Sarah Palin Isn't Cooperating

See Saul Alinsky rule below...
RULE 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

(Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear. I can remember when liberals were nice people who were just wrong about most things. Now they are wrong and nasty.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sarah Palin Isn't Cooperating
Phil Boehmke

One of the things that the Obama administration and the Main Stream Media really hate about Sarah Palin is her unwillingness to cooperate. Even when she gets caught on camera during a speech with "Energy", "Tax" and most damning of all "Lift American Spirits" written in her own hand on her own hand, she refuses to cooperate.

After the palm-gate story broke, Obama's inner circle more than likely consulted their most holy of holy texts to devise a cunning strategy in their ongoing war against Sarah. There on pages 137-8 of the sacred "Rules For Radicals" by Saul Alinsky was the answer that Team Obama was looking for.

It should be remembered that you can threaten the enemy and get away with it. You can insult and annoy him, but the one thing that is unforgivable and that is certain to get him to react is to laugh at him. This causes an irrational anger.

Bingo! We have a winner! Robert Gibbs, the comic genius of the future former president's staff would get to deliver the blow. The UK Guardian reports.

The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said he also had something written down on his hand. Breaking off from a question on healthcare reform, he said he planned to make pancakes for his son if the snow in Washington continued. "I wrote ‘eggs', ‘milk', ‘bread', but I crossed out ‘bread'. Then I wrote down ‘hope' and ‘change', in case I forgot."

The increasingly irrelevant MSM was delighted by Mr. Gibbs cutting edge (not to mention topical) humor. All that remained for Team Obama to do was just to wait for Sarah to react with "irrational anger" in fulfillment of Saul Alinsky's prophecy.

O.K., lights, camera, action! Again the UK Guardian provides the play by play.
Full credit to Palin for making fun of the whole thing. In her next public appearance-backing Texas governor Rick Perry in the Republican primary against Senator Kay Bailey-Hutchinson-Palin showed up with the words "Hi Mom!" clearly written on her palm. At least she's got a sense of humor.

Obviously Sarah had failed to cooperate with the Alinsky plan. No "irrational anger" was forthcoming, she countered the strategic mocking of Obama's crew and the MSM with genuine good humor. What do you do with someone who can laugh at themselves?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/02/sarah_palin_isnt_cooperating.html

Republican Leadership Survey - This Says Lots About Why I will Vote Republican Without Becoming a Republican

Have you ever suspected that Republican leadership is out of touch with Republican voters? Here is the evidence!

The Esquire Survey of America's Republican Elite
Promised anonymity, 75 Republican-party leaders respond to questions about Glenn Beck, a flat tax, who should run in 2012, their favorite Democrat, and much more


About the Survey: With midterm primary season officially under way, we've been hearing a lot of talk lately about what it means to be a real Republican. So what's the consensus? Beats us. That's why we asked seventy-five leaders of the GOP — current and former members of Congress, former Cabinet officials, state elected officials, county party chairmen, and GOP bigwigs from across the country — to fill out a short anonymous survey about policy, politics, and personalities. From Bush being right on Iraq and Obama being a socialist to their thoughts on immigration and gay marriage, they give us a view of the party that's both predictable and surprising. See for yourself.

1. The state of the Republican Party is:

13% Great. Things were tough, but we're back and as strong as the Democrats in most parts of the country.

61% Solid. We're a unified party and we've got a few image problems that we could work on, but our fundamental beliefs are as strong and relevant as ever.

22% Shaky. It's not just image problems — we're losing ground with key constituencies (Hispanics, women, younger voters), and we need to make some adjustments to the party platform.

4% Terrible. We've got problems with the party — big ones — and we need to have a major reassessment of what we should stand for in the twenty-first century.

2. Which of the following statements best describes your essential philosophy as a Republican?

75% You're a fiscal conservative: You believe, above all, that the primary emphasis of the party should be on lower taxes, free markets, and limited government regulation.

8% You're a social conservative: You believe, above all, in defending traditional values.

6% You're a national-security conservative: You believe the Republican party is, above all, the party of national defense.

