Editorial:  It has been our fear of big brother that has fueled the fright of a government that becomes all-inclusive in our lives.  George Orwell, in his book, 1984, set the stage for what some have since coined the “big brother,” or “Orwellian,” fear that has set the groundwork for the subtle way in which our minds and thoughts have been taken over.

Over the past fifty or so years it has been a government held by a one party system that Orwell warned us about that we expected to tear away our rights and leave us destitute for both a true history and our civil liberties.  Instead, the very institution to which we have depended on to guard our rights has been the very institution that has chiseled away at those very rights.

I am speaking of the mass media, especially news conglomerates both printed and broadcast plus the entertainment industry.

Ironically it has been with little fanfare that we have caved into the sublime stroking of our subconscious, that like herded animals we have accepted the prodding.  I remember a friend of my son who owned a Border Collie, a herding dog used around sheep.  The friend invited my son over for a party at his home and as the guest mingled together the dog would gently nudge the guest until he had every one of them cornered in one room.

The dog knew exactly what he was doing, the guest, however had no idea what had happened even after they were in the room for a considerable amount of time. Only a couple of people including my son realized what the dog had done. He was extremely subtle about how he corralled them, never jumping on them, just a gentle nudge in the direction he wanted someone to go.  We have been nudged along over the past few years until we have reached a point in which many of us cannot make a decision without facing the Mecca of Mass Media and paying homage.

Whittled away over the years has been our ability to decide what is good and what is bad or even better, what we need.  It is no longer in vogue to disagree with the status quos. Instead we are chastised if we find ourselves on the wrong side of an issue.

For most of my life it was contemplated that it would be a right wing ideology that would lead to Big Brother. And that “free,” thinking would be a punishable crime.  In my opinion it has been exactly the opposite that has sent us to this point in our American history.

It has been the Left or Liberal political establishment that has pointed us in this direction.

A week before the presidential election and based on what is in the major media print and the national broadcast organizations our president has already been elected.
No matter what the voters may decide, the national press has picked our next president, Barack Obama.  If they have, then we will see some more chipping away of our now growing limited amount of rights in the near future.

And I want you to understand something. I am not saying presidential candidate Obama could not be elected in his own right. At issue is the now inflated power of the press (mass media) to control our voting habits and especially our decisions.  With this added power will come an expansion of power into our lives like we have never seen before.

By controlling the politics of this country, you control the country and especially the future direction in which you want this country to head.  It is scary, especially when you hear well-known, Hollywood stars make comments that it is the kiss-of-death, job wise, if those in charge find out you may have some conservative ideals.

Can it be stopped, to be honest, I really am not sure if it can be at this point.  The only hope I think is that enough people realize that it is a real threat and take a stand.  I believe everyone has a right to their opinion and most importantly, they should have a right to express that opinion without fear of retaliation.

As a note of interest about my opinion, take a few minutes to read up on the last 18 months worth of media mergers that have taken place.  Most states have a press association and most of those will have archived material on who now belongs to whom. It will be give you a real shock and add to my case about what we are experiencing.  At the current rate of buy outs, we’ll be down to a half dozen news sources nationwide in the next ten years.

If that doesn’t wake you up, then maybe it is too late.

---

About the author:Bryon Spires is the editor of the Havana Herald of Quincy, Florida and contributes news and editorial for Tulsa Today.  Spires may be reached by e-mail to windingroads@netzero.com.

Analysis: Presidential candidate Barack Obama uttered the words that finally placed his true perspective in public.  He said, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”  That is what is called “redistribution of wealth” a foundation of socialism.  Note that the only difference between socialism and communism is that communists put military on the streets where socialists indoctrinate your children.  Thus, the truth of Obama’s much heralded “change” is to end America’s representative form of government in favor of Big Mamma government – she can care for us all.

This type of change is something socialists have been working to accomplish for generations.  They have said so in our offices and homes.  They are protected within American academia.  They dominate traditional media and hold overwhelming influence with Hollywood.  They hate America because history proves traditional American values are successful whereas every socialist system has failed or is failing.

