Obama peaks early in polls

Here's something interesting. As you read this blurb from PoliticalWire.com remember that this is from March 2, 2008:

Clinton Internal Polls Show Close Race

"Privately, Clinton campaign advisors say their own internal polls show the race tightening in Ohio and remaining very close in Texas," according to ABC News. "In their best case scenario, Clinton aides hope she could win Ohio by 3 to 6 points and squeak out a victory in Texas. They would consider that a good night and reason to fight on to Pennsylvania, which holds its primary on April 22. Other scenarios, they admit, are not so pretty."

Here were the final RCP poll averages:

Ohio
Clinton: 50.1
Obama: 43
Spread: Clinton +7.1

Texas
Clinton: 47.4
Obama: 45.7
Spread: Clinton +1.7

Here were the actual results:

Ohio
Clinton: 54.2
Obama: 44.1
Spread: Clinton +12.1

Texas
Clinton: 50.9
Obama: 47.4
Spread: Clinton +3.5

In Pennsylvania too the results for Clinton were higher than expected.

PA Polls
Clinton 49.5
Obama 43.4
Spread: Clinton +6.1

PA results
Clinton 54.6
Obama 45.4
Spread: Clinton +9.2

If you look at the polling data just a few days before, you'll see a surge by Obama and then a drop off. Is it likely that the polls could shift 3 or 4 points in key battleground states between November 3rd and 4th?

My prediction is that if the national polls average 4 points or less in Obama's favor the day before the election, McCain wins.

Will Catholic undecideds swing the election to McCain?

An Investor's Business Daily poll today had John McCain holding steady nationally at 43.6 percent and Barack Obama at 47.7 percent. That leaves a huge number of undecideds -- 8.7 percent.

The recent movement toward McCain has him leading over Obama among self-described Protestants (56% to 38%), Catholics (46% to 42%) and Other Christians (48% to 45%). The Catholic undecided vote is 12 percent -- a huge number this close to election day. The recent movement toward McCain is attributed mainly to undecideds from these groups who seem to be deciding almost wholly for McCain. In other words, the remaining undecideds among Christian groups are a lock for McCain, because Obama supporters have already decided. Since Catholics in Pennsylvania make up roughly one-third of the population, that is four percent that could be added to McCain's column. Protestants and Other Christians are at 6 and 7 percent undecided respectively.

In my opinion, these Christians are like me -- conservative pro-lifer voters who are not for Obama, but have lingering doubts about pulling the lever for McCain. I expect most of this undecided group -- up to 90 pecent -- to break for McCain. If the most recent Mason Dixon poll in Pennsylvania that has McCain trailing by 4 points is correct, then this amount would be enough to put him over the top and pull off a stunning upset next Tuesday.

If the same trend is true nationally -- with self-described Christians making up about 80 percent of the population -- then an 80 percent pull from this undecided 8.7 percent gives McCain at least an additional 7 percent.

What does that mean? Expect McCain to win every state where he is trailing by less than 6 percent in the most favorable polls.

McCain will likely win the red states of Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, New Mexico, I think that Pennsylvania will seal the deal early and perhaps he'll even pick off Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and New Hampshire.

McCain 3 points behind in the most accurate poll

I filled out my absentee ballot yesterday and will mail it a few hours from now. I voted McCain/Palin. I would have voted Constitution Party if I didn't think the election would be decided by just a few points -- if that much.

It's the first time since 1988 that I did not support the Constitution Party candidate, although I supported Frank Zilaitis, an independent running for U.S. Congress in my district. So you can put me in the column of millions of undecideds and independents who have suddenly shifted for McCain in the last week. I'll explain more about that shift the day after our stunning victory next Tuesday.

The 2004 Indepedent Business Daily/TIPP poll was by far the most accurate indicator of the presidential election, having accurately predicted the election to within three-tenths of a point.

Here is the most current IBD/TIPP polling data:

Date: 10/29/2008
McCain: 43.9%
Obama: 46.9%
Not Sure: 9.2%
Spread: Obama +3.0

What is remarkable about this poll is that it shows a 3 point swing from just eight days ago.