11% You're a libertarian: You believe, above all, that government should just leave hardworking people alone.

3. In the elections this fall, what is the one topic that members of the Republican Party should spend the most time talking about?

7% Lowering taxes

1% Strengthening national security

55% Shrinking government

1% Protecting traditional values

35% None of the above/other

Notable write-ins: Job creation, job creation, job creation.

Click here for in-depth survey results >>

4. Whom would you most like to see at the top of the ticket in the 2012 elections?

12% Former governor Sarah Palin

13% Governor Tim Pawlenty

31% Former governor Mitt Romney

8% Former governor Mike Huckabee

36% None of the above/Other

Notable Write-ins: Ron Paul, David Petraeus, Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels (twice).

5. You've been given the opportunity to nominate the Republican of the Year — a person whose values best reflect your Republican Party. Whom would you choose?

7% Senator Mitch McConnell

11% Representative John Boehner

11% Former vice-president Dick Cheney

8% Rush Limbaugh

64% None of the above/Other

Notable write-ins: John McCain (three times), Sarah Palin (four times), Newt Gingrich (twice), Tom Coburn (twice), Governor Bob McDonnell (twice), Tom Ridge, Eric Cantor, Charlie Crist, "I am offended by these choices."

6. You've been given the opportunity to kick one person out of the party--his or her values simply aren't compatible with the Republican Party as you see it. Whom would you choose?

30% Senator Olympia Snowe

7% Representative Michele Bachmann

15% Colin Powell

12% Glenn Beck

37% None of the above/Other

Notable write-ins: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Steve King, "We need to grow our tent, not shrink it."

7. Which of the following do you believe to be the number-one threat to America's national security?

45% A nuclear Iran or North Korea

4% A revitalized Russia

35% Violent nonstate actors (i.e., terrorists, pirates, drug traffickers)

16% An ascendant China

8. If you could poach one player from the other team, which of the following Democrats would make a useful addition to the Republican Party?

34% Warren Buffett

0% David Axelrod

5% Hillary Clinton

5% Oprah Winfrey

55% No, thanks. You can keep 'em.

9. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have become controversial figures in our national dialogue. In your opinion, they should:

71% Keep talking. They're speaking for millions of Americans who feel frustrated with the government's current policies.

23% Tone it down a little. They're smart entertainers, but some of their rhetoric risks alienating moderate and independent voters.

6% Shut up. They don't speak for mainstream Republicans, and they're scaring people.

10. Michael Steele's chairmanship of the Republican Party has been:

17% A success.

55% Pretty good, with a few rough patches.

8% A disaster, but what did you expect? He got dealt a bad hand.

4% A disaster. The guy is inept.

16% None of the above.

11. In a poll released by Public Policy Polling in early August, just 32 percent of Republicans in Virginia believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States. How would you characterize the role of the so-called "birthers" in the Republican Party?

2% They're the base.

87% They're the fringe.

12%They're the mainstream.

12. Who was the better president?

53% George H. W. Bush

47% George W. Bush

13. Do you consider Barack Obama a socialist?

78% Yes

22% No

Click here for in-depth survey results >>

14. Given what you've seen so far, do you consider Barack Obama to be a better or worse president than Bill Clinton?

1% Better.

70% Worse.

29% Obama may be the worst president we've ever had.

15. Do you believe that the fight against gay marriage should be among the highest priorities of the Republican Party?

31% Yes. It's a critical issue and we must remain vigilant in defending traditional values and practices.

69% No. It's a distraction from more important conversations we should be having about national security and fiscal responsibility.

16. Do you agree that the United States should commit as many troops and resources as necessary to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan?

78% Yes

23% No

17. Do you agree that America has the right to impose its will on sovereign countries when its interests are concerned?

59% Yes

42% No

18. Do you agree that a flat tax on all Americans would be the best way to reform the federal tax code?

65% Yes

35% No

19. Would you, under any circumstances, support a tax increase on any or all Americans over the next twelve months?

4% Yes

96% No

Click here for in-depth survey results >>

20. Would you support temporary work programs and other methods of "earned legalization" for illegal immigrants?

52% Yes

48% No

21. Which of the following best describes President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003?

71% The right decision.

