the worst possible Senatorial candidate from Arizona.
I did not include McCain’s cretinous, liberal, anti-American policies on foreign policy issues other than the GWOT, even though I could (foreign policy is not limited to the GWOT, although Sarah Palin, as an ignorant person, doesn’t understand that). My articles about McCain refute his idiotic policies, so I just wrote a reply to what Palin explicitly said. She did not comment on McCain’s treasonous policies like nuclear disarmament and the progressive abolition of conventional weapon programs (which are necessary to protect America against China).
The failed 2008 VP candidate also said this about McCain:
“And he is a statesman, and I don’t hesitate at all to say, no.”
Which is not true. McCain is not a statesman; anyone who calls him a statesman insults real statesmen. A genuine statesman fights for the right policies, regardless of ideology; works for his country 24/7; and retires when he should.
McCain has spent the last 9 years promoting destructive liberal policies to punish the GOP for its decision to give Bush the 2000 Republican nomination; he’s been working against the US and for his liberal ideology (together with fellow liberals like Kennedy, Obama, Russ Feingold, and Hillary Clinton); and he has refused to retire – he’s vying for his fifth term as Senator. By comparison, George Washington refused to serve as President for a 3rd term, even though as of 1797, there were no presidential term limits. McCain is running to keep his salary, not to serve the American people, whose opinions are irrelevant for him.
Palin ended her statement thus:
“we do need his leadership, especially on those two fronts: Government takeover of healthcare, he wants to kill it; national security, he gets it. He understands how to win.”
See above. Her claims are false.
Whether she uttered those claims because she’s ignorant or because she knows they’re false and decided to lie for McCain, only Palin knows. Regardless of the answer to that question, she’s not qualified for the Presidency, as she has proven with these statements and other utterances. She embarrasses herself everytime she speaks. Conservatives4palin.com editors claim that she is simply behaving like a loyal person. But one’s own country is supreme to any person and any requirement for loyal individuals. When the choice is “Either the country or the person you should loyally endorse”, a real hero, a real patriot, a real statesman/stateswoman chooses the country, not the person. Palin has endorsed a strident liberal who’s trying to enrich himself with taxpayers’ money.
I was a fan of Palin myself. But I’m now convinced that she’s not a conservative, nor is she a politician qualied for the Presidency of the United States. She’s simply just another RINO endorsing another RINO. No real conservative would ever endorse McCain for the Senate.
But you can’t deal w/ the fact that ALL votes for Sarah were counted as votes for Juan McCain, can you?
I believe Coburn also endorsed McCain during the primaries in 2008.
I used to be skeptical when I saw the words "real conservative" used in a rant.
I have since moved to cynical. Get thee back on the porch, shaking your fist at the neighborhood children, demanding they observe your "rights" and stay off your lawn.
You don't actually dispute that what you're calling a "windfall profits tax," which leads readers to believe that it is a tax collected after all is said and done, on the item produced and sold by the business ...
... is actually the lease price of land owned by the state of Alaska. Here's the truth: your use of the term "windfall profits tax" is deliberately deceitful.
But "windfall profits tax" sounds so much nastier and scary than "leasing fee," which is really what it is. If what I understand is correct (again, I urge folks to investigate independent of FR and go beyond the MSM stories and into blog debates), because of Palin that leasing fee is determined on the market price of oil per unit that the oil company produces from the land rather than a straight price per unit produced; the higher the market price of oil, the pricier the leasing terms. The lower the market price of oil, the cheaper the leasing terms, giving oil companies incentive to produce more in lean times.
And I see you remain MUM on how that leasing income is distributed directly TO the individual people of Alaska to spend, invest, or save as they please, as opposed to going back into the state coffers.
You ominously warn, "How do I know she won't pull the same as President?" What, direct incomes made from the lease of government-owned land for private uses directly to the people instead of into state budgets? And therefore, as acting executive for the "owners" of the property, to negotiate the leasing terms in the best interests of the owners?
Personally, I think the term “RINO” is getting to be overused, and largely in ways that have nothing to do with somebody actually being a true to life RINO.
Most often, the term “RINO,” as used by FReepers, seems to mean one of two things:
1) You don’t agree with me 100% on every last thing, or
2) You refuse to join my third party.
I reject both of those as being legitimate uses of the term.
I agree that we’re seeing a political realignment, but it is one which involves CONSERVATIVES - not so-called “independents” (who can be of any political persuasion). Conservatives both within and without the GOP need to be involved in recapturing the GOP for conservatism and using it as a vehicle to advance our agenda. If we try to rely upon “independents” alone, especially in the form of some hokey “Tea Party Party,” then we’ll be playing a fool’s game. Independents are independent, in part, because they tend to be people who are less engaged with the process, less knowledgable about piolitics, less organised, and less ORGANISABLE.