Date: 10/21/2008
McCain: 40.9%
Obama: 46.9%
Not sure: 12.1%
Obama +6.0

While a three point swing is within the margin of error for most polls, what is remarkable is that it shows Obama's support remaining constant while McCain has shifted all three points from the undecideds into his column. Nine percent of likely voters still remain undecided. That is unheard of this close to an election. In 2004, no poll showed more than four percent undecided with a full week to go.

In light of the huge number of undecideds, the race may easily end up one or two points in McCain's favor and moving upward. Here's why: The average of all polls in October have shown that Bob Barr (1.4 percent) and Ralph Nader (2.6 percent) have a consistent 4 points between them. This support seems constant although third party support is notoriously hard to gauge.

If we give a generous 4 points to the various independents, then that still leaves 5 points to be divided between Obama and McCain. It's likely that Obama has peaked at 47 percent of the vote. Those who will vote for Obama have already decided to do so. Those undecideds who will still change their mind will break toward McCain. Few McCain supporters will shift to Obama.

McCain will probaby finish a point or two above Obama according to this model, but if some Obama supporters switch to McCain at the last minute, it could be a shocker of an election and over faster than anyone imagined. I remember 1980 when I was a freshman at the very liberal UMASS/Amherst. Ronald Reagan had trailed Jimmy Carter by 6 points just the week before, but Reagan won me and millions of others over in his last debate. It was over before most Californians has a chance to vote.

Last week, I changed my support to John McCain and I believe millions more will follow that pattern. If I am right, then it is going to be a lot of fun watching liberal commentators announce blue states such as New Hampshire and Pennsylvania turning red early in the night. That could tilt the election and we could see McCain picking off some unexpected blue states in the west.

Polls are tightening in McCain's favor

I've been saying for over a month that most of the pollsters and media pundits are wrong -- that they are intentionally skewing the poll data to influence public opinion. Now with less than a week left before the election, Obama's lead in an average of all polls at RealClearPolitics.com is under six points. The most reliable polls (the ones that have been the best predictors in the past) all have McCain within 2 to 4 points of Obama.

The most bizarre development is that several of these polls have swung 5 points toward McCain in just four days. May I suggest that in order to save face, the media pollsters are now releasing more accurate data.

In the last week, both McCain and Obama have been campaiginig strong in states where the polls have a "lock" for Obama. Why is that? Internal Democratic and Republican Party polling data has McCain ahead in Ohio by two points and behind in Pennsylvania by only two points. Several other sources have said it will be a shocker if McCain does not win both states.

But assuming that the most accurate polls are correct, can McCain make up as much as 4 or 5 points nationally in less than a week?

Here is some recent history:

George W. Bush held a 5 point lead in the RealClearPolitics tracking poll over Al Gore with six days left in the 2000 race. Gore then won the popular vote by less than half a point.

Bush then led Democratic challenger John Kerry by one point in the polls in 2004 before winning re-election by 3.

If recent history is a guide, then a four point swing is not so unlikely. If we go all the way back to the Kennedy-Nixon race, what we see is that the Republican usually gains on the Democrat as election day draws closer. If McCain does win, it is going to be fun to watch MSNBC and CNN and hear the demonic ranting and raving.

The key indicator to watch is not McCain's numbers, but Obama's numbers. If Obama drops to 47 points in any number of polls, it is unlikely that he'll break that ceiling on election day. Then when we throw Nader and Barr into the mix, McCain can win with 49 percent of the vote. Obama's history has shown that he usually peaks early and then wins by less of a margin than what the last few polls show.

Obama and Infanticide: The issue that will not go away

By Jeffrey A. Ziegler
President: Statesmen Global Initiatives

In the 2008 election cycle, the issue of abortion is being systematically silenced in the cacophony of Presidential rhetorical ballyhoo. From communist populism in the Obama camp to neo-conservative nativistic urges in the McCain entourage, the cause of pre-born babies is but an inconvenient blip on the political radar. Only Sarah Palin has had the intestinal fortitude to not only stand for the babies but to actually speak on behalf of the children.

Obama is what he is. He even advocates the extermination of babies born alive. This horror is known and it is unequivocally clear. Those so-called "Christians" who vote for Obamanation and the codification of state sponsored slaughter of innocents, do so in willful commissionable sin against God. McCain at least will stand for justices and states who promote the life ethic. Yet very few politicos have the guts to speak affirmatively and act pro-actively to end this horrid blight upon our nation. Most of the would be politicians who say they are pro-life do so in very hushed tones, especially at the local level. They are afraid, even embarrassed at their more strident brethren who actually defend the defenseless. For these anemics their "pro-life" stand is akin to "standing in a garage and calling yourself a car."