Obama is buying the election in part with what is identified as $426.9 million from small donors whose names Obama will not disclose (click here for more).  An analyst for the Federal Election Commission is urging a full investigation including “millions of dollars of illegal foreign donations” (click here for more).

The McCain campaign has made its complete donor database available online; the Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).

Obama’s oft touted experience as a community organizer is from his work with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).  He was their lawyer and a trainer.  Obama hired them to work for his campaign and they are under felony investigations in more than a dozen states for illegal voter registrations.  This qualifies as organized crime and betrays the entire election system and the sanctity of the election process.  It should fall within the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act.

Oklahoma Congressman Tom Cole recently wrote, “In Nevada it has been revealed that ACORN hired inmates in the state penitentiary to register new voters. They registered the Dallas Cowboys to vote in Nevada. Another Nevada canvasser was caught filling out voter registration forms using names and addresses copied out of the telephone book. Needless to say, this scandal is not confined to Nevada. Election officials in Ohio, Missouri, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and New Mexico have all uncovered similar instances of fraud. A state prosecutor in Washington State put it very well when he described the activities of ACORN as ‘an act of vandalism against our voter rolls.’

“Voting in free and fair elections is the very foundation of our system of self governance. Who can ever forget the remarkable election of 2000 when the candidate who actually received fewer popular votes won the election? This was after an extended recount – in the state [where] his bother served as Governor – and a 5-4 Supreme Court decision. Yet at no time did we see tanks rolling through the streets. There was no martial law. Americans tuned into the Tonight Show every night to see Jay Leno cracking jokes about hanging chads. This was possible because Americans had faith that despite the problems we had in that election, the process was fundamentally honest and fair. Organizations like ACORN undermine that trust and as a result they undermine the very political stability of the United States,” Congressman Cole added.

Further, Barack Obama’s first campaign “meet and greet” was held in the home of admitted terrorist William Ayers.  Ayers sought to overthrow the American government by force (the communist approach) which failed.  Then, with his wife and fellow terrorist, Bernardine Dohrn, began the more subtle “indoctrinate the children” effort that continues today.

Every political candidate at every level of political service is well aware of the political background and influence of people who host “meet and greets.”  Those functions raise money for political campaigns.  An analysis of the host’s influence is an important part of the decision to hold the event – especially when launching the first of such gatherings.  That Obama would deny such careful consideration of his function at the Ayers home is an obvious lie, but not the first old friend he has thrown under the high-speed advance of his ambitions.

Obama’s decades of association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago also becomes highly relevant in the socialist context.  Wright hates America, promotes Black superiority (rather than equality) and preaches an unchristian “revolution theology” of marginal intellectual and no theological accuracy.  Click here for outrageous comments from Wright and click here for his defense of those comments at the National Press Club.

At the National Press Club one questioner asked Wright, “Do Christians and Muslims both go to heaven?”  Wright answered, “All God’s children go to heaven.”  That position is not Christian or Muslim.  Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6) and the first of the primary ritual requirements of Islam (arkan ad-din) demands Muslims sincerely utter the creed, “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger” (shahada).

Preaching both are equal is Universalism or Unitarian, but it is not Christian or Muslim.  Sadly, national traditional media missed that or have not gathered the brass to ask Obama the same question asked his preacher; the man that married Obama, baptized his children, and served as mentor for multiple decades or until Wright became a political liability.

Maybe Obama is just using whatever religion is handy whenever and however long as it is helpful to his career.  Most socialists despise faith and the faithful of any religion and blame both for evil in the world – they typically worship government to achive the “Socialist Utopia.”  Of course they fail to recognize that the most deadly governments and leaders have been atheists.

While conservatives can rightly question Republicans who voted to allow the recent Federal financial bailout as tilting socialist – that was a temporary emergency funding effort to stabilize credit availability.  The root cause of that disaster is government policy which pushed lenders since 1995 to provide “Subprime” loans to people who could not and should not have qualified otherwise.  Add predator lending with greedy fraud and presto – welcome to a financial crisis.  Government regulation by Congress failed.

Both parties are responsible to some degree, but Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lived the good life under government regulation because the Democrat Party wanted it that way.  Democrats – including Barrack Obama – and their campaign contributors profited.  Republicans complained – especially that historically rebellious reformer Senator John McCain. (Click here for “Fed and fraud fails financials.”)

