Sarah/Todd emails show how Sarah threw a faithful, pro-life Conservative "under the bus"

by: Celtic Diva

Sat Feb 13, 2010 at 20:55:55 PM AKST

One of the first things that struck me when I started going through MSNBC's 3000 pages of emails from the State of Alaska is that whomever was making the decisions on what to "redact" and what to release was much more lax with these emails than with my records request.  A number of these emails were VERY embarassing for Palin in that they irrefutably back-up what former friends and ex-supporters alike have repeatedly stated--that Palin will throw the most loyal, dedicated worker under the bus. The conversation threads provide a facinating look into Palin's behavior and thought(?) process when it comes to what she demands of her supporters.

Take the case of Glen Biegel.  Glen has a long history as a Republican supporting conservative issues in Alaska. The most significant of these is his long-time participation and leadership role in Alaska Right to Life...a group that "coincidentally" was a very important constituency for Palin.  Alaska-Right-to-Life-ers were the ones manning the phones, standing on street corners waving signs, etc...They provided a good chunk of the ground forces Palin needed during her campaign for Governor.  

As mentioned on Palingates this morning, Glen became a strong member of Palin's campaign team, putting in countless hours as a speechwriter.  Glen was also involved in a number of strategy discussions and campaign decisions, including their direction on oil and gas.  Another former Palin campaign worker once stated to me that the dedication of both Glen Biegel and John Bitney made Palin's abuse of them and their fall-from-grace even more offensive.  

There are several email threads showing what happened when Glen made the mistake of a) investigating the status of a campaign promise regarding Home Schooling and b) committing the ultimate sin of saying something she perceived as disagreeing with her regarding oil taxes.

Glen talked about these emails himself when he filled-in on Dan Fagan's Show (H/T Palingates):

What both "offenses" have in common...he answered questions about them on the air, including on the radio show of her hated enemy, Dan Fagan.

Glen has been a board member of the Alaska Home Education Alliance...another very important constituency for the credibility of anyone attempting to portray themselves as a Conservative. That plus his position on the Palin campaign and as her supporter made him the obvious recipient of mail from other homeschool parents wanting to know the status of Palin's campaign promises...especially when, as the email thread demonstrates, the Palin Administration had been non-responsive since July 2007.  The first email of the thread is actually listed seperately and is the one Palingates partially posted in their article.  Three hours later, Glen sent a response:

From: Glen Biegel
To: Palin, Sarah (GOV sponsored)
Sent: Wed Sep 12 09:25:25 2007
Subject:: Fw: Letter from Governor Palin

Governor,

Here is a copy of a letter from Lynn Smith and an email from one of our parents.

Thanks

Glen

Here also is a paste from a different email about a response to Lynn Smith and a
conversation that She, Sally Javier and I had

The attached information, seen HERE, included an education questionaire Palin responded to during the campaign which made specific promises regarding homeschooling.  Palin is obviously still irritated:

From: Palin, Sarah (GOV sponsored)
To: Glen Biegel
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: Letter from Governor Palin

I was not provided all this infomation/communications Glen. Thanks for bringing it to my attention- but this is all the more reason a more responsible venue should have been found for you to air your grievences instead of playing into our known critic's hands. Fagan seemed to be using you, big time. All I could think of when listening to you was: "With friends like this, who needs enemies".

And it's not personally "hard on me" to go through things like that yesterday, but a conservative agenda gets squashed when those who could be working together to accomplish something are set up like you were yesterday. That was brutual Glen, and I've heard from others saying worse things than "brutal". Please don't pass these thoughts on to Fagan - he hates me and my administration enough as it is.

Yes, it's brutal to ask a politician about their timeline regarding campaign promises...especially when she is the politician being held accountable.  It's also obvious that Palin has her own obsession with Fagan.

From: Glen Biegel
To: Palin, Sarah (GOV sponsored)
Sent: Sat Sep 15 06:38:06 2007
Subject: Re: Letter from Governor Palin

Governor,

I still don't have any indication on how you want to proceed (Timeframe, next steps, meetings, etc). I am having to make guesses on what will happen in the future without any guidance, and then speak about it on the air. I will indicate on air that I did not get the information to you or to the right people and that I have every confidence that this issue will turn out, but it would be nice to have something more than your response below.

I don't want to make things worse (if they can get worse).

Thanks

Glen

Another sin...Glen very civily and subtly pointed out that Palin had neither answered the question nor provided any requested information.

So, Palin comes back at him again:

Glen- i am in Juneau. I got your message a couple of days ago, have been tasking folks to find out what I'm missing so you could receive an appropriate response with going back and forth again. Without fail, each person has reported back that they were confident they had communicated with you about our desire to help.

They had "communicated with you about our desire to help."  She was still providing none of the information that was requested and was getting nastier about the fact he kept asking.

I had people spend more than a day looking for "my" letter to you that seemed to have been the catalyst for the miscommunications on the air, because we wanted all info in front of us in order to respond. That letter was nonexistent, I believe you clarified then about the letter. That was less than three days ago. We're still seeking info on this issue so there will be no more miscommunications, damaged relationships, distrust, missed opportunities to help, etc. I believe you overreacted and you left many people with the impression that their homeschool issues will be better dealt with in a different administration.