Saying so doesn't make it so.

With only a few days left to the election, I was struck by a missive from Russia, which in brief, hailed Vladimir Putin for decrying abortion (Russia's national suicide) and its deleterious long term effects on his nation. How ironic that the ex-KGB operative signaled a "national copulation day" so as to bring more babies into the world. Now that would be an interesting policy don't you think? Do you think our politicos would ever sound the alarm in such fashion?

I'm enclosing a video to distribute wherever you can before the election. This production brings it all to a crystalline clear message.

YOU WILL NOT BE THE SAME AFTERWARDS.

VIDEO: http://durarealidad.com/

How McCain can still win and win big!

Looking at the polls alone, most media pundits have already decided to call the 2008 presidential election for Barack Obama. There is no need to let the voters decide when we have the fourth branch of government at MSNBC, CNN and The New York Times, right?

When all is said and done, voters in 2008 will come to see how much the media manipulates polling data to influence voters. The liberal elite disdains the critical thinking skills of the great "unwashed" American electorate. Therefore, they have taken the responsibility of telling us what to think and how we are going to vote. Never mind that just a few months ago John McCain was their darling "moderate Republican" and Sarah Palin "the most popular governor in America." According to experts, McCain's campaign is in disarray and Palin is a drag on the ticket. It's already too late for McCain. The polls show it. The talking heads have decreed it. The media has prewritten the script.

There is a problem with their duplicity. Polls are accurate on average within 3 to 4 points. If the polls on election day show that the pollsters were intentionally skewing the samples to break far outside the margin of error, the public will lose faith in polls. This tool to influence public opinion will be gone in the next election cycle. It is in the best interest of the pollsters to maintain accuracy. They realize though, that they need to be accurate only in the few days immediately preceding the election in order to maintain credibility.

This is also part of the prewritten script. It was foretold last week that the polls would tighten in the last few days. Several polls already show a statistical tie within the margin of error.

How did they know?

It is a loosely guarded secret that the political parties' private polling data shows a much closer race. We saw McCain campaigning in Iowa, a state that the pollsters have far out of his reach. A leak from the Obama camp a week ago had their Pennsylvania poll as a one point race. Here is problem for the liberal pundits. With a McCain win, the public's trust in polling must be thrown out the window.

There is yet another fact we hear little about. Obama needs to poll at 50 percent or higher in the last week in order to win. Here is why that may be a problem for him. In the primaries, Obama nearly always polled higher than the actual voting results. If the polls show Obama at 50 percent, then he is most likely now at 47 or 48 percent. The IBD/TIPP Tracking Poll -- the most accurate presidential poll in 2004 -- has Obama at 47 percent and McCain only 2.8 points behind at 44.2. If Obama is at that "iron ceiling" of 47 percent right now, it's unlikely that he will move beyond that in the next seven days.

McCain is probably trailing at the moment, but he is within 3 or 4 points of a plurality. He merely has to shave one or two points from Obama supporters who may still change their mind. Then it is likely that most the "undecideds" will break in McCain's favor. He will be the benefactor of most of the uncommitted vote. To have such a large block uncommitted this late in the story is unusual. So if Obama dips to 47 percent in the polls -- a statistical tie -- McCain could finish with an electoral college landslide.

The "x-factor" that Obama has to be concerned about is the three percent that according to almost all polling data will go toward Ralph Nader. These are points taken from Obama's column. The one percent that might go to Bob Barr will be taken mostly from McCain. It's possible that on November 5th, a statistical tie in the polls may yield the following results:

McCain .... 49 percent
Obama ..... 47 percent
Nader ........ 3 percent
Barr ........... 1 percent

That's a slim two point plurality, but it could be an electoral college landslide for McCain.

