Joe Miller: THE only conservative choice for Alaska

The following letter from US Senate candidate Joe Miller delineates the stark differences between Lisa Murkowski and Miller, both of whom are running on the GOP ticket. Governor Palin endorsed Joe Miller, because he is a true Reagan Conservative. US for Palin followed suit and endorsed Joe Miller's campaign.

Lisa Murkowski is a RINO. This letter, provided courtesy of Tracey Porreca explains why in great detail.

June 27, 2010

Dear Fellow Republicans:

Recently the Murkowski campaign circulated an email through the Alaska Republican Party asserting that “political operatives are mischaracterizing Lisa’s record [and] some of these claims are outright lies.” We wanted to assure Party members, and the Murkowski camp, that our campaign has not engaged in such behavior. We decided to look into the charges, and here is what we found. It turns out that they were responding to emails being circulated by concerned citizens acting of their own accord. They were not being directed to do anything by Joe Miller for US Senate. Some of the material being circulated may have originated with us, but we were unable to decipher what material may have come from us, and what did not, since the specifics of what the Murkowski campaign was responding to is still somewhat in doubt.

However, we would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight as to what it is that we are saying. It is clear to us that by any objective measure, Senator Murkowski is not a conservative and her record will bear that out. Her campaign has insisted that “Lisa is well known for her conservative voting record.” Rather than engage in a “he said – she said” moment, let's take a look at what the conservatives inside the beltway have concluded, based upon her voting record and their observation.

The American Conservative Union (Lifetime) – 70.19%
Freedom Works – 50%
Human Events – Top Five RINO's in the United States Senate
National Taxpayer's Union (Lifetime) – 63%
Citizens Against Government Waste (Lifetime) – 54%
Senate Conservatives Fund (2008) – 50%
Eagle Forum – 63%
American Family Association – 33%
Family Research Council – 55%

The aforementioned letter states, “She [Murkowski] recently led efforts to stop the massive power-grab by the EPA which President Obama threatened to Veto.” The Senator's EPA Amendment is well-rehearsed and we applaud her for her attempt to stop this naked power grab, but we should be clear about what the Amendment would, and would not, have done. Following is Senator Murkowski's own statement about her EPA Amendment delivered to The Council on Competitiveness' National Energy Summit and International Dialogue on September 23, 2009:

"Since my amendment has stirred a bit of controversy, I want to take a second to 'clear the air'. My amendment would not stop this process forever - it would simply give Congress a year to debate climate policies and determine the best approach for reducing emissions. Given that no climate bill would take effect before 2012, my amendment would not slow down or detract from the overall process. And given that almost everyone involved in the climate debate prefers legislation to regulation, I'm hopeful that it will draw enough votes to pass. I am equally hopeful that the climate debate, without the cloud of economically harmful EPA regulations hanging over it, can move forwards toward a bill that can pass the Senate. I want my colleagues and constituents to know that I'm serious about climate change . . .”

Further, it has been asserted that “[Senator Murkowski] has an A+ rating from the NRA.” We would point out that the Senator has demonstrated marked improvement in this area, considering her D rating with the NRA while in the Alaska State House, but she is still labeled a “pro-gun compromiser” by Gun Owners of America.

As to the Senator's opposition to tax increases, we would not deny that she has opposed some tax increases, but has certainly not opposed them across the board. She voted against the 2008 Bush Tax Rebates, against multiple points of order requiring a super-majority to raise taxes, voted in favor of tobacco tax increases, and is currently entertaining the possibility of a new carbon tax on emissions.

It has also been asserted that the Senator has voted to fully repeal, and “unequivocally supports the repeal of Obama Care.” But it should be pointed out that the “repeal” vote took place before the reconciliation bill actually passed. Five days after the reconciliation bill passed, the Senator said “repealing [Obamacare] is not the answer in my opinion . . .” You can view, or read it, here: (Feds overreaching on health care, energy, Murkowski says). It should not be difficult to see why we are somewhat confused as to where she really stands on the issue.

