You are the Liar Stevey.

Report comment to moderator

Well Joe, this link says nothing about Obama taking money from Hamas, which you accused him of. I don’t see how it matters what somebody external says about him, since (1) Obama has no control over and (2) Hamas can’t vote in U.S. elections.

But you claim he actually accepted money from Hamas. Got any evidence of that? Or is this, like Drill’s Ayers obsession, another case of sleazy innuendo masquerading as evidence?

Another liar for Jesus? Or do you have more than you’ve shown so far?

Report comment to moderator

“When made aware of the security concerns regarding a state trooper, I instructed the First Gentleman to contact the commissioner of Public Safety,” Cockrell said. “It is standard protocol to ask every governor about any threats they perceive or have realized. I will not hesitate to set the record straight in answering these false allegations by former Commissioner Monegan.”

Cockrell, who joined the Alaska State Troopers in 1963, started with the Office of the Governor in 1983, under Governor Bill Sheffield. He is now serving his sixth governor.

Report comment to moderator

For more than a week, Monegan has also falsely accused the Governor of having only four in-person meetings with him over the last 17 months. In fact, a quick review of state records proves more than two-dozen meetings, including one-on-one meetings and calls, Cabinet meetings and visits to the Governor’s home. This does not include meetings with the Chief of Staff and Special Assistants, community events and staff functions. Notably, the Governor and the former Commissioner made several trips to remote areas of the state in an effort to address public safety issues in rural Alaska. In fact, there were three separate trips that the Governor and former commissioner Monegan took together including Bethel, Dillingham and twice to New Stuyahok. During those trips, the Governor and Monegan were seated together and spent their days together tackling rural issues. Several commissioners and cabinet members have also countered Monegan’s claims.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

It is known that there were disagreements on the budget and other issues between Monegan and the Palin administration. So it’s not like there were no other issues besides Wooten that could have gotten Monegan fired. Also, Monegan was not simply left out in the cold, but he was offered a position as head of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, where he could have focused more effectively and full-time on alcohol issues. He refused it.

Now, I don’t think that the announcement was handled that well (it was too vague as to reasons for the firing). The opening for spin or political attack was there, and Andrew Halcro took it. A political opponent of Palin, he met with Wooten for over three hours, nearly a week after Monegan’s firing, and then posted an article on his blog raising allegations that Monegan was fired for refusing to fire Wooten. This was the beginning of these allegations. It raises questions as to the motivations behind them.

Some questions:
-If Palin had wanted to pressure someone to fire Wooten, why did she need to pressure Monegan? After all, if she was going to “abuse” her power by pressuring someone, why not exert that pressure on Wooten’s immediate superior, Col. Julia Grimes, the head of the State Troopers?

-The time gap. Why would it take 1 1/2 years to fire Monegan because of Wooten?

-If getting Wooten fired was her quest, why did she not take such steps in 2005, instead of specifically stating under deposition that she was keeping silent so as not to put his job at risk?

Report comment to moderator

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020315.php

Report comment to moderator

The state Department of Law “consulted with the seven state employees and advised them of their options,” a statement from Colberg’s office said.

“Despite my initial concerns about the subpoenas, we respect the court’s decision to defer to the Legislature,” Colberg said. “We are working with Senator Hollis French to arrange for the testimony of the seven state employee plaintiffs.”

Report comment to moderator

Further, he sat for twenty years as a disciple of a man who repeatedly spewed hatred and anti-American statements that resounded with and encouraged even the most base cowardly terrorist who ever chopped off the head of a tied-up woman or blew up a bus filled with school children. And Obama called that man spiritual mentor and dear friend.

Just because you want to enslave yourself to the lies and coverups of a decaying culture in an evil era – and support a candidate who has no respect for human life – or the Republic or its people – should not require that you demand for others to be so enslaved as well.

Or maybe that IS the condition for such a slavery, on second thought.

Report comment to moderator

Actually, it may be fair to call McCain “anti-free speech” (remember McCain-Feingold).

And I do think Obama has been too soft on terrorism and I think his voting record indicates that. But I will agree that it is over the top to call Obama “pro terrorist.” What Obama is is “pro-getting-elected.” Beyond that, I doubt he really believes much of anything substantive or with clear conviction.

Report comment to moderator