Last week, a Democratic friend sent me the list of the books that Sarah Palin allegedly sought to remove from the Wasilla Public Library when she took office as Mayor of that Alaska city.  That list included two Harry Potter books, both published after her alleged inquiry.
At the time, Palin “called her inquiries rhetorical and simply part of a policy discussion with a department head ‘about understanding and following administration agendas’.” When asked if any books were banned:
June Pinell-Stephens, chairwoman of the Alaska Library Association’s Intellectual Freedom Committee since 1984, checked her files Wednesday and came up empty-handed.
So, while some lefty bloggers and their followers in the MSM are crying censorship, conservative bloggers and responsible journalists are investigating the story. Just like Ms. Pinell-Stephens, they’re coming up empty-handed.
Bob Owens uncovered the “official list of every book ever banned in Wasilla, AK” from the official source. The only book that was even close to banned was in 1986 (ten years before Palin took office). Todd Strasser’s Angel Dust Blues was moved to the newly-created Young Adult Section (Via Instapundit).
So, here we’ve got the MSM obsessing over an 12-year-old issue which doesn’t seem to have occupied much of the then-Mayor’s time. An issue which so concerned her that an overzealous media can find no evidence that she ever pursued the matter after her initial inquiries.
Palin would go on to serve as Mayor for another six years without ever again inquiring about removing books. As Ben Boychuk writes:
The worst one could infer is that Palin raised the censorship issue in an ill-advised effort to appease some constituents, met resistance and let the matter drop to pursue more mundane city business. Emmons and Palin’s political enemies are free to speculate and impugn motives all they want. But results matter. And the bottom line is, Palin didn’t ban anything. Not in 1996. Not in 1999 after the librarian resigned. Not in 2006 when she ran for governor.
I gotta admit. It was a dumb thing to try to remove books (even she even tried to do so–it seems she merely inquired about removing them). But, the record shows this was little more than a rookie mistake, made in the days right after her first election to executive office. Â
If this were a defining issue for her (as some on the lefty blogs seem to think), then how come she didn’t raise it again after she had established herself in local and then state politics?
The last time Sarah Palin inquired about banning books, Barack Obama had been associating with William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, for at least a year. Â Indeed, that association began before Palin’s mayoral election and continued at least through 1999 (three years after Palin’s last inquiry). Obama is the Democratic presidential nominee. Palin is the Republican vice presidential nominee.
And the MSM seems more interested a limited inquiry by Palin over a period of — at most — three months than in an ongoing relationship with Obama over a period of — at least — four years.
I am also amazed at the amount of “vetting” the MSM claims they need to do with Sarah Palin even to this bogus book banning claim, while they refuse to address some real questions about Obama’s life journey into politics and the people and philosophies he affiliated himself with or believed in. I say we have a different kind of debate….let’s have a contest and see who can field dress a turkey faster…Palin or Obama. My money is on Palin. I know it is silly, but this is all getting either silly or disgusting…just take a look at the pictures Jill Greenberg has out there of John McCain. What kind of sick mind thinks of these things??? (www.michellemalkin.com)
Very impressive blog GayPatriot! I think it is amazing that the liberal media has so wrongly attacked Palin in so many ways and willing to wrongfully propagate slanderous lies about her.
I post around on different blogs, conservative and liberal. Another blog I post a lot on is conservativeally.today.com
Now that I have found yours I will be reading and commenting on yours as well.
I’m sure if you gave them a chance, Liberals would try to censor Ann Coulter books 🙂 They already tried to silence her columns several times.
The worst rumors the left has cooked up about Sarah Palin still aren’t as damning as the known facts about Barack Obama.
I’ll see your “troopergate,” and raise you “threatened to use the Justice Department to intimidate those who criticize The Obama.”
I’ll see your “was sympathetic to the AIP” and raise you “had close relationships with terrorists who bombed the Capitol, the Pentagon, and advocated the violent overthrow of the USA.”
I’ll see your “supported Pat Buchanan” and raise you a supported Jeremiah Wright, Father Pfleger, and Louis Farakkhan.