29% The wrong decision.

22. Would you consider supporting a pro-choice candidate in a local, state, or national election?

67% Yes

33% No

23. Do you believe that climate change is man-made?

17% Yes

83% No

24. Describe your preferred makeup of the Republican membership of Congress:

57% More moderates with a larger but more ideologically diverse caucus.

43% Fewer moderates with a smaller but more ideologically consistent caucus.

25. When it comes to its racial and ethnic makeup, the Republican Party is:

33% More diverse than the mainstream media gives it credit for.

31% Not diverse enough. We could do more to appeal to certain racial and ethnic demographics.

36% Who cares? People are people. Let's leave identity politics to the Democrats.

So What’s the consensus?

Based on our survey, conducted over the course of six weeks last fall and administered with a guarantee of anonymity to all participants, three out of four leaders of the Republican Party consider Barack Obama to be a socialist. More than one in four consider him the worst president of all time. Sixty-seven percent would consider supporting a pro-choice candidate. Seventy-one percent think W. made the right call in Iraq. No one really likes taxes or the birthers. And a lot of people like Mitt Romney.

Click here for in-depth survey results >>

With reporting by Allie Townsend and Mark Mikin. Because of rounding, not all percentages add up to 100.


Find this article at: http://www.esquire.com/features/complete-republican-party-survey-0310

Obama's 2011 Budget Allocates $4 Billion For ACORN

For a fascinating explanation of the history of radical left wing "community organizations" see:
How to Create a Crisis and Steal a Nation

Note: It will quickly be obvious to the reader why details have been obscured in this fascinating narrative of undercover events that began nearly forty years ago.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama's 2011 Budget Allocates $4 Billion For ACORN

The Washington Times is adding ACORN to the list of outrageous earmarks in Obama's fiscal 2011 budget. ACORN, the embezzlement-prone, voter-registration-fraud-plagued, leftist community organizing group, is slated to receive nearly $4 billion from a taxpayer-funded slush fund.

The money will come from the Community Development Block Grant, one of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's longest-running programs. The HUD Web site cryptically defines the grant's purpose as providing "communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs," not a reassuring description given the group's recent past history of aiding the community through gratuitous misappropriation of funds.

Has Congress already forgotten the Sept. 2009 ban it passed on funding for ACORN and ACORN affiliates? Or the video that led to the ban, footage showing ACORN employees urging individuals they thought were a prostitute and her pimp to set up a brothel and advising the pair on evading taxpaying? It would have had a hard time doing so, considering that ACORN is currently suing the federal government for the attempted ban.

Though the largely Democratic House Appropriations Committee voted against the block last December, it is a Bill Clinton-appointee, U.S. District Court Judge Nina Gershon, who has truly aided the corrupt ACORN cause. Also in December, Gershon issued a federal injunction against the Congressional funding ban, crying that it ran afoul of the Constitution because under the ban, ACORN was "singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or even administrative, process adjudicating guilt."

In essence, Gershon has said ACORN can't be punished now because the Obama administration failed to punish it earlier -- through a long-overdue, much-needed criminal investigation into the group. But this is absurd, because ACORN's not receiving such funding does not constitute its being deprived of a right. The funding is a gift, and Congress has the right to cancel contracts whenever it feels like it.

Just ask Blackwater, a company we are wondering whether Gershon would so heroically rush to defend were it to make the same move ACORN is now making

Global warming snow job

Cold not Heat - Another "I Told You So" from Aristotle the Hun

Global warming has many benefits (increased crop yields for instance), while global cooling has been the bane of mankind for millennia.
SEE: Advantages of Global Warming
Quickly buy that 450 bhp SUV before we all freeze to death or die of starvation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EDITORIAL: Global warming snow job
by THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Record snowfall illustrates the obvious: The global warming fraud is without equal in modern science.