As to the claim that “Senator Lisa Murkowski opposes Big Government, Government Spending, Government Bailouts, Government Takeover, and Deficit Spending,” we can only refer you to the record.

Voting for the largest new entitlement program in a generation (Medicare, Part D), in addition to unwarranted federal health care expansions (SCHIP/CHIPRA) that even the big-spending President George W. Bush vetoed on the grounds that it was “a move toward socialized medicine,” is hardly an effective way to prove your opposition to Big Government.

Voting against the majority of your Republican colleagues on six excessive Appropriations packages just in the last year is not a convincing argument against Government Spending.

Voting for TARP (Big Bank and Wall Street) bailouts, voting to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and voting to protect the Obama Administration's plan for a $108B slush fund for International bailouts does not make a persuasive case for opposition to Government Bailouts. It should also be also be pointed out that the Senator's campaign operatives would have us applaud her for attempting to clean up her own mess (TARP). One might say, 'she actually voted for it . . . before she voted against it.' Does she really get credit for a failed attempt to fix what she broke herself? Really?

Without even going further, which could be done at some length, the aforementioned votes prove conclusively that the Senator is not serious about curbing deficit spending.

On the illegal immigration front, it is an ineluctable fact that the Senator voted for Amnesty in 2006, and against a border security amendment taken in December of 2009 that would have required the southern border fence (physical barrier, not a virtual fence that is virtually porous) to be finished by December 2010. If the Senator is such an advocate for the conservative position on illegal immigration, why did she vote for the amnesty bill in 2006 and vote to take up the bill again in 2007? Why did she have to be strong-armed into voting no on cloture in 2007? Why has US Border Control only given her a 33% score for her stance on border issues?

And finally, “as Alaska’s US Senator, Lisa Murkowski opposes the use of federal funds for abortions.” While we accuse nobody of lying, this statement simply does not accord with her record. We need go no further than the Anchorage Daily News last week, where it was reported that 662 abortions were funded through Denali Kid Care: (KidCare funded 664 'medically necessary' abortions in '09). That is the Senator's CHIPRA vote at work.

She has voted no less than four times for repeal, or against reinstatement, of the “Mexico City Policy” put in place by President Reagan to bar Federal dollars from foreign non-governmental organizations that provide or promote abortions.

I would also point to Senator Murkowski's unequivocal statement in voting for a sense of the Senate Amendment that reads as follows:

“It is the sense of the Senate that--

the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade

was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right;

and such decision should not be overturned.”

The Senator has been named a Wish List Star. The Wish List is a pro-choice organization whose mission is stated as follows: “The WISH List raises funds to identify, support and elect pro-choice Republican women.” You can visit the website here: The WISH List.

While one can argue about votes, we would encourage inquiring minds to consult our website where there are links to many of Senator Murkowski's votes. Feel free to contact the campaign; we would be happy to assist you with information you might need to make an informed decision on this crucial race.

While we understand that tensions are high in an election cycle, it is incumbent upon us all to take a deep breath and look at the facts. This is not finally about personalities, it is about the future of the greatest nation on earth. We are committed to running a clean campaign. We invite the Senator to debate the issues, and we will do our part to keep it civil.

All the Best,

Joe Miller Campaign for US Senate

(907) 929-9563

Paid for by Joe Miller for US Senate • P.O. Box 72838, Fairbanks , AK 99707

Memories of the Fourth of July

-from Patrick's World USA

Last Fourth of July reminded me of being at a barbecue at my uncle's house in 1980. It was the final year of the Jimmy Carter years and my first real recollection of having a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach about the state of my country. I was 16 going on 17 at the time. Charlie Daniels had a song out, America. I had been headed toward conservatism in the years leading up to this time, but I mark this song as the first time I officially considered myself "a patriot no matter what."

