Philip Butler



 

Does it mean American women is 49 states are proving themselves to be intangled into gender issues, than the most pressing issues in this country at this momnent? Well, folks open your eyes and see what the women close to Sarah are saying. He may be a reformer to you, but listen to the horses mouth.

and

Alaska Women Rally Against Palin And Are Threatened

Advertisements

Sunday digest

Sept 14 2008

Writen By: Guerilla Media Xchange and Bilia

McCain And Palin Proud of Iraq war. Is It a war really to be proud of?

During an August 5, 2007 GOP Presidential debate televised on ABC Television, John McCain stated that, “it’s naive to say that we will never use nuclear weapons.”  This objectively terrifying comment fell by the wayside as McCain plummeted in the polls and seemed an electoral afterthought after Giuliani, Romney and even Huckabee ascended as leading candidates.  Now that the maverick Senator from Grand Canyon country has risen from the ashes to stand as the Republican candidate for President, this statement assumes a new and exigent relevance to the American people.

Even the most cursory examination of McCain’s pathology clearly indicates that he is both practically and ethically predisposed to do so.  When asked about whether evil exists and, if so, how should it be addressed at the Saddleback Forum, John McCain answered without hesitation “yes” and “it must be defeated.”  Trust me.  He was talking in terms of military might, not effectual fervent prayer.  This is classic John McCain.  He tends to see things in black and white.  He has neither the time nor the patience for nuance.  As evidenced by the summary selection process by which he selected his running mate (not to mention his second wife Cindy), the former bomber pilot assesses the situation in short order and takes instantaneous action.  Factor in a temper so volatile that McCain’s fellow GOP Senator and longtime friend Thad Cochran felt compelled as a matter of conscience to warn the voting public of his volcanic demeanor and you can see disaster looming just over the horizon.  

Try as he may to assume the role of heir apparent to the Reagan legacy, make no mistake – McCain is no Ronald Reagan in matters of war and peace.  For all Reagan’s public bluster, his actions proved time and again that he was committed at his core to winning the Cold war through economic and ideological means.  In McCain’s case, it is just the opposite.  At his core, he is still at war with both himself and his former captors.  His attempts to dialogue about reconciliation with our enemies are at best strained.  Yet his eyes dance with a manic glee and he is never at a loss for words when discussing the success of the surge.  It is instructive to ask yourself how many times McCain has mentioned the word “war” while on the campaign trail.  Then ask yourself how many times he has uttered the word “peace” during this same period.  The result of this accounting is as lopsided as it is valid in predicting McCain’s bloody path as President.

As if this preexisting appetite for destruction wasn’t enough cause for concern, consider that the Bush administration has shepherded the development of a new generation of what they call “usable nukes.”  According to former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter, these new weapons are far more limited in scope than their Cold War predecessors.  The existing policy governing their use provides that in the event of an imminent significant loss of American troops in the field, usable nukes may be delivered to stop advancing enemy forces.  As Ritter points out, the potential consequences of letting the nuclear genie out of the bottle are disastrous.  Our enemies would almost certainly retaliate in kind and we could expect the unthinkable – a nuclear attack on our nation’s soil.  To most Americans, the concept of usable nukes is oxymoronic at best.  To John McCain, this concept represents a more efficient means to achieve a swifter victory.  

Moving on to McCain’s better-half, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, we are presented with a commensurately combustible ingredient for our Armageddon goulash.  Despite the fact that this self-styled “pit bull with lipstick” has been portrayed as a paragon of Christian orthodoxy, Palin is steeped in a particular brand of end-times theology that views a nuclear holocaust as not only inevitable, but a fulfillment of God’s plan for Christ’s return.  Her pastor has spoken and written extensively on this topic, going so far as to proclaim that Alaska has a crucial role as a refuge for those believers caught up in the coming conflagration.  As an Evangelical Christian, I have met, confronted and ultimately walked away in abject disgust from far too many such types.  