Saturday Night Live "Sarah Palin Rap"

one two three

my name is sarah palin you all know me
vice president nominee of the gop
gonna need your vote in the next election
can i get a ‘what what’ from the senior section
mccain got experience, mccain got style
but don’t let him freak you out when he tries to smile
cause that smile be creepy
but when i be vp
all the leaders in the world gonna finally meet me

how’s it go eskimo
(eskimos)
tell me what you know eskimo
(eskimos)
how you feel eskimo
(ice cold)
tell me tell me what you feel eskimo
(super cold)

i’m jeremiah wright cause tonight i’m the preacha
i got a bookish look and you’re all hot for teacha
todd lookin fine on his snow machine
so hot boy gonna need a go between
in wasilla we just chill baby chilla
but when i see oil lets drill baby drill

my country tis a thee
from my porch i can see
russia and such

all the mavericks in the house put your hands up
all the mavericks in the house put your hands up
all the plumbers in the house pull your pants up
all the plumbers in the house pull your pants up

when i say ‘obama’ you say ‘ayers’
obama (ayers) obama (ayers)
i built me a bridge - it ain’t goin’ nowhere.
(ohhh)

mccain, palin, gonna put the nail in the coffin
of the media elite
(she likes red meat)
shoot a mother-humpin moose, eight days of the week

[three gunshots]
now ya dead, now ya dead,
cause i’m an animal, and i’m bigger than you
holdin a shotgun walk in the pub
everybody party, we’re goin on a hunt
la la la la la la la la
[six gunshots]

yo i’m palin, i’m out!

Bottom line on the Sarah Palin "Troopergate" Report

The bottom line that no one in the liberal media will mention:

The Alaskan Legislative Council has no authority under law to sanction Palin for ethical misconduct. That's up to the state Personnel Board, which is running a parallel investigation that Palin is cooperating with.

The current collusion of socialist Democrats and the liberal media is an abomination. We live in an age in which candidates try to speak directly to the people, but two seconds later a thousand media pundits tell us what they said and what to believe. And they are obsessed with telling us what to believe 24/7.

The Troopergate Report is a good example of this. Here is an independent investigator hired by an Alaskan panel to INVESTIGATE. The report gives several facts -- and concludes with an OPINION based on a weird Clinton-esque interpretation of what words really mean. The investigator pronounces an opinion that Palin abused power not by her "actions" but by her "inactions."

Yet the media has pronounced her guilty of a crime comparable to the Nazi holocaust just on the basis of a non-binding OPINION of ONE investigator. Some of the Legislative Council have said they don't agree with the conclusion of report, but they released it because the facts contained in it are sound. The facts actually say that Palin committed no crime or ethical breach.

Yet what do the headlines read?

PALIN BROKE THE LAW -- PALIN FOUND GUILTY

False. Demonstrably false.

No legally binding judgment has occurred yet.

All of this is aimed at Palin because she is a conservative Christian -- no other reason. According to the liberal media, she's already lost the election for McCain. Yes, John McCain -- once the Democrats favorite Republican -- a moderate's moderate -- is now being portrayed as an extremist right wing hate-monger. If sanity prevails in the minds of most voters, McCain will win by a landslide. That's a big IF. But in the next three weeks McCain just needs to spell it out.

"I am a moderate with a conservative running mate. Obama/Biden are socialist liberals who are supported by terrorists."

That is true. Demonstrably true.

That being said, McCain never ceases to disappoint me. I am actually considering him and rooting for him, but aside from picking Palin, he's failing miserably. At this point, he is trying to out-socialize the socialists -- something that will bring long lasting judgment on our nation if he were allowed to put this into practice. If he can formulate an economic plan that makes sense, he'll beat Obama handily, because his opponent has nothing but air and contradictions. Obama can't keep all his promises and propose a plan to reform federal policies on the economy.

The Barack Obama - Fidel Castro Odinga axis

I've been getting emails on this all day. It should be the news story of the year if it is true.

Fidel Castro Odinga (left) is the eldest son of Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Amolo Odinga who claims to be a first cousin to Barack Hussein Obama. The late Barack Obama Sr. supposedly is the prime minister's maternal uncle. Although the exact realtionship has been disputed, Obama Sr. and Odinga are descended from the same Kenyan tribe. Prime Minister Odinga named his son "Fidel Castro" breaking with Kenyan tradition. He normally should have named him for the boy's grandfather, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga (the Kenyan "Fidel Castro"), a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary who led an unsuccessful coup to topple the government of Kenya on behalf of the Soviets in 1982. Also implicated in the coup attempt was his son Raila Odinga. It is not known whether Obama Sr., was involved in the coup.