I still get chills when I listen to the song, especially now that it captures the same feeling today during the Obama years as it did during the Carter years. My country is a strong and proud nation. It has done great things. It has survived the Civil War, Pearl Harbor and WW II, the Cold War and 9/11. It has also come through some rough political times as well such as the late 1960's, the late 1970's and now the late 2000's. We have this uncanny ability to fall asleep at the wheel yet wake up just in time to keep the car from crashing into the guard rail. I know we can do it again.

In 1980, I shot my fireworks off at make believe Soviet divisions in Afghanistan. And despite my disgust at the Carter administration, I believed in the American people. I believed we would get the bum out of office. And we did. Five years later, it was morning in America. I graduated college and went wide-eyed into a world with unlimited potential. The economy was cranking, the job market was great and we were militarily strong. The Soviet Union was on the brink of collapse. What happened to that? Where did that go?

I cry about now, but  I know we have it in us to make it that way again.

In 1986, I was outside with friends shooting off fireworks. I had to go to the bathroom so I went in my house. Ronald Reagan just started giving his "Statue of Liberty" speech. I sat with my parents for entire speech, hiding the tears that started streaming down my cheeks as I beamed with pride and joy over my great nation and the great man who now led it. All was well with the world. God that felt great.

The Fourth of July following 9/11 was a defiant one. I was on my in-law's at the time boat and we were on the lake as the fireworks display started. I felt good because I knew we were taking action in Afghanistan and that George W. Bush had America's back. I knew we would not falter and we would not fail. I still felt good about America. I was not a Bill Clinton fan by far, but I thanked my lucky stars that he listened to Newt Gingrich and signed off on the Contract For America.

Last year was the roughest Fourth of Julys I can ever remember.  I had my Palin shirt, my Gadsden flag and a cooler full of cold beer and good food all ready. Even though it was the beginning of the Obama years, I wasn't going to let his America - a lackluster apologetic weak excuse of a nation - interfere with my celebration of my America - the shining city on a hill. It was going to be my way of declaring Sarah Palin as my real leader and the successor in my heart to Ronald Reagan. I was at Virginia Beach when a friend of mine called me on the beach to tell me that Sarah Palin had resigned.

When I went up to the deck, Stuart Varney replayed Sarah Palin's speech on Fox News. I watched stunned as the pundits talked about a possible FBI investigation and how the frivolous ethics violations had cost her and the state of Alaska a fortune. I was alone in the wilderness. Obama was leading my country off a cliff and my leader just stepped down from her position of power. I felt like I wanted to throw up.

There was a 5 minute period during the entire time I was at my friend's condo when his son was not on the laptop, so I read everything I could about her resignation the next morning which was July 4, 2009.

Sarah Palin called her minions in off the ledge with a tweet (link no longer available - emphasis is mine): "Critics are spinning, so hang in there as they feed false info on the right decision made as I enter last yr in office to not run again...." On her Facebook page, she wrote (emphasis is again mine):

I am now looking ahead and how we can advance this country together with our values of less government intervention, greater energy independence, stronger national security, and much-needed fiscal restraint. I hope you will join me. Now is the time to rebuild and help our nation achieve greatness!

She put her resignation speech on her Facebook page underneath the headline which included these words: "it is good, stay tuned." I read the speech and this line jumped out at me (emphasis not mine - Sarah capitalized the word TRUST):

I do not want to disappoint anyone with my decision; all I can ask is that you TRUST me with this decision - but it's no more "politics as usual".

I'm a political science guy who was taught from the textbook in college. It would have been easy to draw a conclusion that she was done. A friend told me it was her "Checkers" speech. It would have been just as easy to get off the emotional rollercoaster of being a Sarah Palin fan at that point. But she said the right words when she was talking to her fans. She was talking to us. She was talking to me. She was asking me to hang in, join her, TRUST her. And like I did before when the media lies were going un-debunked before the Palinista presence we have on the web today, I decided to listen to her.