I’ll see your “didn’t really kill the bridge to nowhere” and raise you a “kickbacks to his wife’s hospital and ACORN, as well three quarters of a billion in other earmarks.”
I’ll see your “wanted to ban library books,” and raise you a “voted and argued for letting babies die after being born alive.”
I’ll see your “let her teenage daughter get pregnant,” and raise you one “he lets his half brother live in a shack.”
I’ll see your “cut spending on special needs children (she didn’t, BTW)” and raised you a “funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to felon Tony Rezko to house poor people in slum conditions and got himself a swell house out of the deal.”
You really, really don’t want to play this game.
Dan, I don’t quite think it’s a rookie mistake. It looks like it had more to do with small-town “politicing,” with multiple takes on the reasons and intents behind it.Politifact rates it a half-truth, that some untoward inquiries were made. One of the residents of the Wasalia area, Pastor Ed Kalins who wrote a positive book about gay people that caused a lot of hue and cry in the area, says that Palin was acting to ban his book:
He said why, she said why, my best friend’s uncle’s dog catcher said why. To label Palin a censor is to exaggerate — just as it is to label Obama as an associate of Ayers in any pejorative sense of the word. It was wrong to inquire about censoring books. It was definitely wrong to blow up a statue. Obama did neither of those things.
Dan, I don’t quite think it’s a rookie mistake. It looks like it had more to do with small-town “politicing,” with multiple takes on the reasons and intents behind it.Politifact rates it a half-truth, that some untoward inquiries were made. One of the residents of the Wasalia area, Pastor Ed Kalins who wrote a positive book about gay people that caused a lot of hue and cry in the area, says that Palin was acting to ban his book:
He said why, she said why, my best friend’s uncle’s dog catcher said why. To label Palin a censor is to exaggerate — just as it is to label Obama as an associate of Ayers in any pejorative sense of the word. It was wrong to inquire about censoring books. It was definitely wrong to blow up a statue. Obama did neither of those things.
Its sad that I now know more from the media about Palin in three weeks than in 18 months about Obama. I think the Dem attacks on Palin have helped to focus attention on that Obama void.
Well as usual, V the K said it perfectly again:) and I have to agree with John….we know more about Governor Palin then we will ever know about The One…and ever will..since he finds ways to supress facts about him…I am still waiting to see all the written offers Nobama turned down from Wall Street…..or where are his health records (he submitted a one page letter from his doctor) and he says McCain takes lobbyist money but lobbyists from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac gave to NObama as their number one politician..the list can go on
I would rather sit in Palin’s church then in any church with Reverand Wright and Father Pflager and Louis Farrakhandt any day of the week.
Nobama is your typical Chicago politico who reformed nothing and got the Illinois Senate Majority Leader to put his name on major legislation in anticipation of his run for US Senate and to use it as drawing board for the Presidency
of course the MSM will never tell the truth about Nobama….and will spread lies about Governor Palin….what else is new?
Adlai Stevenson once opined, “when the Republicans stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about Republicans.” He got his wish, because we’re not lying, and they sure aren’t telling the truth.
I’m sick of seeing this CHIcago Machine Politician’s smarmy mug on TV vilifying “big business” (i.e. people who worked hard to build their businesses into large, profitable corporations) and advocating surrender in Iraq, while he and his MSM flying monkeys scrambling to make stuff up about a woman who is the only one in this campaign with actual executive experience, and has strong bipartisan support in her home state. The sort of “change” he advocates is change from liberty to statism. Change back to the failed policies of the Jimmy Carters of the world whose misguided beliefs belong in the trash heap of history’s bad ideas. Change from strength to a mother-may-I system of “world approval”, as if we should ask the advice of countries who don’t value individual liberty or basic defense how to confront our enemies. You think things are bad now? Imagine Malaise v2.0 four years from now under an Uhbama Administration.
One inquiry to a banned book policy that turned up empty vs. a guy who wants to bring back the inaptly named “Fairness Doctrine.” Who’s the real fascist? It’s not the one with ovaries.
The Surrender & Socialism Party is grasping at straws. I can’t wait for the debates.