Above: Obama campaigning for Odinga.

Barack Obama and Raila Odinga formed a political alliance in August 2006 when Senator Obama went to Kenya to campaign on his cousin's behalf in that country's presidential election. Raila lost the election when a secret pact was revealed with Kenya's Muslim Brotherhood to institute sharia law in all the country's courts in exchange for their support of his candidacy. Although not an observant Muslim, Odinga represents Moammar Kadhafi's oil interests in southern Africa.

Sharia law is essentially an interpretation of Islamic law in which the Muslim clerics guide the civil policy and courts of a Muslim nation. This is remarkable because Christianity (66 percent of the population), not Islam (10 percent), is the largest religion in Kenya. Furthermore, English common law, not the Koran, is the basis for Kenya's legal system.



Above: Post-election riots in Kenya instigated by Odinga. Jim Corsi claims he has proof that Obama knew about the memo from Odinga promoting the violence and still continued to support his cousin.

When Odinga lostthe presidential election, he instigated riots between tribes. Odinga's connection to Barack Obama was brought to light after Odinga's political rival offered him the prime minister's position as a consolation prize. Obama called and emailed Odinga from Delaware during the primary. At that time, Odinga signed a memo of understanding for calling for Sharia law in Kenya. After Odinga’s memo was released Obama kept supporting him.

Jim Corsi, author of the controversial book, Obama Nation, claims he has the emails from Obama’s senate office received in Kenya in which political strategy is discussed. Obama allegedly provided complete campaign strategies, finances and managers for Odinga. Corsi claims he has the emails and campaign memos showing that Obama knew about the memo from Odinga calling for tribal wars and race riots if they lost, and in fact supported it.

Corsi also claims the emails between Obama’s Senate office and Odinga show Obama advising Odinga on how to run his campaign so that Odinga could institute Sharia law in Kenya.

Corsi will be on Hannity and Colmes on Friday or Monday. He says he will show copies of the emails. If this is as explosive as it sounds, it may explain why Corsi was detained and deported from Kenya -- the present government no doubt wants to quell further riots and retaliations between tribes. There is no doubt that the Obama campaign can easily deny the content of the emails if they are falsified. If the emails originated from Obama's Senate office, then they are public record. They can further prove the emails did not originate from their campaign by cooperating with an investigation.

Stay tuned ...

Clearing the Media Smokescreens - Elections and Economics

I've written a few of articles in the past entitled, "Clearing the Media Smokescreens," which listed various myths propagated by the liberal media -- especially the abortion issue. In this one I want to focus on the presidential polls and the failure of government run mortgage lenders.

Propaganda is the art of influencing public opinion. Although the term has negative connotations, that is what media does. All media outlets are propagandists. Our job is to influence how you think and feel. The ones that claim to have "journalistic integrity" and to be "neutral" or "unbiased" are either lying to themselves or they are consciously deceiving the public. Without a doubt, the largest media outlets have an agenda to influence public opinion. Two of the biggest media smokescreens of recent times concern the current election coverage and the economic crisis.

Myth #1:-- Barack Obama has such a big lead that it is unlikely that John McCain can make up so much ground in only one month.

There are several things wrong with this statement. First, polls do not give us the answer as to who will win an election. Polls are only a snapshot in time. We see some polls this week with Obama up by as many as eight points nationally. We also hear from the pundits that the vice presidential debates did nothing to sway opinion toward McCain. The liberal media has done all but eulogize McCain's candidacy. Yet lo and behold, no less than four polls released today -- Hotline Tracking, Zogby, CBS News, and Democracy Corps -- had John McCain trailing by 2 or 3 points -- well within the fabled "margin of error."

Those who think John McCain cannot overcome a deficit in the last four weeks of the election campaign do not understand presidential elections. I spent a few hours studying the history of presidential polling from July to November going all the way back to 1960. A few things were immediately apparent.

The poll leader in a competitive election who "peaks early" more often than not loses the general election. The Democrat often begins with a big lead at the time of his convention, yet the Republican more often than not gains ground in the final weeks. Most likely this is due to the large number of "undecideds" and independents in rural areas who trend toward the GOP in the last few weeks.