I wrote:

Take a deep breath. There are 3 1/2 years left until the 2012 presidential election. A lot can happen. Sarah Palin holds the answer. Whether it works or not is totally up to her now. With more freedom to control her brand, her future will no longer be in the hands of an unchecked hostile media that spreads lies about her.

We will be participants in a future political science lesson that has yet to reveal its answer to us.

I deferred the future to Sarah, knowing that the only way to explain the resignation could not be done until after the fact. Now that it is after the fact, I can explain it. I also know that I was right to trust her.

I put on my Sarah Palin shirt last Fourth of July and flew that Gadsden flag that day. When someone commented on my shirt "looks like your girl's in trouble," I hid my concern and simply told him, "nah, she's just getting ready to run in 2012."

Now that the emotion and the uncertainty of last year's Fourth of July is over. Let's do this again right this time. I'm wearing the shirt again this year and this time I'm really going to enjoy it.

It's a year since Sarah resigned. Since then she has made over $12 million dollars and her PAC has donated tens of thousands to political campaigns across the country. She is a best selling author, Fox News contributor, professional speaker and a documentarian. Did I mention she's in the top tier of contenders for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012? Resignation, smesignation.

In 2010, I will shoot off my fireworks off at make believe Taliban and al Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan. And despite my disgust at the Obama administration, I believe in the American people. I believe we will get the bum out of office. Five years from now, it will be morning in America. And kids who weren't alive when Reagan was president will be able to graduate college and go wide-eyed into a world with unlimited potential. The economy will be cranking, the job market will be great and we will be militarily strong. The terrorists will be on the brink of collapse.

It will be morning in America again. Sarah Palin will give her "Statue of Liberty" speech and we will beam with pride and joy over our great nation and the great woman who will be leading it.

-cross posted from Liberty's Lamp

Conservative New Media Further Exposes Palin Protesters

By Adrienne Ross - www.motivationtruth.com

After last night's post contrasting the light of pro-Palin patriots with the anger of anti-Palin protesters in California when the Governor visited to help raise money for CSU Stanislaus, I was contacted by Paul Villarreal of Conservative New Media who did the video that you see in the post. He read the article on C4P and wanted to shed further light. Without the need to overtly call out the protesters' foolishness, the interviewer certainly captured it, and easily captured, also, the civility and patriotism of Governor Palin's supporters who were well-able to articulate the reasons they stand so vehemently in her corner.

I will let Paul speak for himself. He wrote:

Hi, this is Paul F. Villarreal of Conservative New Media (CNM) and I asked Adrienne Ross if I could add a few words to her excellent write-up here of what took place on the campus of CSU Stanislaus during Sarah's Palin's very successful visit. Adrienne graciously accepted and so I want to share with the C4P readers a bit more alleged information that came to our attention following the shooting of the video posted here as well as some thoughts on the tactics being used by the anti-Palin protesters at Stanislaus and where we have seen such methods previously and how to spot and counteract them.

On the Tuesday following Sarah's visit, John co-hosted the Dave Diamond radio program on KFIV 1360 in Modesto, California (very close to Turlock, where Sarah spoke). During this stint, John was told by both the third man in the booth as well as a caller who had attended the Palin speech and also interviewed the Palin protesters that at least one group among those who had gathered to spew their vitriol toward Sarah were members of a presumably local Teamsters union.

I cannot verify this information independently at this time. The caller who interviewed the protesters himself said that the supposed Teamsters told him this information directly, and that the alleged Teamster members were let out of work early on Friday with the explicit understanding that they were to head down straight from work and protest Palin.

For the purposes of the rest of my comments, I will assume that this information is true, and that a core chunk of those who seemingly mindlessly ranted against Sarah, "the rich" and other strawmen at Stanislaus on Friday were, indeed, union members.

The Teamsters are a notoriously corrupt outfit with deep historical ties to disgraced criminal Jimmy Hoffa as well as the ethically-compromised city of Chicago.

