GRAYSON SUPPORTS THE TEA PARTY?

Today a gentleman from Alan Grayson's campaign knocked on my door.  His purpose was to have me sign paperwork so that Mr. Grayson and his campaign could help me register to vote, because apparently I'm not capable of doing it myself.

Thanks, but no thanks.

I have been voting for many years now, and have never once had someone working for a candidate come to my door to offer to take care of registering for me.  I prefer to register the legal way, all by myself.  I find it difficult to trust the "congressman from ACORN" with my voting information.   After all, the man is implicated in election shenanigans already:





Please note the use of Alinsky Rule #5 when deflecting questioning about the tea party allegations in an interview with CNN:

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

This rule seems to be his personal motto.  Hopefully Alinsky meant  he should make a complete ass out of himself in the process, because if so, Grayson nailed it.
 
Grayson denies any connection to this scandal, but he seems to think he is too smart by half and that Tea Party supporters are idiots, so why not try to pull the wool over their eyes?  After all, he's been so very supportive of the tea baggers partyers in the past (warning: Joy Behar is in the linked clip - those with weak stomachs should not view).  Why wouldn't they fall for it?

The question is, would he really stoop to such things? He can certainly afford it - he's the 7th richest member of the House (ranked 12th when you include the Senate). In addition, on a list of 30 vulnerable House seats, he ranks 13th. As an accomplished lawyer, there is a good chance he knows how to set up organizations and make it nearly impossible to discover who controls them.


That covers means, motive and ability. All that's left is a concrete tie to Public Opinion Strategies. Channel 6's Tony Pipitone seems tenacious, so hopefully he will find more information. 

In the meantime, Grayson seems to be taking a two-pronged approach to this election.  He understands his district is historically republican, so attempting to split the ticket by setting up and funding a 'tea party' candidate seems like a logical way to pull out a win in November.  The 'Congressman from ACORN' is also apparently taking on the voter registration duties of the allegedly defunct organization now as well, if the door-to-door experience I had today was any indication. That's a scary thought.

With a little luck, Pipitone will uncover the missing link, and the story will get legs.  Until then, please be sure to check out Grayson's legitimate opponents:

 Patricia Sullivan, Bruce O’Donoghue, Dan Fanelli, Peg Dunmire, Kurt Kelly, Todd Long and Steven Gerritzen (Whig).

HOW HIGH DOES IT GO?

There is news breaking on American Spectator that Patrick Gaspard, a top Obama White House aide, is also a longtime ACORN operative. The man who now holds the same powerful, influential title as Karl Rove was "chief organizer" Bertha Lewis' political director in New York, and, just to add a little extra zing to his resume, he was also executive VP for political and legislative affairs for SEIU 1199. He was also registered as a lobbyist for SEIU in 2007.

If this guy was in any deeper, he'd need a snorkel.

Democrat response to all things ACORN has been rather reminiscent of cockroaches when the lights are turned on, even going so far as voting in enormous numbers to illustrate their distance. I have an issue with the House vote, however. They attached it to a bill with a few quite questionable 'poison pills'. As usual, Pelosi is taking advantage of a hot issue and passing unpopular stuff on it's coattails. Heaven forbid we have that 'dialogue' they prize so dearly.

The fact that there were some - especially in the Senate, where there was no poison pill - who voted to keep funding ACORN should raise some eyebrows. How many democrats used ACORN to 'get out the vote'? How many of them voted against defunding? Any name that comes up for both questions should be investigated for closer ties.

This organization is deeply vested in the political landscape, and there are many politicians who are deeply involved in the funding and furthering of ACORN's agenda as well. Due to the high level of corruption investigations must be undertaken.

The big question is: How high does it go?

By now, many people know that, back in 1995, Barack Obama represented ACORN in court, trained staff over a 10 year period from 1993-2003, headed Project Vote in 1992, etc, etc, etc. If you are not familiar with his ACORN history, check out this great article by World Net Daily.

His ties are deep, but during the campaign he started to distance himself from the organization, even though he paid them $832,000 to 'get out the vote'.

ACORN is deeply involved in this administration, and this new revelation of Patrick Gaspard's high level appointment shows how deeply Obama is still involved with ACORN.

Isn't it amazing that Watergate, a case of wire-tapping and spying on political opponents, would have such deep repercussions, and yet ACORN's ties to Obama and it's long, long list of corruption, embezzlement, voter fraud and money laundering is something the administration expects to shrug off?

SHOULD WE STAY OR SHOULD WE GO?

Well, all those warm fuzzies I had from Mr. Obama's shrewd playing of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are going...going...gone.

Our Marshmallow-in-Chief is showing his squishy side again, but this time our fine men and women in uniform will pay the price. He has 'back burnered' a troop request, stating that:

""You don't make determinations about resources, and certainly you don't make determinations about sending young men and women into battle without having absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be." "

So let me get this straight: he's been in office for nine months, increased troop levels by more than 17,000 back in February, launched a new offensive and replaced generals on the ground, but still doesn't have a plan yet?!

Seriously?

Maybe he is unaware of the unprecedented level of casualties our troops have been suffering. Perhaps he thinks that leaving them in the field, under funded, under manned, and under estimated is a viable option while he flits from city to city speechifying about everything from health care to inspiring our youth to a nuclear-free utopia, not to mention his whirlwind Sunday chatfest marathon of saying the exact same thing five different ways.

There's no rush, after all.

Did you know that as soon as he decides to increase levels, all our Anointed One has to do is snap his oh so nimble fingers and - voila! - the troops are in the field and ready to go. No recruiting, training, transporting or staging required! It's not like a request made now wouldn't be delivered until, say, January or February.

No rush, though, no rush.

It's obvious you have weightier issues on your mind.

Take your time. It's not like lives depend on your decision....

Choose your position, sir, and stand by it. If you choose withdrawal, do it quickly, so no more lives are lost.

But if victory is your goal, then man them, fully fund them, and let the generals do their jobs. McChrystal knows that it's not just about winning battles - it's about winning the hearts and minds of the civilians, showing them what freedom can bring. Talk to your generals.

We are America - if we set our minds to winning, we will win.

Of all the enemies that deserved to be beaten, the Taliban is second only to the Third Reich.

How did we beat the Reich? Determination, sacrifice, support and the deep-seated belief that we were doing what was right and good. We were not left or right, we were Americans. We did not start the fight, but we sure did finish it, didn't we?

We can do it again. Just give us the chance.