The fundamental problems exposed about climate-change theory undermine the very basis of scientific inquiry. Huge numbers of researchers refuse to provide their data to other scientists. Some referenced data is found not to have existed. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report that global warming activists continually cite invented a large number of purported facts. Consider a few of the problems with the U.N. report that came to light over the past few weeks.

• The Himalayan glaciers were supposed to disappear as soon as 2035. The United Nations didn't base this hysteria on an academic study. Instead, it relied on a news story that interviewed a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. Syed Hasnain, the glaciologist in question, says he was misquoted and provided no date to the reporter. The doomsday account was simply made up, and the United Nations never bothered to confirm the claim.

• Because of purported global warming, the world supposedly "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s." The U.N. cited one unpublished study to prove this. When the research eventually was published in 2008 after the IPCC report was released, the authors backpedaled: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."

• Up to 40 percent of the Amazon rain forest was said to be at risk because of rising global temperatures. Again, the U.N. didn't cite any academic studies but merely one non-refereed report authored by two non-scientists, one of whom worked for the World Wildlife Fund, an activist organization.

• The U.N. dramatically claimed that 55 percent of the Netherlands is below sea level when the accurate portion is 26 percent.

Getting facts wrong and citing dubious sources isn't the worst of it. Rajendra K. Pachauri, the U.N.'s climate chief, remained silent when he knew information was false and denied he had been aware of the Himalayan glaciers error before the recent climate-change summit in Copenhagen, which made a big deal about this nonexistent crisis. He only grudgingly came partly clean when Pallava Bagla, a writer for the journal Science, pointed to e-mail correspondence from last autumn showing Mr. Pachauri already knew of the fraud.

Adolescent name-calling further exposes the weakness of the case for man-made global warming and how desperate the leaders of this cult are becoming. On Feb. 3, Mr. Pachauri defended the fudged IPCC report and slandered critics as "people who deny the link between smoking and cancer; they are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder. I hope that they apply [asbestos] to their faces every day." This nasty piece of work tries to redirect attention away from his phony science by blaming skepticism about climate change on "business interests" that "spread a lot of disinformation."

Man-made global warming theory isn't backed up by science; it's a hoax. The fact that the world has been asked to spend tens of trillions of dollars on global warming solutions without being able to evaluate the data upon which the claims were made should have been the first warning that something was seriously wrong. The public and world leaders have been sold expensive snake oil by charlatans like Mr. Pachauri. It's time to admit it's all baloney and move on.

http://m.washingtontimes.com//news/2010/feb/11/global-warming-snow-job/

AKA Obama's Make Believe Life

By Alan Caruba
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/01/obamas-make-believe-life.html

I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think he’s led a kind of make-believe life in which money was provided and doors were opened because at some point early on somebody or some group took a look at this tall, good looking, half-white, half-black, young man with an exotic African/Muslim name and concluded he could be guided toward a life in politics where his facile speaking skills could even put him in the White House.

In a very real way, he has been a young man in a very big hurry. Who else do you know has written two memoirs before the age of 45? “Dreams of My Father” was published in 1995 when he was only 34 years old. The “Audacity of Hope” followed in 2006. If, indeed, he did write them himself. There are some who think that his mentor and friend, Bill Ayers, a man who calls himself a “communist with a small ‘c’” was the real author.

His political skills consisted of rarely voting on anything that might be deemed controversial. He went from a legislator in the Illinois legislature to the Senator from that state because he had the good fortune of having Mayor Daley’s formidable political machine at his disposal.

He was in the U.S. Senate so briefly that his bid for the presidency was either an act of astonishing self-confidence or part of some greater game plan that had been determined before he first stepped foot in the Capital. How, many must wonder, was he selected to be a 2004 keynote speaker at the Democrat convention that nominated John Kerry when virtually no one had ever even heard of him before?

He outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He took Iowa by storm. A charming young man, an anomaly in the state with a very small black population, he oozed “cool” in a place where agriculture was the antithesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he had an army of volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real substance.