I forgot to add The Bible to post above about books liberals would ban from libraries.
Palin did not want to remove that list of books (it came from a list of most frequently banned books.) However, she did try to get Daddy’s roommate banned – the New York Times got two separate people on record on that one – one her former campaign manager.
http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-and-book-banning.html
She was also interested in banning “Go Ask Alice”.
“And the MSM seems more interested a limited inquiry by Palin over a period of — at most — three months than in an ongoing relationship with Obama over a period of — at least — four years.”
Stifling free speech vs. one person’s association with a questionable person….hmmmm… In the former, the stifler does the stifling. In the latter, the associate is the questionable person. Who’s more responsible for the questionable behavior in both cases, the person that engages in that behavior or the person that lives down the block from the person engaging in questionable behavior?
Seriously, these contortions are funny stuff.
#9. Do you have examples of this occurring, or are you simply throwing out what you imagine liberals to be like with out really knowing them, preferring to champion your idea of what liberals are like over what liberals are actually like? Because that’s frowned upon all the time.
or the person who launched his campaign from the house of the person engaging in questionable behavior?
Fixed it for ya.
Stifling free speech vs. one person’s association with a questionable person….hmmmm… In the former, the stifler does the stifling. In the latter, the associate is the questionable person. Who’s more responsible for the questionable behavior in both cases, the person that engages in that behavior or the person that lives down the block from the person engaging in questionable behavior?
Given that the Obama Party and the Obama campaign not only support, but actively engage in, stifling free speech, that means that Obama both associates with questionable people and supports stifling free speech.
Do you know what stifle means, ND30?
Hey, Patriot, thanks for the link to my NRO piece. The library slam on Palin is particularly irritating because it cheapens instances of actual censorship. That said, I think it’s wise to be cautious about Palin. As conservatives, we should gird ourselves for disappointment either way.
I hope you’ll visit http://www.infinitemonkeysblog.com, where we’re making all kinds of mischief. Cheers!
A few remarks opposing those who reflexively oppose “banning” books.
The American Library Association’s staunch opposition to “banning” books is a mixed bag. It’s based on left-wing ideology as well as on disinterested principle. Check out the ALA’s site, including court cases it cites to bolster its claims: http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bannedbooksweek.cfm
Note carefully the difference between “banned” and “challenged.” While I tend to agree with the ALA that the first is non-negotiable, I find the latter category interesting. It’s controversial only to people who are reflexively or staunchly free-speech – to the point of “anything goes.” But it’s not controversial to people who think that communities have not an obligation to monitor and evaluate materials that are not merely offensive but harmful to its members.
Anyone on the Right, or who stands with the Right, on any social issue (e.g., if you think NAMBLA is wrong) has a stake in determining what are the value of “challenging” books, videos, and other materials. I venture that this can be constructive. It can lead to spirited, public debate on any number of issues. It can force officials in small communities to tip their moral hands. Besides, because of the Internet, it’s almost impossible to effectively “ban” print-published materials from anyone or any community for very long.
In brief, I think the Right – including Governor Palin – can go on the offense on this issue.
But it’s not controversial to people who think that communities have not an obligation
oops – my typo: change to communities have an obligation
Do you know what stifle means, ND30?
Yup. According to you, it means simply putting together an alleged “hit list”.
Meanwhile, I have provided proof that the Obama campaign was ordering its minions to call in and try to scream this person who they don’t like off the air.
Notice the hypocrisy, Jody; you are attacking Palin based on the claims of a person whose obvious motive is to smear Palin and who cannot be in any sense considered objective, while ignoring proof positive of the Obama campaign ordering people to carry out stifling behavior.
Oh, and Jody? The Obama campaign is at it again.
Telling your supporters to call into a call-in radio show — with screeners, hold buttons and hang up switches to terminate callers at the host’s discretion — to argue with a guest isn’t stifling free expression. Nor for that matter is having your campaign’s attorney fire off a sharp letter to the Justice Department asking that they investigate alleged campaign finance violations.
And no, I don’t consider Bess objective. He was in the middle of a huge storm of controversy from his denomination, all of it quite personal. I’m pretty sure he’s out to get Palin — but then there’s been ample evidence that Palin hasn’t hesitated to get rid of people she doesn’t like either.