What stuck out most, though, in watching the footage were the tactics of what I will presume are the young men who are union members some time around the middle of the video. Their aggressiveness -- at first appearing illogical but then seeming to fit the profile of the strategic Saul Alinsky disciple -- reminded both John and I, and probably many C4P readers, of other Obama-friendly hatchet men from the 2008 campaign.

For several years now, CNM has come under sustained assault from Obama-friendly astroturfers and left-wing flaks. We are thoroughly familiar with their methods, including those of the "goon squad" groups which seemed to constitute a core of the anti-Palin protesters.

In my opinion, the methods being used by the presumed young Teamster union men in the video fit a very specific profile of agitators and bullies. These are the kinds of people and tactics, I feel, which were employed when Kenneth Gladney was beaten up in Missouri by apparent SEIU members. These are the kinds of methods which were used against average Americans who opposed ObamaCare and voiced their concerns at town hall meetings, and finally, these are the kinds of people and means which have marked the left's hysterical campaign attempting to marginalize Sarah Palin and make her permanently "off limits" to most Americans.

The hallmark of these agitators is their rabid, almost incoherent, chanting and demeanor. The goal is to elicit an emotional response both from fellow protesters and from the opponent, in this case the pro-Palin crowd outside the Stanislaus event.

To this end, initiating mindless chants such as "Eat the rich!" is not the work of unsophisticated protesters but is, instead, a very targeted tactic intended to draw out the anger and hatred of the anti-Palin side and also seek to provoke a kind-of fear response in the pro-Palin protesters. It is the supposed lack of coherence of the chant, that is, which is designed to make the pro-Palin crowd come to a kind of helpless psychological response along the lines of "Wow, these people are so angry and full of rage that even though they are rambling idiotic phrases, I guess they really feel passionately about hating Sarah Palin and I definitely don't want to mess with them. Maybe I should just kind of back off here and kind of accept this Palin hate. I don't want any kind of confrontation."

This technique is often referred to as the "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" method. CNM actually made a simple video about this some time ago which you can watch here and you can read more about the FUD approach towards engagement and interpersonal dynamics here.

In watching and re-watching the footage, I am convinced that the young men at the heart of the anti-Palin vitriol are, in fact, union members and I am also fairly certain that the tactics which they used fit into the Saul Alinsky/FUD playbook.

You will never see these kinds of hate purveyors of the left featured in traditional LSM outlets. Sad to say, many media personalities, I feel, secretly appreciate these goon squads because their tactics, as the young pro-Palin woman in the video mentions, work. The many members of the media who detest Palin and support Obama, I believe, appreciate the "clearing out" function which shady outfits like the Teamsters provide because that makes the enactment of the left's radical agenda that much easier to achieve.

For those who support Palin, however, and even just for non-ideological Americans who want to see politics rise above the sum total of advertising methods and partisan pop-psychology hackery such as the FUD method being used by Saul Alinsky types, it is essential to know who your adversary is and just what kind of tactics are being employed. The would-be bully standing across from you at a Palin rally might look and sound like a naive Neanderthal, but it is our experience that they are often anything but, and their methods have to be countered.

I believe that the men in the video which Adrienne posted are a good representation of what Sarah and her supporters will face from now until Sarah is potentially elected President, should she run, in 2012. The left knows they must not allow Sarah any room to breathe, so to speak, and so they will continue to mobilize their most-extreme elements in a desperate scorched-earth campaign to take down Sarah at any cost.

It is our responsibility, as Palin supporters and patriots, to meet such people out on the political battlefield--and to defeat them as often and as widely as we can, in peaceful and concerted ways.

Thank you again, Adrienne and C4P, for allowing me to share my thoughts on this footage and event, and I hope everyone here has a terrific Independence Day Weekend.

Paul F. Villarreal
Conservative New Media

We're in a battle against an enemy that wants to annihilate. The only way to win is to know what we're dealing with and expose those tactics time and time again. Governor Palin's supporters will not be ignorant of the despicable devices used against her. I thank Mr. Villarreal and CNM for being among the good guys who stand for truth.