Alaska Women Reject Sarah Palin Rally in Anchorage

Let me be clear – this cultic teaching has absolutely nothing to do with Christ’s call to his people to live in peace with their fellow man and love their neighbors as themselves.  Quite the opposite, it is little more than a cheap charade to justify all manner of nonsense from radical societal separation along racial lines to a cottage literary industry that has spewed forth reams of mediocre futuristic fiction.  Theology notwithstanding, it lends definition to Palin’s world view — a view that can be distilled down into the bumper sticker sloagan “kill’em all and let God sort it out.”  

The unpalatable truth that cries out for telling is that end-timers like Sarah Palin share a uniquely disturbing similarity with the most maligned factions in the Islamic community.  No less than Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made it clear that he envisions a horrific conflagration with the West as the catalyst for raising the legendary “Twelfth Imam” out of the well in which he has been hiding for over a millennium.  Upon the Imam’s return, the world will be shown the true path of Islam and order will be restored.  The thought of two theological dead-enders like Palin and Ahmadinejad attempting to negotiate a peaceful outcome to the ongoing Iranian nuclear dispute is inconceivable.  More likely, they would end up locked in mortal combat to see which one of them could best hasten God’s will for the destruction of humanity.    

And in the mind of John Mccain as president is more wars

A McCain/Palin victory this November puts in play personal pathologies and theological imperatives that bring our nation closer to a nuclear holocaust than ever before.  Paraphrasing McCain’s own broadside to Barack Obama’s patriotism, American voters must ask themselves the following question: whether a McCain/Palin administration would rather win a war they are losing than avert nuclear annihilation of a significant segment of humanity.  In all honesty, I can’t answer this question in the negative with any degree of confidence.  And that is one among many reasons why I cannot in good conscience give them my vote.

 


Palin: Wrong Woman, Wrong Message

»by: Gloria Steinem, The Los Angeles Times

    Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

    Here’s the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing – the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party – are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women – and to many men too – who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the “white-male-only” sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.

    But here is even better news: It won’t work. This isn’t the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It’s about making life more fair for women everywhere. It’s not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It’s about baking a new pie.

    Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton’s candidacy stood for – and that Barack Obama’s still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, “Somebody stole my shoes, so I’ll amputate my legs.”

    This is not to beat up on Palin. I defend her right to be wrong, even on issues that matter most to me. I regret that people say she can’t do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn’t say the same about a father. I get no pleasure from imagining her in the spotlight on national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden’s 37 years’ experience.

    Palin has been honest about what she doesn’t know. When asked last month about the vice presidency, she said, “I still can’t answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every day?” When asked about Iraq, she said, “I haven’t really focused much on the war in Iraq.”

    She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular, and she’s won over Alaskans mostly by using unprecedented oil wealth to give a $1,200 rebate to every resident. Now she is being praised by McCain’s campaign as a tax cutter, despite the fact that Alaska has no state income or sales tax. Perhaps McCain has opposed affirmative action for so long that he doesn’t know it’s about inviting more people to meet standards, not lowering them. Or perhaps McCain is following the Bush administration habit, as in the Justice Department, of putting a job candidate’s views on “God, guns and gays” ahead of competence. The difference is that McCain is filling a job one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.

    So let’s be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can’t tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against Women Act.

    Palin’s value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women’s wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves “abstinence-only” programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers’ millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn’t spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

    I don’t doubt her sincerity. As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Assn., she doesn’t just support killing animals from helicopters, she does it herself. She doesn’t just talk about increasing the use of fossil fuels but puts a coal-burning power plant in her own small town. She doesn’t just echo McCain’s pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should bear the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it also protects the right to have a child.

    So far, the major new McCain supporter that Palin has attracted is James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course, for Dobson, “women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership,” so he may be voting for Palin’s husband.

    Being a hope-a-holic, however, I can see two long-term bipartisan gains from this contest.

    Republicans may learn they can’t appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most women at the same time. A loss in November could cause the centrist majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the last to want to invite government into the wombs of women.

    And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can’t be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children.

    This could be huge.

