Concerning the Legislative inquiry into Troopergate, Gov. Sarah Palin has provided emails supporting her contention that at-will (who could be fired for almost any reason) State Employee Walt Monegan was fired for budgetary disagreements, and in Monegan's farewell email he 'suggested the governor had reason to believe she had lost his support, and he urged his former colleagues to communicate better with her.'
Though some Deomcrats are trying to portray Gov. Palin as against a probe, Palin wants the investigation moved to the Personnel Board, mainly because the lead Legislative investigator Hollis French has already indicated bias, by saying publicly that his report would be an October Surprise to the McCain/Palin ticket. French later apologized.
If Troopergate and Monegan's firing really were Political pay-back and not about budgetary differences, why did Gov. Palin offer Monegan the Non-Budgetary job of head of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board?
Considering that Palin has already been accused in the media of banning the Harry Potter books two full years before they were printed, been accused of saying that the Iraq war was God's plan (she did not!), been accused on the cover of US magazine of lying (though the Editor later admitted the headline was about others lying about her!), been called a pig by her opponent, had John Stewart, USA Today and MSNBC lie that she was making rape victims pay for their rape kits (it was previous Governor's plan to bill their insurance companies) townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/09/11/the_palin_rape_kit_myth
and is being censored by Oprah Winfrey on ideological grounds, forgive us conservatives if we find very small comfort in Wingtips boast that if Sarah is innocent of abuse of power she has nothing to fear. She was innocent of all those things above, yet that did not stop the lies and distortion by Mainstream media outlets like USA Today, Time and MSNBC.
[former Wasilla police chief (who's appointment Palin ended) John] Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. 'She asked the library how she could go about banning books,' he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. 'The librarian was aghast.' That woman, Mary Ellen Baker [Emmons], couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving 'full support' to the mayor.
- Time article
What Time leaves out is that no specific titles were brought up, no books were ever banned or censored, and Palin said that her inquiries of a Department Head were 'rhetorical and simply part of a policy discussion "about understanding and following administration agendas'.'" Anchorage Daily News via Snopes and Urban Legends
So Time quotes someone with an ax to grind in order to portray Palin in a less favorable light, bringing in the religious trump card, and not simply saying Palin asked 'what if' questions, to use your words. Time ignored the idea that there could be policy reasons for these inquiries, for example how does a taxpayer with a gripe about a city service get his complaint handled. But I guess no one is allowed to question which books are offered in a public library.
Check the Time article, see if they portray Palin as asking what if questions. Then check the USA Today article about the Rape Kit lie. Then check out the US Magazine cover with the headline 'Babies, Lies, Scandal' - don't buy it just read it in the checkout line, and read that the story has nothing about Lies Sarah or or family told, it's just a Media mudslide.
3 comments :
If she has nothing to hide, then why isn't she talking?
"If she has nothing to hide, then why isn't she talking?"
Murderous systems - like the Soviet and Hitlerian systems, for example - were founded on this insidious line of reasoning.
You might also try extending this argument to it's logical conclusion. Will you still be alright when the government has cameras in your bathroom and closet, and record all the time? The government might want to record your closet with the intent of watching you pack your bags when you travel (think TSA in the home), but they don't know when you're going to travel so they record all the time. Perhaps the government increases no-knock raid enforcement (no surprise there): they might want to be video recording in people's bathrooms to make sure no drugs are being flushed. How about another angle: you may not care to hide your eating habits, but what if the government expands its social welfare projects to prohibit eating certain foods? Already governments in Chicago and New York have banned restaurants from serving Fois Grois and trans-fat foods, respectively. How long will it be until the government prohibits stores from selling them, and then people from eating them? In either of those cases the government might need to video record in your kitchen or refrigerator to enforce the laws. Will you have nothing to hide when you wants to eat a Twinkie in your own home?
When someone asks me why I object to unlawful searches if I have nothing to hide, I usually tell them "its none of your business what i'm hiding". I guess that doesnt help, because it reinforces the the perception that I would be a "sneaky" person. The problem with most people is that they don't see that this isn't about what government can find out, its about how much power they can have over "their" citizens.
Cromwell: Now, Sir Thomas, you stand on your silence.
Sir Thomas More: I do.
Cromwell: But, gentlemen of the jury, there are many kinds of silence. Consider first the silence of a man who is dead. Let us suppose we go into the room where he is laid out, and we listen: what do we hear? Silence. What does it betoken, this silence? Nothing; this is silence pure and simple. But let us take another case. Suppose I were to take a dagger from my sleeve and make to kill the prisoner with it; and my lordships there, instead of crying out for me to stop, maintained their silence. That would betoken! It would betoken a willingness that I should do it, and under the law, they will be guilty with me. So silence can, according to the circumstances, speak! Let us consider now the circumstances of the prisoner's silence. The oath was put to loyal subjects up and down the country, and they all declared His Grace's title to be just and good. But when it came to the prisoner, he refused! He calls this silence. Yet is there a man in this court - is there a man in this country! - who does not know Sir Thomas More's opinion of this title?
Crowd in court gallery: No!
Cromwell: Yet how can this be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial!
Sir Thomas More: Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is "Qui tacet consentiret": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.
Cromwell: Is that in fact what the world construes from it? Do you pretend that is what you wish the world to construe from it?
Sir Thomas More: The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law.
Post a Comment