And then he had the great good fortune of having the Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since Bob Dole. And then John McCain did something crazy. He picked Sarah Palin, an unknown female governor from the very distant state of Alaska. It was a ticket that was reminiscent of 1984’s Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and they went down to defeat.

The mainstream political media fell in love with him. It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning then and now over the man. The venom directed against McCain and, in particular, Palin, was extraordinary.

Now, nearly a full year into his first term, all of those gilded years leading up to the White House have left him unprepared to be President. Left to his own instincts, he has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. It swiftly became a joke that he could not deliver even the briefest of statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters.

Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to “wish away” some terrible realities, not the least of which is the Islamist intention to destroy America and enslave the West. Any student of history knows how swiftly Islam initially spread. It knocked on the doors of Europe, having gained a foothold in Spain.

The great crowds that greeted him at home or on his campaign “world tour” were no substitute for having even the slightest grasp of history and the reality of a world filled with really bad people with really bad intentions.

Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his political experience, a cakewalk, has positioned him to destroy the Democrat Party’s hold on power in Congress because in the end it was never about the Party. It was always about his communist ideology, learned at an early age from family, mentors, college professors, and extreme leftist friends and colleagues.

Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about a Boston police officer who arrested an “obstreperous” Harvard professor-friend, but would warn Americans against “jumping to conclusions” about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted “Allahu Akbar.” The absurdity of that was lost on no one. He has since compounded this by calling the Christmas bomber “an isolated extremist” only to have to admit a day or two later that he was part of an al Qaeda plot.

He is a man who could strive to close down our detention facility at Guantanamo even though those released were known to have returned to the battlefield against America. He could even instruct his Attorney General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11 a civil trial when no one else would ever even consider such an obscenity. And he is a man who could wait three days before having anything to say about the perpetrator of yet another terrorist attack on Americans and then have to elaborate on his remarks the following day because his first statement was so lame.

The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any problem on the Bush administration or he naively seeks to wish away the truth.

Knock, knock. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have maneuvered and manufactured this pathetic individual’s life.

When anyone else would quickly and easily produce a birth certificate, this man has spent over a million dollars to deny access to his. Most other documents, the paper trail we all leave in our wake, have been sequestered from review. He has lived a make-believe life whose true facts remain hidden.

We laugh at the ventriloquist’s dummy, but what do you do when the dummy is President of the United States of America?

Frances Fox Piven: ACORN-style Mass Movement May Deepen Foreclosure Crisis, Forcing Government & Banks to Address Homeownership Rightsby Kyle Olson

Please read this before reading the article below and watching the video:

Note: It will quickly be obvious to the reader why details have been obscured, omitted or fictionalized in this fascinating narrative of undercover events that began nearly forty years ago.
How to Create a Crisis and Steal a Nation
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/02/how-to-create-crisis-and-steal-nation.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Frances Fox Piven: ACORN-style Mass Movement May Deepen Foreclosure Crisis, Forcing Government & Banks to Address Homeownership Rightsby Kyle Olson

The original Cloward-Piven Strategy, born in a 1966 article in The Nation magazine, was to overwhelm the welfare system by flooding the rolls with new recipients. The government would not be able to keep up (this was a time when a government could actually go bankrupt), the system would crash and a Democratic presidential administration would be “forced” to implement a “guaranteed annual income” for Americans.

Fast forward to the 21st Century. America’s in the midst of a home foreclosure crisis.

Piven’s new strategy? Force the government and banks to deal with the problem by convincing approximately two million people to refuse to leave their homes. ACORN has been implementing this strategy with its Home Defenders program.


Is it possible ACORN sting man James O’Keefe could have spoiled the implementation of this new strategy? The O’Keefe-Giles videos surfaced at precisely the right time to disrupt the Home Defenders scheme.

The organization was rocked by the major scandal and knocked on its heels politically and financially.

Will Piven’s new strategy work? Will another group fill in where ACORN left off? Will ACORN be able to regather to still take advantage of the on-going crisis? Time will tell. Hopefully Americans will recognize and reject her plan so another 1970s New York City story will be averted.

AKA Obama - Where Should We Begin?