It doesn't seem wise to me for you to "make guesses" about anything, then speak about it on the air. I have not had the chance to sit down with the AG to speak about this, as your request is to speak to him, so though it's not wise, nor fair, to "make guesses" again on the air, I can not tell you what to say on air... I've already expressed the committment to help, the tasking of staff to gather more information so the board can more aggressively tackle the issues, I've insisted homeschoolers get adequate time to address the board... etc.

So, Palin feels it's "not wise, nor fair" to "make guesses" on the air.  Yet she also states that "I can not tell you what to say on the air..."

She can't tell a talk radio host what to say on the air when he is trying to help her Administration?

The last communication in this series between Palin and Biegel comes from Glen:

Subject: Re: Letter from Governor Palin

Thank you for the response. That helps me a lot.

God Bless,

Glen

There is no way to know for sure from this email if the "That helps me a lot" was meant sarcastically.

Palin then forwards the email string to Talis Colberg, her AG at the time, and adds the rest of the "inner sanctum" folks on the CC: list (the two last email addresses are Todd and Frank Bailey).  Not surprisingly, we don't get to know the content of that message:

From: Palin, Sarah (GOV sponsored)
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 7:17 AM
To: Colberg; Talis J (LAW)
CC: Tibbles; Michael A (GOV); Perry; Kristina Y (GOV); Smith; Lynne M (GOV);
'fek9wnr@yahoo.com'; 'ftb907@yahoo.com'

Subject: Letter from Governor Palin

Talis

REDACTED

I don't think you'd be surprised to discover that it was around this time, Eddie Burke had started to become the Palin's bestest radio buddy!  He's not impeded by an intellect as sharp as Glen's!

Another email thread between Glen and the former Governor happened several months later, December 2007.  Again, it was the result of Glen asking for clarification regarding a tax issue, not getting it, and then doing his best to address the issue on the air.

The most interesting aspect of this exchange is when Palin does something that makes me wonder how often it's happened...she sends her response to the "inner sanctum," but seemingly forgets that Biegel is still on the "TO" line:

----- Original Message -----
From: Patin, Sarah (GOV sponsored)
To: Glen Biegel; 'fek9wnr@yahoo.com'
Cc: 'ftb907@yahoo.com'; Perry, Kristina Y (GOV) ; Anders, Bruce F (DNR) ; Galvin, Patrick S (DOR); Irwin, Tom E (DNR) ; Rutherford, Marty K (DNR) ; Tibbles, Michael A (GOV) ; Leighow, Sharon W (GOV)
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: Questions on the interest of the Admin for a lock in of Tax rates for Gas.

Does he not understand that CP's "proposal" doesn't meet the state's "must haves"... they admit it's far outside the law (AGIA) and even CP has admitted locking up tax rates for 30 yrs (!) as Glen suggests is unacceptable to the legislature, the Alaskan public, this administration, and the Constitution. THEY don't even ask for a 30 year lock-up.

He said that "the campaign" didn't have a problem with that fiscal certainty? Huh? And that he was the gasline consultant to the campaign? Huh? Tell that to the Magnificant 7 who publicly explained the folly of Murkowski's plan, and my willingness to embrace their advice and consultation.

Surely he knows we would not divulge any AGIA info to him that we wouldn't share with the public at the appropriate time... despite the megaphone he has with his radio show and his frequent visits with Dan Fagan on
Fagan's show.

Glen responds twice to an email he wasn't supposed to see, once HERE and then, a clarification HERE.  Both times, he took the high road.  

However, there is a third branch to this thread, where we see Palin sending Glen the response she MEANT for him 19 MINUTES after sending the one she DIDN'T mean to send!

-----Original Message-----
From: Paln, Sarah (GOV sponsored)
Sent: Thu 12/13/2007 9:31 PM
1 ROSTON 01234
To: 'Glen Biegel'; 'fek9wnr@yahoo.com'
Cc: 'ftb907@yahoo.com'; Perry, Kristina Y (GOV); Anders, Bruce F (DNR); Galvin, Patrick S (DOR);
Irwin, Tom E (DNR); Rutherford, Marty K (DNR); Tibbles, Michael A (GOV); Leighow, Sharon W
(GOV)
Subject: Re: Questions on the interest of the Admin for a lock in of Tax rates for Gas.

Glen- I sent this reply with all due respect, and in confidence between you and my administrators who have been working hard on getting Alaska's gasline project up and running.

"...WITH ALL DUE RESPECT?"  Where was that "respect" 19 minutes ago when she sent the snipe-fest to the "inner sanctum?"

From now on, everytime Palin says the phrase "with all due respect," I'll wonder what Palin ACTUALLY said just minutes before.  (Joe Biden at the VP debate?)