    ——-

    Gloria Steinem is an author, feminist organizer and co-founder of the Women’s Media Center. She supported Hillary Clinton and is now supporting Barack Obama.



Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2008 3:11 PM ET
Filed Under:

By Aram Roston and Amna Nawaz, NBC News producers

The GOP candidate for vice president, Gov. Sarah Palin, may be facing yet another ethics investigation back in her home state of Alaska. An ethics complaint obtained by NBC News was filed Wednesday by the police officers union in Alaska, requesting a probe into possible wrongdoing by the governor or her office. It was brought on behalf of state trooper Mike Wooten, an ex-brother-in-law of Palin who is at the center of the “Troopergate” scandal.

The complaint alleges that the governor or her staff may have have improperly disclosed information from Wooten’s personnel records. The complaint alleges “criminal penalties may apply.”

John Cyr, director of the union that filed the complaint, told NBC News, “It seems obvious to us somebody has improperly accessed [Wooten’s] personnel file.”

The McCain/Palin campaign Thursday launched a spirited defense when contacted by NBC News. They say the personnel files were not protected; a campaign source says Wooten himself had previously signed a waiver allowing a divorce lawyer to obtain his personnel records. The campaign then sent a copy of that waiver to NBC News, which reads “I hereby waive any privilege I may have to said information to said attorneys.”

The issue concerns disclosures about Wooten’s records made by a Palin aide – Frank Bailey – in a February 2008 phone conversation. The police officers’ union complaint claims the transcript of that conversation clearly indicates there was improper access to Wooten’s records.

The McCain/Palin campaign, in a response to NBC News, provided a family twist to the story, saying the governor’s husband – Todd Palin – was the source of that information to Bailey. They say the information came from divorce proceedings, and that Gov. Palin never improperly accessed any records.

Taylor Griffiths, a spokesman for McCain, said “When you’re a real reformer like Sarah Palin, who isn’t afraid to take on entrenched political interests, scurrilous attacks and empty allegations come with the territory.”


Disclaimer:

This Blog and post has nothing to do with the Obama Campaign or related to Obama group. This is sorely my own digs on the internet:

I think it is fair to know the truth about candidates we are electing in office.

I found these links on some blog called digg it :

Edited to add (Courtesty of SweetLiberty)a link to the actual complaint.  PDF of the complaint laid against Palin

2006 Democratic Research Document on Sarah Palin


Palin E-Mails Show Intense Interest in Trooper’s Penalty

By James V. Grimaldi and Karl Vick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, September 4, 2008; A27

 

EAGLE RIVER, Alaska, Sept. 3 — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the running mate for GOP presidential candidate John McCain, wrote e-mails that harshly criticized Alaska state troopers for failing to fire her former brother-in-law and ridiculed an internal affairs investigation into his conduct.

The e-mails were shown to The Washington Post by a former public safety commissioner, Walter Monegan, who was fired by Palin in July. Monegan has given copies of the e-mails to state ethics investigators to support his contention that he was dismissed for failing to fire Trooper Mike Wooten, who at the time was feuding with Palin’s family.

“This trooper is still out on the street, in fact he’s been promoted,” said a Feb. 7, 2007, e-mail sent from Palin’s personal Yahoo account and written to give Monegan permission to speak on a violent-crime bill before the state legislature.

“It was a joke, the whole year long ‘investigation’ of him,” the e-mail said. “This is the same trooper who’s out there today telling people the new administration is going to destroy the trooper organization, and that he’d ‘never work for that b****’, Palin’.)”

Asked about the e-mails, Palin’s campaign spokeswoman, Maria Comella, said that Palin was merely alerting officials to potential threats to her family and that there is no evidence that Palin ever ordered Wooten to be fired.

“Let’s be clear, Governor Palin has done nothing wrong and is an open book in this process. Mr. Monegan even stated himself that no one ever told him to fire anyone, period,” Comella said later in a statement. “The Governor was rightly expressing concern about Mr. Wooten.”