Is the recent financial crisis solely America’s fault?  Of course not, we have been told for years that we now live in a “global economy.”  Is it possible that global financiers like convicted criminal George Soros (Insider Trading: France 2002) a socialist, who is funding moveon.org and other extreme politically-manipulative groups are moving money for a purpose?  Is it possible that foreign governments or terrorists are manipulating the financial markets to promote this crisis helpful to the candidate closest to their philosophy and one much more willing to “talk without preconditions?”

Soros was an early fan of Obama and for good reason.  Barack (using his legal middle name is racist) Obama is the most socialist US Senator in history.  Why has Obama never released his birth certificate?  William Owens writes, “Barack Hussein Obama is half-white from his mother’s side, but 43.75% Arab from his father’s side (his father was 87.5% Arab and 12.5% African Negro). Barack (which in Arabic means “blessed”) is only 6.25% African Negro. Perhaps this is why the Obama campaign refuses to release his birth certificate.” (click here for more).

In “Obama fails the first questions” published May 12, I wrote, “No one should ever want anyone to come from nowhere to become President of the United States of America.  Not from the Left.  Not from the right.  Vetting a candidate is the purpose of this public spectacle and very important as once elected; it takes four years to get them out of office.”

American should ask questions and be critical of “glittering generalities” within the answers, but when Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher walked outside his home in the Springfield Township to ask about tax proposals, Obama said, “It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success, too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Punishing success is exactly what Obama will do.  Raising taxes during troubled economic times is exactly what Obama will do without restraint with a “super majority” of Democrats in Congress which is guaranteed to drive the economy into a depression as history proves.  President Herbert Hoover tried to combat the Great Depression with higher taxes and volunteer efforts and government action, none of which produced economic recovery during his term.

 

Obama says he will give a tax break to 95 percent of Americans, but 40 percent of Americans don’t pay taxes.  That means those people will be getting direct payments from the government – that is called welfare, the dole, or, in short, socialism.

Government doesn’t make money.  Individuals make money.  Government only has the money it takes from people by force of law – seizures by physical force if necessary.  If we cannot keep what we earn from our labors – why labor in the first place?  Didn’t the Soviet Union prove that point?

As Dr. Eugene Narrett, PhD wrote, “As it grows more unjust, a culture lives by the official lies it tells itself and teaches or imposes on its people that make its injustice look like ‘equity,’ its ferocity, compassion, that terms its diminishing batch of permitted opinions, ‘diversity;’ its oppressive and pitiless prejudices, ‘tolerance,’ and so on. The song of a cynical cult of power is a lullaby of lies.”

Wurzelbacher nailed it – Obama’s most significant statement.  Funny, but rather than celebrate or even admit Joe found what traditional media had failed to discover of the candidate’s true nature, the media went on attack against him – a regular “Joe.”  What a circus of fools with “thrill going up [their] leg” as the clown Chris Matthews said.
Thanks Joe, Americans are smarter now – assuming enough of them are awake.

 

---

About the author:David Arnett began his career in professional journalism in 1985 and has published Tulsa Today since 1996 – before Al Gore invented the Internet.  He has won two national awards as a First Amendment Publisher.  Arnett is an idea guy, a Constitutional Republican, a Conservative Media Critic and a proud pain in the political derriere of the disingenuous.

This analysis may be reproduced without charge with proper attribution and links to the original source.  Arnett is available for interview by recognized media.

Many assume that the presidential debates help the public discern where each candidate stands on the issues.  If only this were true.  It is a most unfortunate irony that, much of the time, these made-for-TV sparring matches accomplish little more than to enable a candidate to pull yet another layer of wool over the eyes of John Q. Public.  A case-in-point from last Friday’s showdown is Barack Obama’s professed honor and concern for our men and women in the military.  Me thinks he doth profess too much.

“[W]e honor all the service that [our troops have] provided.  Our troops have performed brilliantly,” Obama told the nation on Friday night.  “The question is for the next president, are we making good judgments about how to keep America safe precisely because sending our military into battle is such an enormous step.”

