Yeah, she looks good all right, like she could conquer the world in her six-inch stilettos and short, short miniskirt. Something G Dubya was never able to accomplish, no matter what he wore, or when he wore it.
What I bet you didn’t know is that Dick Cheney’s proposed successor, Sarah Palin, not only advocates state-sponsored murder of humans (see September 3rd entry, Left and right still centered on death by government), but she also creates laws that make killing wolves and bears easier than ever. How brave she must feel knowing she paved the way for man or woman with gun in hand to sit high and mighty in the safety of his or her airplane saddle, just for the thrill of killing these beautiful, defenseless creatures.
Please check out the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund:
The bounty on wolves claim is political mis-information to try to smear Gov. Palin. No matter what your politics, it’s not fair to anyone to allow lies about either side to circulate on the net. I researched this claim on the Alaska Legislature site and submitted it to Snopes.com.
If you look at the official Alaska site, the bounty was proposed by the Alaska Dept of Fish & Game (not Gov. Palin) to be used within a certain remote area where the wolves were decimating the caribou and moose herds as a means to protect help protect the herds. The wolves in this area are overpopulated and each spring during calving season they are killing off most of the newborn calves, homing in on them by the scent of blood. The wolves not only endanger the prey species in the area, but are invested with lice due to overpopulation. Wolves are difficult and expensive to control in this part of Alaska, so the bounty was proposed to help offset some of the expense. The proposal was never implemented. Bounties were historically paid to entice people to help control Wolves but they were ended in the 1970′s. It is also notable that they do not issue “hunting licenses” for wolves only “control permits” because the sportsmen have no interest in them and they are not used for food. There are also some areas in Alaska where wolves cannot be killed at all because there is no threat to other wildlife.
While I am an avid animal lover and wildlife conservationist, I also realize there will always be hunting. Some areas of the country depend on hunting for a good portion of their food. Alaska has a long history of shooting wolves from low flying aircraft in the most remote areas (not everywhere). I am not advocating nor condemning this method because I understand the argument from both sides. Shooting from low flying aircraft is not something people do for “fun”. They must remove the door from the plane and fly in sub-zero temperatures during winter months when the wolves can be tracked. The wildlife management reports I read, indicated that “wound & injure rates were very low” and they reported wound & injure rates associated with other hunting methods as well. The report also states one of the main reasons for collecting the forelegs is to ensure that animals are actually killed not just wounded. I think law makers have a responsibility to make and enforce laws that require humane hunting practices. As I read the 144 pages of the report I was impressed at the amount of thoughtful study and detailed information that it contained and that they actually are concerned with “wound & injure” rates, lice etc. – and that they outlawed shooting of wolves in areas where they are not a threat. I’m not saying they are perfect or can’t be improved upon, but I don’t believe this is as big an issue as some are trying to “spin” it to be.
I’m not sure what Mr. Obama’s position on killing wolves (or any other wildlife) is. However I do know he is personally responsible for blocking a bill that would have allowed doctors to give medical treatment to babies born alive after botched abortions. He listened to personal testimony from nurses who were only allowed to hold these babies for their short lives and watch them inhumanly suffer and fade away which often takes hours. Obama personally blocked the state bill even after wording was changed be the same as the Federal Bill which passed the US Senate unopposed (Both Hillary & Kerry voted in favor of the bill). I cannot vote for someone who has that little regard for human life. I also cannot imagine that someone who is not concerned with the humane treatment of newborn babies would somehow be concerned with humane treatment of animals.
Here are links to the full congressional testimony of some of these nurses- no spin added.
http://nobamanews.blogspot.com/2008/07/jill-staneks-full-testimony_05.html
http://nobamanews.blogspot.com/2008/07/allison-bakers-full-testimony.html
the federal law – no spin added
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/BAIPAFederal.pdf
Jill Stanek is the nurse who took this issue to her state legislature. This is the link to her full report in Citizen Link (non-partisan)
(Yes, she does have an agenda too – she is pro-life, however her objective in this case was only to fight for babies born alive – not to fight all abortion.)
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm#
Much of what is being reported about Sarah Phalin is untrue. I actually had the opportunity to see Ms. Phalin as Governor of Alaska as she welcomed all the mystery writers and readers to Bouchercon (the world wide mystery convention.)
Alaska may be one of the 50 states but it’s more like another country. Residents can be killed by grizzlies and Polar bears. No self-respecting Alaskan would live without a gun.
She killed caribou, cleaned it, dressed it for eating. This is a heck of a lot better than a lot of our rich movie star and other folks who go on safari to Africa and kill animals just to stuff them and display them in one of their many homes.
I have a good friend in Wasilla and asked her about Ms. Palin and was told nothing but good things. She may be inexperienced in Washington politics–but she sure isn’t when it comes to Alaskan politics.
I’m not thrilled with either of the candidates for president, but I am tired of such unfair tactics used against the vp candidate–much of it lies or exaggerations.
Of course I may be a bit prejudiced because I would like to see someone running the White House who is a true Christian–we have many who purport to be, but don’t live like they are.
Spent last week hanging out with Native Americans, Tolowa in particular–and my Tolowa friend thinks we all better learn how to live off the land because of what she thinks is coming.
Thanks for letting me sound off.
Marilyn
Yes and I imagine you support tearing an innocent unborn human child from it’s mothers womb and if that doesn’t kill it, just suffocate it or punch a hole in the back of it’s little head with scissors.
What an absolutely horrible, cynical image you present. I’m pro life in the broadest sense possible, how ’bout you?
I believe all life should be allowed to live with freedom and dignity. I don’t believe we should be deciding anybody’s death, at any stage or term in life, as a juvenile, or in adulthood.
I also believe a good government would have the proper education and resources to help raise our young properly and to educate them regarding prevention of pregnancy. But, never in a millioin years, would I want to see our government, and the idiotic special interests that it represents, dictate to any woman what she should do with her body. No governmental interference whatsoever.
I think it is very naive and ignorant to say a true christian should be in the white house. We have the right to belive in any religion. Whether you feel it is wrong, that is your opinion. America is a melting pot. We are very diverse in culture as well. I don’t feel religion should ever come into play when it comes to politics. They do not go together. Religion is too peaceful, and it shouldn’t matter what your religious background might be.
I see Fran has Sarah’s rifle stuck up her ass! Wow. You pro-lifers sure are nuts. Of course, if Sarah’s daughter Bristol had had an abortion, you would be fine with it because you just love Sarah.
By the way, the photo for this post is not real. It’s photoshopped as is the other one with “her” in a US flag bikini holding a gun.
Fran was a little upset, no question about that. But that’s an apple of a different shape, isn’t it?
And, may I ask, who’s “You pro-lifers”? Those who don’t like to bear witness to the pain and suffering shed upon the multitudes? Just imagine the kharma “pro-lifers” could save. But, of course, we’re not talking about the typical pro-lifer, here, are we? Because we’re nuts? Says who? The judge? The jury? Or just someone who can pick a nut from a limb?