Palin is under investigation by a bipartisan state legislative body that was authorized last month to look into whether Palin pressured Monegan to force Wooten from the state police force and whether his failure to do so led to his dismissal.

Palin had promised to cooperate with the legislative inquiry, but this week moved to change the jurisdiction of the case to the state personnel board, which Palin appoints. Her attorney, Thomas V. Van Flein, who was hired last month, challenged the jurisdiction of Stephen Branchflower, the retired prosecutor hired to investigate and report back to the legislature by the last week of October.

When Palin entered the governor’s office in late 2006, Wooten already had been reprimanded, reassigned and suspended for five days for incidents reported by Palin’s family. They had filed complaints in April 2005 after her younger sister’s marriage fell apart and the couple battled in a bitter child-custody dispute.

Palin has said previously that she discussed Wooten with Monegan only in the context of security concerns for the family. Monegan has said that Palin never directly told him to fire Wooten but that the message was clearly conveyed through repeated messages from Palin, her husband and three members of her Cabinet.

“To allege that I, or any member of my family . . . directed disciplinary action be taken against any employee of the Department of Public Safety, is, quite simply, outrageous,” Palin said in a statement in mid-July after Monegan’s dismissal.

In August, Palin acknowledged that “pressure could have been perceived to exist, although I have only now become aware of it.”

During an interview here Wednesday, Monegan said that as Alaska’s top law enforcement official, he took his duties seriously. “I would willingly die for the governor, but I would never lie for her,” he said.

He showed The Post two e-mails he received from Palin, but he declined to give copies. The first e-mail came on Feb. 7, 2007, after the governor’s husband, Todd, met with Monegan to press the case for disciplinary action against Wooten. Palin’s family had accused the trooper of shooting a cow moose without a permit, Tasering his stepson, and drinking while driving a trooper vehicle. After her husband met with Monegan, Palin followed up with a phone call to Monegan.

In that first e-mail, sent a few weeks after the meeting, Palin encouraged Monegan to testify for a bill that would require 99-year sentences for police officers found guilty of murder. “For police officers to violate the public trust is a grave, grave violation — in my opinion. We have too many examples lately of cops and troopers who violate the public trust. DPS has come across as merely turning a blind eye or protecting that officer, seemingly ‘for the good of the brotherhood’.”

She cited Wooten’s case as an example of violating the public trust. She recounted his transgressions, beginning with the killing of the cow moose using a permit obtained by his wife. Molly McCann, who uses her name from a previous marriage, was with Wooten at the time.

“He’s still bragging about it in my hometown and after another cop confessed to witnessing the kill, the trooper was ‘investigated’ for over a year and merely given a slap on the wrist,” the e-mail said. “Though he’s out there arresting people today for the same crime!”

“He threatened to kill his estranged wife’s parent, refused to be transferred to rural Alaska and continued to disparage Natives in words and tone, he continues to harass and intimidate his ex. — even after being slapped with a restraining order that was lifted when his supervisors intervened,” the e-mail said. “He threatens to always be able to come out on top because he’s ‘got the badge’, etc. etc. etc.)”

Palin wrote that the Wooten matter had contributed to “the erosion of faith Alaskans should have in their law enforcement officials.” She concluded by saying the e-mail was “just my opinion.”

The second e-mail Monegan produced came from Palin’s Yahoo address on July 17, 2007, after the local newspaper publicized a legislative proposal that would keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

Her first thought about the bill, the e-mail said, “went to my ex-brother-in-law, the trooper, who threatened to kill my dad yet was not even reprimanded by his bosses and still to this day carries a gun, of course.”

“We can’t have double standards. Remember when the death threat was reported, and follow-on threats from Mike that he was going to ‘bring Sarah and her family down’ — instead of any reprimand WE were told by trooper union personnel that we’d be sued if we talked about those threats. Amazing. . . .

“So consistency is needed here,” the e-mail said. “No one’s above the law. If the law needs to be changed to not allow access to guns for people threatening to kill someone, it must apply to everyone.”

Research editor Alice Crites in Washington contributed to this report

Next Page »