Poll leads often criss-cross in the last few weeks. In 1980, Carter was ahead by three percentage points in October, but lost to Reagan in one of the greatest electoral college landslides in history.

In 2000, most pollsters had George W. Bush well ahead in the last week of polling, and yet Al Gore won the popular vote.

Then in 2004, John Kerry was ahead by 7 points in July and was tied or held a lead several times in September and October. A final Gallup poll on the eve of the election had Kerry up by a point, yet he lost handily to Bush.

The only poll that really matters is the one taken on election day. Even then, early returns can be deceptive. Remember 2000 when all the major news outlets announced that Al Gore had won Florida? I've been predicting that McCain could wind up with an electoral college landslide one month from now. But to hear the media outlets tell it, he'll be lucky to win narrowly.

Myth #2:-- The current eonomic crisis is due to deregulated capitalism and greed.

This one is so simple that even a child ought to understand the basic fallacies here. (I am reminded of Groucho Marx's ageless joke: "Someone run out and find me a four-year-old child, I can't make head or tail out of it!") The reason for the confusion is the intentional dissonance offered up by the media. We hear the mantra of "deregulation" and "capitalism" repeated endlessly by the pundits. Maybe it is due to their neo-Marxist worldview, or worse, maybe they are manipulating the data to bolster their flawed presupposition that capitalism is evil, but this explanation doesn't fly when we look at some basic facts.

Unregulated capitalism did not cause Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to fail. These are government founded institutions who bought up billions of dollars of low interest loans in order to "cook the books" so they could qualify to give out even more loans. In other words, unbridled capitalism is not the practice of government programs lending money created out of thin air to unqualified individuals. This sounds more like failed socialism to me. Yes, greed was involved, but it was corruption fostered by big government, not the free market.

The ridiculous inflation of the past few years of housing and oil prices was not driven by real dollar worth, but by speculation. When lenders and mortgage brokers discovered they could get almost anyone into a house they could not really afford, money started flowing like water. It wasn't only the demand that drove prices through the roof, but the creation of fiat money that flooded into the real estate economic system. Most of what was leant was not even real money, but credit given by the federal reserve to lending institutions, who in turn doled out billions of invisible credit dollars to people who could not afford to repay their mortgages.

The inflation at the gas pump was likewise driven by speculation. It was not due to the typical law of supply and demand, but due to the fact that people once again began to pull money from loans falsely bouyed by an insane housing market in order to invest in the stock market. Oil futures were the financial bubble this time around. Now with the collapse of readily-available hyper-inflated credit, oil prices are plummeting. We may even see gas at its real cost by the end of the year, which is about $2.50 a gallon.

When that happens, people will scratch their heads and wonder why with such deflation of prices that a government bailout was needed.

And this is the myth I'll cover next:

Myth #3:-- A trillion dollar taxpayer bailout is needed to save America from another Great Depression.

"You can't push your beliefs about abortion on someone else!"

The following is a comment on one of my YouTube Vlogs on the pro-life issue and my response.

This shows you how confused is our postmodernist generation of the 21st century. When someone says, " I can't push my beliefs on someone else," they are actually stating a belief.

Not pushing your beliefs on someone is pushing your beliefs.

As Nietzsche (who was right sometimes) said: "Not to decide is to decide."

Or as Cornelius Van Til argued, there is no such thing as a statement of belief that contains moral neutrality.

_________________

missmelpol: I don't believe in having an abortion, but that is MY BELIEF. I can't push my beliefs on someone else. I thought that was why we had a freedom of religion or speech and all that good stuff.


jcr4runner: The question is: "Why do you think abortion is wrong?" Is it because:

1. You don't like abortion?

- or -

2. Abortion is murder?

If it is simple a question of likes and dislikes, then no you don't have the right to enforce a mere opinion. But if abortion is murder, it is a moral law that transcends personal opinion. It can't be "murder" for one person and "not murder" for another depending on how one feels at the moment.

Sarah Palin Takes on Big Oil: A Book Preview

There is a new book out on Sarah Palin describing factually how she took on the oil industry in Alaska. Since it's not tainted with sensationalist bias, it probably won't be a best-seller.