Obama may claim to care deeply about the welfare of our troops, and say that the decision over whether or not to send our servicemen and women into combat is one that will weigh heavy on his mind, but unfortunately these are just words and platitudes.  The real Barack Obama, as his record shows, thinks so little of our men and women in the military that he would rather see their votes suppressed than counted.  In fact, he would rather secure the voting rights of convicted felons than those of our troops serving overseas.

Specifically, Senator Obama is the proud cosponsor of the deceptively labeled “Count Every Vote Act,” a bill introduced by Senator Hillary Clinton of New York.  This legislation is designed to override existing state laws and extend voting rights to over five million convicted felons who have finished serving their sentences. 

In addition, the bill would require all 50 state governments to spend their taxpayers’ dollars notifying these convicted felons of their right to vote.  This is little more than a publicly funded “get out the vote” drive for jailbirds.  Of course, it’s little wonder why Obama and his fellow hard-left partisans in the Senate want this bill. 

As economist and best-selling author Dr. John Lott reminds us, “virtually all felons are Democrats.”  According to Lott, from 1972 to 1996, 80 percent of felons would have voted Democrat, 93 percent would have voted for Clinton in 1996, and felons in Washington State “voted exclusively for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry” in 2004.

Not surprisingly, a clear majority of American voters oppose Clinton felon-voting bill that Obama supports.  According to a Zogby America poll, 54 percent of likely voters oppose the bill, while only 36 percent favor it (the remaining 10 percent are undecided).

While Obama is busy fighting to get more felons in the voting booths, he refuses to cosponsor the “Military Voting Protection Act of 2008,” which is also currently pending in the U.S. Senate. This bill was introduced based on congressional findings that “the ability of the members of the armed forces to vote while serving overseas has been hampered by numerous factors, including inadequate processes for ensuring their timely receipt of absentee ballots, delivery methods that are typically slow and antiquated, and a myriad of voting procedures that are often confusing.”

In addition, Congress found that members of our armed forces, as well as other U.S. citizens overseas, requested nearly one million absentee ballots in 2006, but less than one-third of these ballots were received by local election officials.  Clearly this is a problem and needs solving.  But not in Obama’s America.

In Obama’s America, states would lose their ability to govern and all felons would have their voting “rights” restored and protected.  States would also be forced to spend scarce taxpayer dollars driving felons to the polls.  At the same time, America’s bravest who are serving overseas would continue to have their voices suppressed, and many would continue to be denied an opportunity to help decide who their commander-in-chief will be.

Friday night showed once again that Obama is certainly capable of talking a good game, but as always, the devil is in the details – and the details hardly reflect Obama’s carefully crafted sound bites. 

It is not a little ironic that a man vying to be commander-in-chief would work to secure the voting “rights” of convicted felons, but turn a blind-eye to the voting rights of the servicemen who might one day be under his command.

---

About the author:
Brad O’Leary is the author of “The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama’s War on American Values.”  To learn more about the book, and Obama’s true positions on the issues, go to http://www.barackobamatest.com/

Media Analysis:  For a non-political talk show host Oprah Winfrey is very hot-iron political.  After launching Barack Hussein Obama on the national stage and refusing to allow the first Republican woman vice president nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, an opportunity to even appear on her show, Winfrey (the big O of magazine fame) is supporting sleazy political trickster Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in his attacks on Oklahoma’s Senator Dr. Tom Coburn.

 According to The Hill, Reid’s office has sent word to Senate Democrats that it would like to bring the so-called Coburn omnibus bill to the floor soon, setting up a rematch on the massive special interest earmarking pork feast Conservative Coburn and most coherent taxpayers oppose.

Dr. Coburn won the last round, but Winfrey asked viewers Monday to call and write the Senate to demand their support for the legislation, sponsored by Democrat vice presidential nominee Joe Biden (Del.).  Thus ends the Obama Crusade’s emotional pleas and promises of post-partisan-civility in his campaign.  No change here.

Winfrey has squared off against Dr. Coburn, who has blocked S. 1738, the Combating Child Exploitation Act.  Coburn initially blocked it because it would have authorized nearly a billion dollars over eight years to fund a law enforcement crackdown on child exploitation. Coburn has insisted that new government programs be offset with spending cuts, a budget-saving device Biden’s bill lacked.