One thing I am increasingly having less and less patience with is this nonsense about third parties. It’s to the point where I consider third partyism to be well-nigh treasonous to conservatism. It’s like somebody trying to come in, sow discord, and undercut the unity and strength of our movement. I notice that a lot of the third partyists seem move interested in bashing everyone else for not being as “pure” as they are, rather than they are in helping to move conservatism forward.
Which brings up the obvious question - if they’re just splitting conservatives into factions and sowing discord, can they really be considered “pure”? I do not think so.
"Zbigniew"
What is it with these Zbigniew guys and cranial-rectal insertion?
Four, ACTIVE thread management by the responsible posting FReeper is more than a couple of goofy jpgs and a handful of one-liners.
Too many people confuse the roles of state and federal governments and that is one area where I hope there will be progress in this upcoming election cycle.
For example: You want socialized medicine? Fine, if your state constitution allows it, go for it! Of course a real obstacle to something like that is that the potential revenue stream to pay for such is greatly diminished because of grossly excessive federal taxes - AND a state's ability to do that sort of thing is also limited because of excessive federal control over the states and individual citizens and what they can, can not, or must do. The fedgov is supposed to require of states a republican government and free trade, and very little else.
What a future President and Congress does to turn around that balance of power is a big interest of mine. None in my lifetime - not even Reagan - have ever addressed this ROOT CAUSE of most of our nation's problems.
And you ask for a "direct" answer to something you cannot defend in equally direct terms? Of course you can't, because it's complicated and mathematical. Why should I go to the trouble of replicating what others have done? I provided links for FReepers and lurkers to go investigate for themselves, as I had done earlier, for the non-direct argument against your demonstrably non-direct charge. It's too complicated for a direct answer, just as it was too complicated for you to explain simply why it qualifies as a "windfalls profits tax."
FOOD FOR THOUGHT in a non-direct way. FReepers and Lurkers, read this from the frightening Palin-hopeless start all the way to the bottom. Way down -- after the panic has subsided and cooler assessment starts to kick in (pretty far down the discussion thread), a person who appears to have worked on such contracts points out:
1. The profound distinction between royalties and taxes, and that a royalty is not even a tax, let alone a windfall tax.
2. That a private landowner could charge a flat fee, but more likely would opt to participate in the profits in escalating royalties. Points out that at $20 a barrel, would want the royalty/lease fee to be $1 to $4 per barrel, but $12 per barrel at $40 per; this would be standard in a private contract.
3. That oil producers should expect to pay the same type of fees they'd pay in a private contract; if states and fed didn't do this, why would oil companies ever drill on private land?
4. The accounting purpose of describing escalating royalties as taxes as part of the contract would allow the oil companies to use the "taxes" to offset other taxes; speculates that was worded such in Palin's deal for the express purpose of providing those breaks to the oil companies.
Lurkers, fellow FReepers, and you, Catfish who "likes Palin but ..." (and who has regurgitated directly what another FReeper ID'd as Maureen Dowd's "caribou Barbie" Palin insult here on Free Republic), I could (and will, once again) spend HOURS investigating and reading the real depth of this, which AGAIN reveals that Catfish is MISREPRESENTING, and many would say DOWNRIGHT LYING when he characterizes this as a Windfall Profits Tax; one poster even links to this blog that purports to point out that much of the taxation Catfish demonizes with Drama Queen phraseology "Windfalls Profits Tax!!!" isn't even an income tax, but a severance tax.
CATFISH, so far this is a 600+-word post -- because there can be no DIRECT answer to your question; your charge is deceitful by being indirect, and so revealing it as false must be equally "indirect." So Folks, GO DO YOUR OWN DUE DILIGENCE and relax in the knowledge you'll find by doing so that Catfish and others are misrepresenting Palin here. Then next time you watch in horror as this single "Windfall profits tax!" charge silences and discourages Palin supporters as you see it did on the Hot Air blog, you will know that you are righteous and accurate in calling bullsh*t on it, but that it's damned near impossible to do it directly. Guys like Catfish are banking that you won't go to the trouble. He's deceitful.
But I must also point out that elsewhere, good ol' Swampsniper has eloquently pointed out that part of the Fed's power is to prevent States from running roughshod over basic rights.
With regard to this Palin thing, which is so stupidly being misrepresented as a "windfall profits tax" by folks who are either easily duped by a clever liberal media, or plain deceitful -- ABSOLUTELY, it is an Alaska state issue, and Alaska is outstanding in how different it is from the rest among all 57 of These Glorious United States!
1) It provides more revenue to the resource owner (Alaska) as the per-barrel price of oil goes up.
2) It is designed to provide a stable per-barrel profit to the oil companies no matter what the price or how much (or how little) they pump.
3) It is designed to provide NO disincentive to drill regardless of the oil price.