I've read only the excerpt online. I have no idea if it is pro-Sarah or anti-Sarah from what I read. It just appears that the author wrote the bulk of the material prior to the vice presidential nomination and didn't have an agenda.

Even the "God's Will" quote often lampooned by liberal journalists is put in proper context. That is, she said it would have to be nothing short of God's will to unite all the warring and corrupt factions in Alaska in order for a pipeline to be built. And then she asked students in her former church to pray for God's will to be done.

That was it!

---

Some snippets from the book:

“Let me help you out if you’re looking for skeletons in my closet. I got a D in a macro-econ course 24 years ago in college (and) hollered at the wrong kid this morning for not taking out the garbage.”

— Sarah Palin, The Associated Press, August 2006, during Alaska gubernatorial campaign

---

“With Frank Murkowski and Ben Stevens in charge, it’s like the Night of the Living Dead. We’re being guided by two people whose political careers are over.”

— Sen. Hollis French, D-Anchorage, Petroleum News, Aug. 27, 2006, after incumbent Gov. Frank Murkowski lost to Sarah Palin in the Republican primary, and after Alaska Senate President Ben Stevens’ office was searched by the FBI as part of an ongoing investigation into political corruption in Alaska.

---

“In my personal belief, we have gone from being in front of the curve to being in back of the curve…”

— Joe Marushack, vice president of gas development for ConocoPhillips Alaska, told the Alaska Legislature’s Senate Resources Committee early in February 2007, after Sarah Palin became governor and scrapped the fiscal contract ConocoPhillips, BP and ExxonMobil had negotiated with the previous governor.

---

“I think God’s will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that.”

— Sarah Palin, on the multi-billion dollar gas pipeline project she wanted built from the North Slope to markets in and outside of Alaska, speaking to students at the Wasilla Assembly of God Church, June 2008

---

“How does Gov. Palin manage it all? The kids, family, responsibilities as governor?”

– Kay Cashman

---

“She doesn’t do anything else. It’s all kids and work. … Her idea of a big night out is a barbecue in her backyard.”

— Judy Patrick, photographer and close friend to Palin

---

“... Your leadership and that of your administration has been outstanding and your integrity and transparent style are a breath of fresh air in what has proven to be a rather shady and smoke-filled past in regard to energy issues in Alaska.”

— David Sokol, chairman and CEO of MidAmerican Holdings Co. (a Warren Buffet company), to Gov. Sarah Palin, related to her work on a pipeline to carry North Slope gas to market.

Judy Patrick and Sarah Palin baking cookies.
COURTESY JUDY PATRICK

Review by Trish Harren:

For all the conversation about Sarah Palin, there are very few factual references materials regarding who this woman is and what she has actually done as a leader. There is a new book set to hit the shelves by mid October that will finally end that void. The book is being published by Petroleum News Alaska and is call 'Sarah takes on Big Oil'

This book is the story of Gov. Sarah Palin's battle with Alaska's 'Big3' oil companies, as told by the state's top oil and gas writers Kay Cashman and Kristen Nelson. These woman are uniquely qualified to tell the story of Palin and her dealings with the oil industry. Cashman is the publisher and executive editor of Petroleum News, an independent news-driven weekly newspaper. Nelson, editor-in-chief of Petroleum News, has maintained a long-time eye on Alaska government and its interactions with the state's most lucrative industry.

Cashman and Nelson deliver a three-dimensional portrait of the Palin administration and the unusual circumstances that have bracketed her leadership. The authors bring a perspective based on knowledge rarely available to general news reporters. As a result, "Sarah takes on Big Oil" is a good read, full of lively personalities and verifiable facts.

My mom is the co-author and while this book lacks the entertainment of SNL, it will give you some facts and insight into a woman who has us all asking, regardless of political persuasion: Who is Sarah Palin?

To find out more visit:

http://www.sarahtakesonbigoil.com

Barack Obama - "Punished with a baby!"

This is an examination of Barack Obama's infamous quote in which he said that if his daughters were to get pregnant by "mistake" that he didn't want them "punished with a baby!" Obama thinks some babies are "punishments" for "mistakes." What a contrast to Sarah Palin who accepted her daughter's baby and her own Downes Syndrome baby with open loving arms.