And once again, we see something else that may be a pattern...finishing an email thread with a REDACTED email:

From: Anders, Bruce F (DNR)
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 10:20 PM
To: Palin; Sarah (GOV sponsored); 'fek9wnr@yahoo.com'
CC: 'ftb907@yahoo.com'; Perry; Kristina Y (GOV); Galvin ; Patrick S (DOR); Irwin ; Tom E (DNR);
Rutherford; Marty K (DNR); Tibbles ; Michael A (GOV); Leighow; Sharon W (GOV)
Subject: RE: Questions on the interest of the Admin for a lock in of Tax rates for Gas.

REDACTED

The MSNBC emails are a treasure trove of information as long as someone is able to put them in context for the general public.

(**NOTE**I truly appreciate the folks who have been sending me information, links to interesting emails and questions about what they have read.  Many of you have been asking whether Glen and I are related--the answer is "yes, we are." Glen is the older brother of my husband. However, it is not pertinent to the story...it would be hard for us to be more diametrically opposed in our ideologies. Therefore, we NEVER discuss politics...ever...nor do we discuss our blog posts/radio programs. Consequently, we've never discussed any of this and I learned about the existence of these emails with the rest of the world.  

Any information in this post is already public knowledge somewhere on the Internet, over the airwaves or from other sources. The only deference I gave to Glen as a family member took the form of waiting for him to talk about this in a public forum first before I posted anything about it.  Matt Felling of KTVA already mentioned something about it on Twitter last week and Palingates posted Glen's disclosure this morning.)

So now those who file ethics complaints are "terrorists?" **UPDATED**

by: Celtic Diva

Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 11:42:30 AM AKDT

Hat-tip to "midnightcajun"--he mentioned in the comments below an interview with whack-job John Zeigler that Palin did on July 3rd...the day she resigned...where Zeigler called us all "terrorists" and she didn't disagree:

I suspected this had been suggested elsewhere before it made it to Glen's show and I thank midnightcajun for pointing it out.

*********************************************************************************
*********************************************************************************

Tuesday on the Glen Biegel Half Hour Show (following Eddie Burke on KBYR), Glen had a caller who had some rather...uhhh..."strong" views (from the podcast of 7/7/09):

"...There are tactics that are being used by those left-wing Marxists who hate our country and use our own Constitutional rights against the very fact that are our country.  The whole attack against Governor Palin was done within the parameters of what is legal only because we never, ever had internal terrorists attacking our country using our country."

No, I agree with you.  Look, they are trying to destroy our system of government.  That is what their goal is and they want to make it the worst thing you can do is to win office.

The definition of domestic terrorism used in U.S. Law is the one found under U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d):

(2) the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;

and, under U.S. Criminal Code Title 18 Ch. 113b Para 2331 (emphasis mine):

the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that-

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended-
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;

and

(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

So, exactly how is holding Sarah Palin accountable to display the same ethical behavior she demanded of the Administration before her (when she filed complaints against Ruedrich and Renkes) a terrorist act?  Under what definition can that be found, exactly?  

Plus, I have not heard Mr. Biegel equate the word "terrorist" with the shooter in the Unitarian Church murders, the assassin of OBGYN and abortion provider George Tiller nor the white supremacist, Obama-hater and Palin-supporter who murdered a guard in the Holocaust Museum.  

Should we infer that, in Biegel's mind, our completely legal, non-violent, non-aggressive citizen activism, initiated to hold Sarah Palin to the standards that she requested in her inauguration speech and again during Troopergate, is somehow worse than all of those murders?

In a related topic, Glen said this in response to the last caller:

The left loves to use offensive language...as offensive as they can possibly make it.

Really?  So, are you saying that "people on the right"...supporters of Sarah Palin especially...detest the use of "offensive language?"  Are you saying that these people are far above using that language in order to insult, threaten or intimidate?

That has not been my experience.

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 10:30:19 PM
From: Ryan Bailey (baileyosu24@yahoo.com)
To: celticdivaak@yahoo.com
Subject:  you+sarah palin=scared little girl

Linda,

You as well as all the other terrified liberals afraid of Sarah Palin will eventually get yours. You are degrading her?! Well darling, you are nothing to look at either. Fat and guarantee you are a lazy no good liberal bitch. You are the reason why this country is going down the drain. But don't worry, when we take it back from the liberals and their white trash followers like you, you'll wish you had never lived.

--An American tired of crying white trash welfare people

Actually, this is one of the milder ones.  I just printed it to point out a) the cursing and insults, b) the threats and c) that I'm not on welfare nor am I on disability, but MY EXPERIENCE with Sarah Palin supporters is they just MAKE IT UP AS THEY GO ALONG.  

That's only one.  There are 600+ more of them in varying degrees.  I'll share a few more.

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 6:24:24 PM
From: Mike McElhone (mmcelhone2003@yahoo.com)
To: celticdivaak@yahoo.com
Subject: you rock

You are a fat cow. I hope you die. If you have kids i hope they are retarded. Die bitch die!!!!!

Of course, Palin supporters aren't limited to cursing, insults and threats of violence...they like to toss in a bit of racism (or, according to KBYR's Eddie Burke, "rascism") for good measure.  Some of them also seem to like attacking my daughter.  

(Note:  The rest of the emails are vile enough that they must be "under the fold" so that whoever wants to read them must click deliberately to do so.)