There’s a difference though between a government official “inquiring” about the removal of books — the Times piece linked above has two people recounting their experiences with Palin, the Salon piece contains Bess’ opinion of his encounter with Palin, and numerous Alaskan papers from 1996 reported her inquiries — and a campaign requesting its supporters call in to a call-in radio show to argue with pundit.
Government representatives can stifle free speech. Callers to radio-call-in show? Not so much.
The Obama campaign’s objective in instructing its followers to flood the lines was intended to stifle the speech of those who would criticize ‘The One.’ As can people who vandalize cars for showing the “wrong” bumper sticker. And then there’s that leader, who endeavors to be the head of all executive departments of government, threatening to use the power of government to investigate and intimidate those who would criticize him. It’s about that leader threatening to enact new broadcast regulations with the expressed purposes of limiting the access of his critics to the public airwaves.
I also note that the McPalin campaign does not issue marching orders for its supporters to try and shout down critical media. It’s part of being on the right. We would rather argue with our opposition than shut them down. The left acts in the opposite way.
Blood and Martyrs Jody,
You have a Government official, running for the chief executive, telling people to shout down those who oppose him and question his past, and you compare it to a questioning of an event that never even happened?
Same government official already tries to get the Justice Department to go after an independant group of citizens who want to question his assoiations with a known terrorist.
Same official who wants to silence questions from the press so he can ‘eat his waffle’
And yet somehow this is all and good, lets go after the woman who asked, “your thoughts on removing books, please?”
That Palin tried to ban books is pretty much “urban legend” on the scale of truthfulness (as opposed to truthiness). However, it is true that the Democratic party attempted to censor “The Path to 9-11” because of some scenes that were unflattering to the Clinton Administration. IIRC, Harry Reid even made an implicit threat against ABC’s broadcast license for daring to show the film.
So you’re fine with McCain doing it. Because radio stations have screeners.
No, vandalizing other people’s private property is illegal. Conspiring to vandalize private property is, in most ways and cases, illegal. Calling in to a radio-call-in show is neither vandalizing private property nor illegal. Encouraging people to call in to a radio-call-in show is neither vandalizing private property, stifling free speech, nor illegal.
And it’s hysterically funny that you think it is.
You can’t shout down a radio show. Well, if the speaker is set to low and you have a very deep voice, I suppose you could, but that would get old fast…
Emailing your supporters to call into a radio show and, as the missive requested “Tell[ing] WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse,” still doesn’t stop Kurtz from airing those views. Or more simply put, asking someone to shut up is a far different thing than shutting someone up.
Actually, as the above links, from Alaskan papers to PolitiCheck to even our good Mr. Blatt show, Palin did inquire about removing books. To continue a loose analogy from above, Palin, as her people put it “rhetorically” threatened to shut someone up. Difference of kinds.
I’m fine with anyone, of any political persuasion, calling in to a radio show. I’m fine with anyone asking others who agree with them to call in to a radio show. That’s what Free Speech is all about.
It goes beyond Free Speech Jody.. and you know it.
that message from the Obama campaign was more than that a call for counter-speech, it was a hate-message to drum up hatred and contempt for the author of the book , with no factual basis for the characterization
That’s the problem with you lunatics. It’s not enough to just disagree with someone.. you try to destroy.
Free Speech means flooding a radio station with hundreds, perhaps thousands of callers all spouting the same talking points from a presidential candidate’s website, at that candidate’s exhortation, because the guest is saying something the candidate doesn’t like. And you’d have no problem with a Republican doing it. Good to know.
I don’t know what the fuss is. My local library bans all manner of books and magazines, even websites. Go looking for Playboy, Penthouse or the Anarchists Cookbook. Good luck.
No, calling up a radio station to complain about a guest isn’t “hate speech.” You can’t just make definitions up.
Project much or am I just special?
According to the Obama Action Wire email, he peddles “baseless lies,†engages in “dishonest, extreme hate mongering,†and has made a career out of “vicious partisan attacks.†The email urges supporters to call in and “confront†Freddoso before “this goes any further.â€
==========
This man is runniing for President and this is how he tries to silince critics.. it’s disgraceful
By asking people to call into a radio call-in show and voice their opinion. Gestapo tactics indeed.
This is from the producer of the radio show at WGN:
“Tonight, we have David Freddoso on our show discussing his new book. As we speak, thousands of Obama supporters are flooding our phone lines and e-mail boxes, just as they did for our show with Stanley Kurtz. An Obama Action Wire was sent out tonight to intimidate us into taking Freddoso off the air. ”
Gee… why would he think he was being intimidated?
#29: “Go looking for Playboy, Penthouse or the Anarchists Cookbook. Good luck.”
A-HA! Once again the mask falls off and we see what the Democrats are really upset about!
Jody divorces himself from reality here by pretending the intention of the Obama campaign isn’t to sitfle, intimidate, and shutdown critics of the Obamassiah. They have no intention of engaging in civil debate on the merits of the charges. They simply repeat talking points and baseless denials.
Now, I ask you, what kind of leader refuses to engage in debate, and seeks to shut down opposing points of view? There is nothing Democratic in what Obama is doing. He is not exhorting his followers to petition government for a redress of grievances, he is exhorting them to shout down voices he does not wish to be heard.
BTW, in both cases, the Obama campaign was invited to send a representative to debate Kurtz and Freddoso on the air. In both cases, the campaign refused, and instead turned to brownshirt tactics. What does that tell you?
Not their opinion. His opinion.
See the above about shouting down a radio show.
If you are calling in to a radio show and stating something, it’s your opinion. If you haven’t thought about it, or are just parroting a point you’ve read, you may be dumb, but if you’re mouthing it, it’s your opinion.
Unless you are arguing, Jim, that Obama has secret mind powers that he beams through email, turning people into zombies who’ll rob, steal, and speak only his thoughts? You do understand the difference between “reality” and “fantasy” right?
What I’m arguing is Obama is following in the footsteps of America’s first Fascist President Woodrow Wilson.
If thousands of Obama supporters are jamming the phone lines (at their leader’s command) to recite the campaign’s talking points, doesn’t that stifle the ability of other people to reach the station and ask substantive questions?
If you’re reading it off the official campaign website, and you’re unable to respond to followup questions because you haven’t really thought about it, it’s his opinion.
He doesn’t need all of that. He just puts out an “Action Wire” that tells them what to say. Then they say it. And when asked to deviate from the script, they’re completely unable to.
You haven’t actually listened to the show in question, have you, Jody?
Okay, feel free to argue that. I’m not going to argue that with you. (I will chuckle heartily at your silliness though.)
…that by voicing, you’ve made yours.
And personally, it’s always a bad idea to proffer opinions you can’t back-up, especially when you’ve gone to the trouble to call into a radio show. I think it’s even a worse idea to send an email out asking your followers to do this, knowing full well that most responders won’t be able to do this, and will, in fact, look like utter tools when they try to.
But then no one asked me.
Oh, and I give it a month tops before the Republicans start doing the same “action gram” thing. Within a week of that, you’ll have Liberal bloggers complaining about it — and Conservative bloggers finding nothing wrong with it.
Now, what about Obama threatening people with the Justice Department, not to be confused with the Justice Brothers.
Umm, writing a letter to the Justice Department asking them to investigate (alleged) Campaign Finance violations, isn’t the same thing as “threatening people with the Justice Department.” When was Obama put in charge of the JD? Or, like recipients of the email call in request, are they too helpless before his mind control powers?
#46: “Or, like recipients of the email call in request, are they too helpless before his mind control powers?”
Ummmmm…YEAH.
No you haven’t, not if you can’t explain why it’s your opinion. Not if you’re completely unable to defend your assertions once you get knocked off the script you’re reading off your computer screen. (Okay, that’s not entirely fair. Some of the callers might have printed it out.) You’re basically an unpaid actor. And not a very convincing one.
Well, according to you it’s perfectly fine. I think it stinks, though, and if they do it I’ll say so.