4) It is distinguished from a true windfall profits tax in that there is no attempt to limit oil company profits from drilling in Alaska. Drill more, make more.
Am I missing anything?
BTW, even the good ol' boys in the Alaska legislature (or at least the ones not sent to jail) must have thought it a fair deal because they passed it 59-1.
The article bashing Sarah Palin is by Paul Streitz.
If he were alive during the late 1800s or early 1900s, said Paul Streitz, he would have barred Eastern European Jews from entering this country, even if they were fleeing pogroms.
More recently, he said, in the 1970s, ‘80s and ‘90s, the United States should have never admitted the thousands of Jews who sought to leave the Soviet Union and, later, the former Soviet Union. “We’re not their savior,” he added. “They should have settled things in their own country.”
As for the Jews who tried desperately to escape from Hitler’s Europe, the co-director of Connecticut Citizens for Immigrant Control said he would have allowed in those refugees but under one condition: that they return, at some point, to their native land
Paul Streitz is a despicable POS
Anyone who posts his anti semite trash and agrees with it
are typic Ron Paul NeoNazi lemmings.
Absolutely disgusting. He’s one to watch.
Cfish, you need to prepare to be smacked harder and better everytime you bring up the false analogy using the scaremongering semantic "windfall profits tax."
Al notes:
4) It is distinguished from a true windfall profits tax in that there is no attempt to limit oil company profits from drilling in Alaska. Drill more, make more.
On three different blogs where this topic was discussed before Palin was even named by McCain as his VP pick, it was pointed out AGAIN and AGAIN: a "windfall profits tax" is based on the total profits of a company after the fact.
This usage fee is based on units produced independent of total or net profits made by the company, and is graduated based on the selling price of oil rather than a flat fee. The more supply of oil on the market, the lower the price of oil; the more that oil companies produce, the lower the land use fees (or taxes, if you want) they will pay to Alaska.
When the fee was a flat rate, as it was before Palin became Governor, oil companies had incentives to restrict production in order to restrict supply because it would drive up the price of oil. This way, they have incentive to INCREASE production because the lower the price of oil, the less tax they have to pay on what they produce.
It is not a windfall profit tax because it isn't based on the profit a company has realized, it's based on the price of oil per barrel at the time that the company produces the oil on Alaska state-owned land.
And they had incentive to pay off politicians to keep it that way. That incentive is gone thanks to Palin and the legislature, through the enaction of ACES.
Drill baby, drill.
It seems third parties go nowhere in our political system, be they the Bull Moose, Libertarian, Socialist, Conservative, et al. parties. Thus they are quite pointless distractions. One wonders why people engage in them at all. The explanation you give above is an astute one, and I think you hit the mark.
I'm not a champion of a "Tea Party Party"; to me, it's not needed. There is already a conservative party (or at least there used to be; it used to be called the Grand Old Party). Yet the Tea Party movement is conservative to its core. The one I attended in Boston drew Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats, and Independents. What unites such a disparate group is a common love for the Constitution and the system of liberty/limited government it establishes, plus disgust and anger over the arrogance, corruption, and profligacy of government in general.
IMHO such folks are natural conservatives, and as such are aligned with the historical principles and values of the Republican party, whether they realize it or not. But the GOP has been so totally lame in articulating these values and principles in recent times, that talk radio hosts at Tea Parties have to do it.... Not to mention GOP elected officials violate their constitutional oaths seemingly just as often as Democrats do. The public is growing cynical....
Not to quibble over language, but Tea Party folks are "independents" (with a lower-case "i") regardless of party affiliation, if any. That's because they are by and large "traditional Americans"; i.e., self-reliant, responsible, hard-working citizens who want to run their own lives rather than have some bureaucrat with a rubber-stamp run it for them. They don't like being "bossed around" by the gummint. They are deeply concerned about future generations of We the People — that they are being saddled with debts created to pay for "benefits" for our generation — which is encouraged to want everything "now" and to think that money grows on trees. Etc. They should be prime prospects for GOP "recruitment."
But the GOP seems to think it has to sell its soul to get them; e.g., all those "big tent" accommodations, especially on the most critical and divisive social issues. The party should be articulating, defending, and "selling" its core message instead. That's part of what it means to lead.
In short, I'm more conservative than the official Republican party is right now. It's moved way to the Left of me, and that's for sure. Which is why I left it. If it ever should come to its senses again, and return to its core conservative philosophy (and practice), I'll come back to it.
Otherwise, I need it as little as I need the Democrat party. Both are "big government" promoters, which means both are equally guilty of having shucked the Constitution.
I also agree with your description of people who use of the term RINO. LOLOL!!!
Thanks ever so much TQC, for your excellent essay/post!
Tools.
Thanks for you excellent articulation of the issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.