Coburn now wants Biden’s revised proposal paired with Republican legislation that would give law enforcement greater access to the online records of suspected sexual predators.

In a press release response to the Winfrey show Coburn said, ““Those who watched Oprah’s broadcast today deserve to know that Senate leaders have repeatedly objected to passing critical child protection legislation for partisan, political purposes. Congress has a nine percent approval rating because politicians in Washington refuse to set common sense priorities, refuse to make rational budget decisions, and refuse to work across the aisle when that requires sharing credit with the other party during election season. Victims of these horrible crimes don’t care whether Democrats or Republicans get the credit for protecting children.

“Oprah’s viewers deserve to know that Senate leaders have twice objected to passage of the bill she supports. Senate leaders have insisted that S. 1738, authored by Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) and endorsed by Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), only pass if it is included in a package of unrelated bills that addresses less vital concerns such as the interstate commerce of non-human primates. When I proposed de-linking the causes of protecting children and chimpanzees, Senate leaders objected,” Dr. Coburn said.

“Because of these objections, I introduced S. 3344, a comprehensive child exploitation bill that pairs S. 1738 with the Securing Adolescents from Exploitation-Online (SAFE) Act of 2007, a measure strongly supported by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children which passed the House by a margin of 409-2. The Democrat leadership objected, however, apparently because they didn’t want to give the SAFE Act’s Senate author, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), credit for passing a complimentary bill,” Dr. Coburn added.

To read more of The Hill story, click here.

To reach Oprah Winfrey online, click here.
To read more of Dr. Coburn’s release, click here.
To read a previous story by this writer on Dr. Coburn’s mission in government service, click here.
To find satisfaction and gain peace with condescending elitist media and socialist government programs … seek a frontal lobotomy.

---

About the author: David Arnett began his career in professional journalism in 1985 and has published Tulsa Today since 1996 – before Al Gore invented the Internet.  He has won two national awards as a First Amendment Publisher.  Arnett is an idea guy, a Constitutional Republican, a Conservative Media Critic and a proud pain in the political derriere of the disingenuous. 

This analysis may be reproduced without charge with proper attribution and links to the original source.  Arnett is available for interview by recognized media.

Analysis:  So what did Gov. Sarah Palin really say during the interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson?  The transcript follows with sections edited out by ABC New appearing in bold.  The first edit (removal of her comments) shows Gov. Palin responding about a meeting with foreign leaders. 

The clear effort by ABC to marginalize her is not journalism.  This deliberate destructive work is something only an organization “in the tank” for the other side of a public debate would broadcast.  Special thanks to radio host Mark Levin and NewsBuster for keeping this in the national spotlight.

GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say “I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?”

PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready. I’m ready.

GIBSON: And you didn’t say to yourself, “Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I — will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?”

PALIN: I didn’t hesitate, no.

GIBSON: Didn’t that take some hubris?

PALIN: I — I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink.

So I didn’t blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.

GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?

PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it’s about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that’s with the energy independence that I’ve been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

GIBSON: I know. I’m just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.

PALIN: It is, but I want you to not lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security. It’s that important. It’s that significant.

GIBSON: Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?

PALIN: Canada, Mexico, and then, yes, that trip, that was the trip of a lifetime to visit our troops in Kuwait and stop and visit our injured soldiers in Germany. That was the trip of a lifetime and it changed my life.

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.

GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.

PALIN: Sure.

GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.

The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.
And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.
Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but…

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help. But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.
We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.
His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.

GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right?

PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.

GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program.

PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.

GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don’t think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn’t second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: I don’t think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?

PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme and they are violent and they do not believe in American ideals, and they attacked us and now we are at a point here seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post-9/11 world, where we’re able to commit to never again. They see that the only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have instilled in us, because we’re a democratic, we are a free, and we are a free-thinking society.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.
I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we’re going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.

GIBSON: But, Governor, I’m asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.

But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.

That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.
Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”

PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That, in my world view, is a grand — the grand plan.

GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?

PALIN: I don’t know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision he has made, what he decided to do and serving for the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not choosing a real easy path where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer.