Sarah Palin goes on Greta and Hannity and grossly distorts the details of Willow's facebook insults, once again claims victimhood for the whole family

Sarah Palin causes outrage through unwarranted and unjustified attacks on a daily basis. It seems that Palin's only effective method of getting attention is to make outrageous statements, as she has not much else to say. However, mixing up North and South Korea is worth another headline, congratulations, Sarah!

Apparently Michelle Obama has also become a favorite target for the Quitter from Alaska who currently seems to be mad at anyone who doesn't share her idealistic vision of a nineteenth-century America, as described in "America by Heart": A country "as pure as snow" - abortion was illegal, healthcare insurance was unheard of and God was everywhere. (In addition, people were still allowed to serve cookies.) Simplistic views from a simpleton for simpletons.

Today I would like to highlight a fact which has not received enough attention in the media: The fact that Palin distorts the details of the recent "Willow-facebook-scandal" by presenting the real events in a bizarre way and declaring Willow to be a victim. She apparently believes that no-one will check her claims and accusations. She might be right in general! But here at Palingates, we get a real kick out of fact-checking Sarah Palin, ;-)

Sarah was on Greta Van Susteren's show on November 23 and gave her view of the situation:

The transcript can be found HERE.

An excerpt:

PALIN: But let me -- let me add this, though. When we talk about Willow, when we talk about Piper and watching some of their innocence and some of their naive belief that there's justice in society today, for them to see what shots are taken at their family and for them to have no defense -- look what happened to Willow the other day. Somebody had been blogging very, very negative things about the family, and Willow, finally, she'd had it up to here and she finally responded. Unfortunately, she used a bad word when she responded. And that became national news, Greta, her response, not the hatred, not the threats coming her way, but her response. So Willow's saying, Well, why can't I defend my family, Mom? That's injust. Why is that taken away from me? And I had to remind her we need to know how to pick our battles.

My kids are teaching me more than maybe I'm able to teach them in what battles to pick, by the way. And let me give you a quick sample of that, Greta -- quick example of that is Bristol having gone through "Dancing With the Stars." Bristol said, Mom, I'm going to be criticized anyway, I might as well dance. I'm, like, Right on! That's something that Mama and Daddy and everybody else can live with, too. We're going to get criticized, so might as well anyway do what we believe is the right thing to do for this country.

VAN SUSTEREN: You know, in that reference you made about Willow and her -- her reacting back at the -- at the -- at the postings, I actually sort of had a little different thought about it. I thought that -- you know, that we adults had become -- had so let ourselves degrade that we made it safe or OK for young people to act irresponsible and say -- you know, for this person to post nasty things about your family. I mean, it's, like, there are no consequences. And your child reacted back. I mean, they are basically reflecting upon what they are seeing us adults do in many ways. And it's not -- you know, that's not a pretty picture.

PALIN: Yes. You're right. But take that one step further. And my fault being for Willow to think that it was OK to use such a derogatory term in response, in defense of her family. But that wasn't cool. That wasn't right. She learned a lesson. I learned a lesson through that. And it makes me have to, you know, kind of guard my conversation a little bit more around my kids so that they won't think that it's OK to come back swinging like that.

On the other hand, you know, little Willow -- I wouldn't want to be messing with her as somebody's calling her little brother bad names, and you know, kind of doing all that they can to discredit the family. You know, I kind of don't blame her for wanting to come out swinging, but just not to use a bad word when she does it.

(...)

PALIN: Right. This is what I was trying to tell Willow last week. Honey, there's -- it's not just. There is injustice in our society and because man has fallen and there's that acceptance of this spewing of hatred and the attacking of the kids. It's a very sad thing, and that is the injustice that I was trying to teach Willow. But now it becomes a matter of, OK, so how do we react to those circumstances that are injust?

And for Willow, what she has to learn is picking her battles, knowing how it is that she can react. But beyond that, OK, adults, now it's our turn to debate this and to figure what is acceptable and what is not. And why are some politicians' kids targets and others, heaven forbid, you don't touch their kids, their background? Why is -- well, it's obvious. If you're a conservative, you're going to get clobbered. If you're a female conservative with children, you're going to get clobbered.

VAN SUSTEREN: Then -- well -- you know what -- I mean, I've seen some -- (INAUDIBLE) I saw Chelsea Clinton. You know, she got knocked around pretty badly when her parents first came to town. So she got -- she got some of it, too. But the thing that's most distressing is that people will laugh and go along when it's a political opponent, what's done. But they're scandalized if it happens to someone with whom they agree, instead of having -- you know, instead of taking the sort of moral right position, saying it shouldn't happen to any of these children and we shouldn't be doing any of this...

PALIN: True.

VAN SUSTEREN: ... it's, you know, which -- which side are you on? You know, shirts or skins, basically.

PALIN: Right. You're right. And Greta, here's the deal, too. When it comes to, like, me, I've already let people know, maybe unfortunately, what's my Achilles heel? It's you touch my kids and this mama grizzly is going to rise up, and I'm going to react sometimes in a caustic way, and that's going to get the left all wee-weed up and I'm going to give them what they wanted.
Now, unfortunately, that's the position that I have put myself in, in the last couple of years. So I need to, as my skin gets a little -- my skin gets a little bit thicker, I need to not react as much as human nature within a mama wants to react. But I do want -- as you're suggesting, I want the discussion to be about, Is it acceptable or is it not to come after the children? I do not believe that it's acceptable, whether you're a Democrat or a Republican. I think it's pathetic. I think it's immature and unprofessional.

+++

In addition, Sarah Palin was interviewed by Sean Hannity on November 22, 2010, and had more accusations (at the 6:10 mark of the interview):

"People probably think that my greatest frustration is the lies that are told in the tabloids and on hateful blogs full of anonymous sources about my family…and there are constant everyday lies that we have to read that are out there in the public. But my family and I…thick skin…we can take it, you know…we can take what the haters say despite the fact that there’s injustice in the situation. I mean, look at the other day…Willow, finally, my 16 year old…she had had it up to here with somebody saying very very hateful things about the family and saying mean things about her little brother Trig and Willow finally responded and she used a bad word when she responded in defense of her family. And her response became national news, even hard news copy it turned into, so that’s ridiculous and I had to explain to her…Willow, there is no justice here but you have to just zip your lip and let’s move forward."

+++

So, Sarah Palin, wait a moment. Somebody "blogged very, very negative things about the family", and Willow "had it up to here" and "finally responded?"

Somebody said "very very hateful things about the family" and "mean things about Willow's little brother Trig?"

No, Sarah, that is NOT what happened. In fact, this is a complete invention!

Sarah, can you at least TRY to make a statement which is not a complete distortion of the inconvenient facts? Your family members were NOT victims in this incident.

What happened is the following:

A teenager called "Tre" wrote the following sentence on his own facebook:

"Sarah Palin's Alaska, is failing soo hard right now."

There is nothing wrong with this statement. Tre commented about Sarah Palin's reality show, not about her family. It's called freedom of speech. Sarah Palin is being paid about $ 2 million for her laughable reality show and is therefore open for criticism.

In this statement, Tre DOES NOT:

a) Say "very, very negative things" about Palin's family

b) call Willow's "little brother bad names"

c) say "mean things" about Trig

c) and Tre is also NOT a blogger, but just wrote one sentence on his own facebook page.

But Sarah Palin, the person who wants to become the most powerful person of America and of the world doesn't understand that, and most likely doesn't even care, because the real version of events doesn't show Willow and Bristol in a good light.

This whole incident also has nothing do with "justice in society"...or has it?

Let's take a further look at the details of this incident:

After Tre wrote this sentence, it was not Willow who responded, but Bristol. Unfortunately, this facebook conversation has been misreported in the media right from the start, despite the fact that TMZ made the full transcript available immediately when they published their story.

It was not a "Willow incident" - it was a "Bristol and Willow" incident, and Bristol is not a "little" teenager any more, but is twenty-years-old, appears on national TV-shows and gives speeches. So Bristol should have some manners. But the facebook conversation shows that this is not the case.

It was Bristol, not Willow who immediately responded to Tre and insulted him:

"You are running your mouth just to talk shit.."

Tre answered:

"hahahahaha, the show fails I think, just opinion, but so do other people."

That's a fair comment, is it not? Tre is not trashing the family or individual family members, he simply voices his opinion about a TV-show.

What the follows is a barrage of ugly insults from Bristol and Willow - see the full transcript HERE.

Excerpts:

So, Willow and Bristol are not victims here, it's not a case of "injustice." Such a claim by Sarah Palin is pure fantasy. The whole Palin family seems to develop into a bunch of bullies - just like Todd, who was caught on tape.

Willow and Bristol also didn't just write "a bad word." They reacted with a whole, unwarranted barrage of insults.

As far as "justice in society" is concerned, it's Tre who receives an unjust treatment, not Bristol and Willow.

Thankfully, through the publication of the screenshots, the world got the see another glimpse of the real face of the Palin family.

Also, what does Sarah Palin mean by the following statement:

"And it makes me have to, you know, kind of guard my conversation a little bit more around my kids so that they won't think that it's OK to come back swinging like that."

Does that mean that Sarah Palin herself uses these insulting terms at home as well?

Another bizarre statement by Sarah:

"My kids are teaching me more than maybe I'm able to teach them in what battles to pick, by the way."

So, the future President of the USA is taught by her rowdy kids which battles to pick. The same kids who are apparently utterly useless in this respect?

As far as I can see right now, there is only one solution:

Get in the Supernanny for Willow, Bristol and Sarah and teach them manners! Unfortunately, the Supernanny will have to start from scratch.

+++

Please re-tweet:

http://twitter.com/#!/palingates/status/7578506389098497

http://twitter.com/#!/palingates/status/7578843904745472

http://twitter.com/#!/palingates/status/7579524912910337

.

Sarah Palin's "barren" ANWR

The Palins and Greta Van Susteren discussed ANWR "On The Record" and concluded that the area where Sarah Palin wants to drill, baby, drill is barren.

VAN SUSTEREN: You know, Todd, it struck me that it's quite flat and there's not a lot of -- I didn't see a lot of animal life or anything. How far south is it like this? What's the terrain like?
TODD PALIN: Many miles south before we get into the mountain range, as you can see. And so when you see pictures of ANWR in the mountains and moose, I don't see that anywhere here, or to the north of us.
SARAH PALIN: You can look about 60 miles south and still see what we're seeing right now. So yes, as Todd's suggesting, the fundraiser pictures and the websites that show waterfalls and moose and mountain ranges and Dahl sheep climbing along shale (ph), that's not the real ANWR.
VAN SUSTEREN: Is there anything to ANWR besides this flat that we've seen? I mean, have we have seen pretty much a representation of ANWR.
TODD PALIN: Pretty much. On our flight down here from Prudhoe, down here to Kavik hunting camp, yes.
VAN SUSTEREN: So what about animal life? Have we seen -- have we seen any animals since we've been here?
TODD PALIN: Saw about five caribou when we landed, and there's a caribou across the runway here. But there's plenty of caribou around here normally.
SARAH PALIN: Somebody said they saw two birds. That adds to the species list. But there are some -- out of the 20 million acres set aside in ANWR, there is wilderness. There is refuge area. There are some more beautiful, more scenic landscapes to look at. But the 1002 area, the 1.5 million acres that have been set aside for the oil and gas development, including the 2,000 acres that are needed for the footprint for the development, that's the barren remoteness that you're looking at.
VAN SUSTEREN: You know, you don't have a sense of how big this is unless you actually come up and look at it.
SARAH PALIN: Absolutely. That's key, you know, to consider the 20 million acres of this, plus the 23 million acres of -- that's pretty much adjacent to the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska area. These tens of millions of acreages that are so vast, so remote, yes, people don't understand even what kind of context we're talking about until they get up here.
VAN SUSTEREN: Todd, can you understand any of the environmental concerns or any of the complaints about this from people?
TODD PALIN: Well, you know, working on the slope for close to 20 years, knowing what we do every day to maintain our license to do business, it's hard for me to understand the direction. You know, they just want to lock up this state. Any kind of species, endangered species, they just want to lock up our complete state, let alone ANWR, for resource development.

From Wikipedia:

The question of whether to drill for oil in the ANWR has been an ongoing political controversy in the United States since 1977. The controversy surrounds drilling for oil in a 1,500,000 acres (6,100 km2) subsection on the coastal plain, known as the "1002 area." Much of the debate over whether to drill in the 1002 area of ANWR rests on the amount of economically recoverable oil, as it relates to world oil markets, weighed against the potential harm oil exploration might have upon the natural wildlife, in particular the calving ground of the Porcupine caribou.

A few google searches later, it turns out that area 1002 is far from barren.



The area is home to the following creatures: caribou, Porcupine caribou, muskoxen, polar bears, snow geese, gyrfalcons, Arctic foxes and bowhead whales, among others.

Porcupine caribou movements throughout the year in area 1002

Polar bears in area 1002

Distribution on muskoxen in area 1002

A few pictures of the wildlife in "barren" area 1002:

Porcupine caribou

Arctic gyrfalcon

Muskox

Snow geese

Bowhead whale

Arctic fox

Alaska Stock and Alaska In Pictures have hundreds of photographs of wildlife in area 1002 of ANWR.

Further reading:

Management of the 1002 Area within the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain

Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain Terrestrial Wildlife Research Summaries

Wikipedia: Arctic Refuge drilling controversy

Eco-risks loom as arctic oil activity grows

Current NOW President, Terry O’Neill, Bought and Paid For By SarahPAC? - PART II - The Elaine Lafferty Files

Guest post by micmac

Source: Wikipedia

+++Please note that Palingates published several posts about this topic which compliment each other! Read them HERE+++

Detail of a generic map of a mediaeval manor. The demesne was land held by the lord in the manorial land system; the glebe were strips held by the incumbent of the benefice.

In the Roman Catholic and Anglican church traditions, a glebe was an area of land belonging to a benefice. This was property (in addition to the parsonage house and grounds) which was assigned to support the priest. Glebe included a wide variety of properties including strips in the all but universal open field system or with enclosure, complete farms, individual fields, shops, houses, factories, etc. An incumbent was entitled to retain the glebe for his own use if he wished (for instance, some incumbents farmed their own land) or he could let it out, and any income formed part of the stipend.

---------------

Let’s see now, the last time we left Ms. Elaine Lafferty, she’d been sentenced to six month’s hard labor down at The Glebe, working off her debt to High Priestess Shelly Mandell for the use of 3906 Tilden Avenue, Culver City, CA as a campaign donation address.

In sweeps the Dark Prince McCain, forking over an impressive $50,000 ransom to set her free. In her gratitude, Lafferty writes the penultimate Palin poofery “Sarah Palin’s A Brainiac”, featured in The Daily Beast on October 27, 2008 -- a silver bullet aimed straight at the heart of Conservative Peggy Noonan’s October 17, 2008 WSJ slam-book entry: “Palin’s Failin’.”

Lafferty does mention her employment status in the article:

“I'm a Democrat, but I've worked as a consultant with the McCain campaign since shortly after Palin's nomination. Last week, there was the thought that as a former editor-in-chief of Ms. magazine as well as a feminist activist in my pre-journalism days, I might be helpful in contributing to a speech that Palin had long wanted to give on women's rights.”

But notice this “disclaimer” is fairly well skipped over in the Daily Beast hagiography, eclipsed by the bold type lead-in:

"The former editor in chief of Ms. magazine (and a Democrat) on what she learned on a campaign plane with the would-be VP."

Just giving the Brainiac pointers for her speech, that’s all. This article is presented as journalism, which it most assuredly is not. It was campaign propaganda, pure and simple, and the Daily Beast got had. It’s not journalism, folks, when you are paid $25,000 as a Communications Director for McCain the previous month, and will pick up another $25,000 from the campaign four days later. (On Halloween!)

Not to mention another $2976 on December 4, and $3672 on December 10, 2008.

Screenshots:

The individual pages with these disbursements by the McCain campaign and the McCain-Palin campaign can be downloaded HERE.

The complete reports of the "John McCain 2008 Inc" committee can be accessed HERE and the complete reports of the "McCain - Palin 2008 Inc" committee can be accessed HERE. For more committees click HERE.

+++

This Sarah-dipitous plane ride, during which the scales from Lafferty’s eyes supposedly fell, was no accident. Lafferty was on her way to Henderson, NV to join forces with the McCain PUMAS, including her old buddy Shelly Mandell. To CAMPAIGN for Sarah.

And get paid for doing so.

“Palin was joined on stage by five women who endorsed her candidacy, including two members of the Democratic National Platform Committee, two leaders of chapters of the National Organization of Women, and a former editor of Ms. Magazine [Elaine Lafferty].”

Palin delivered a stem-winder of a speech on women’s rights – which Lafferty most assuredly wrote for her. The speech criticized Obama for not paying the women on his campaign staff as much as the men. (This is rich, knowing what we know now about McCain’s payments to Lafferty and Mandell.)

What would be the equivalent from the Obama side? Perhaps Glenn Beck “accidentally on purpose” taking a plane ride with Obama, then writing a “column” wherein he descried the Democrat nominee as, well, “totally NOT the Marxist/Socialist/BabyKiller” the FauxNewsians had cracked him up to be.” After appearing on stage with him during a campaign stop.

I can see the verbiage in my mind: He’s a Centrist I tell ya, a Centrist! And he’s not as smart as everyone claims him to be! He’s one of Us! Dumber than Dumb!

And then picking up a check for $56,648 macaroonies on his way out the door...

After the election, Lafferty’s PUMA bus vapor-sucking in the wake of Palin’s Naughty Monkey Heels just would not. . .let. . . go. Lafferty and BFF/co-restaurateur and co-author Greta Van Susteren gave one last go to affix themselves to the Palin Brandname on November 7, 2008, laying the palm fronds down in preparation for Sarah’s (and their) future:



You need not watch the whole thing. It’s basically a retread of the same old tired topics:

The staff loved her, they totally loved her.
She was smart.
She didn’t have time to shop for clothes.

Yeah, Elaine, she didn’t have time to shop for clothes, or do her hair or fix her makeup. That’s why she had other people do it for her – her hairdresser and her make up artist - Angela Lew and Ami Strozzi - were paid handsomely by McCain, you may recall, $19,000 and almost $36,000, respectively.

That McCain, he pays his women so much more money than that mean old Obama-man.
Maybe that’s why Obama picked Biden for a running mate – he was too cheap to pay for a hairdresser.

I’ll leave you with one more Laff from the Gafferty, taken from the above interview:

LAFFERTY: I think she's going to surprise a lot of people by being a much more moderate voice in politics in the future.

Wowser. What a Brainiac. . . .and they actually pay her for this stuff????

+++

Read the follow-up: Who received the money from SarahPAC?

.

Sarah Palin's empty promises

When Sarah Palin was criticized about her large fee for addressing the teabaggers convention in Nashville, she told Greta Van Susteren:

"The speaker's fee will go right back into the cause. I'll be able to donate it to people and those events, those things that I believe in, that will help perpetuate the message, the message being: Government, you have constitutional limits. You better start abiding by them."

Back in September 2008, Sarah Palin made a similar promise:

Gov. Sarah Palin, touted by Republican presidential nominee John McCain as a reformer when he picked her to be his running mate, says she will donate to charity more than $1,000 in campaign contributions from two Alaska politicians implicated in a federal corruption probe.

Palin said Thursday she also is giving back $1,000 from the wife of one of the men. The move came a few hours after The Associated Press reported that Palin had accepted the money during her successful 2006 run for governor. Palin was elected easily after she promised to rid Alaska's capital of dirty politics.

"Gov. Palin has made a career of holding herself to the highest standards of ethics. As soon as the governor learned of the donations today, she immediately decided to donate them to charity," campaign spokesman Taylor Griffin said.

We have received some interesting information about the Palin/Parnell campaign disclosure statements.

Sarah Palin did attempt to give the "bad" money to charity. The only problem was her ignorance of the laws governing her own state. Here are the copies of letters exchanged between the campaign treasurer and APOC:




The carryover reports shown below reveal a curious fact.








The screenshots show that the balance remained exactly the same as in the report submitted right after the gubernatorial campaign. That was to be expected.

Sarah Palin couldn't give anything to charity. She can't touch that money at all because she's not a candidate for any state elective office.

The only way she would be able to spend any of the $49,540.30 would be to close the campaign account, disperse the funds and submit a final report, which has not happened, as we can see below. Another alternative would be for Sarah to run for office, so she could quit...again!



Not one dollar was returned to any donors or given to any charities.


Sarah Palin did not attempt to make any changes to the rules while she had the authority as governor of the state of Alaska. If she had, that would have enabled her and other candidates in the same situation to make charitable donations or return the money to certain donors. After all, Sarah Palin championed the remarkable ethics legislation, didn't she?

Why does Sarah Palin still have a "Palin for Governor" account when she didn't want to be a "lame duck" and dislikes "politics as usual"? What is she going to do with nearly $50,000 and when?

Her grand gesture during the vice presidential campaign was just that, an empty promise she would not keep.

This is typical Sarah Palin modus operandi: all talk, no knowledge, no action and no credibility.

Do we detect a pattern?

***
Links
APOC index
APOC FAQs
APOC Statutes and Regulations
.

Watch Greta van Susteren talk to Karl Rove and freak out about the fake pregnancy allegations!

In a new interview with Karl Rove which was shown at Fox News on 25th November 2009, Greta van Susteren talks about "Going Rogue" and freaks out about our favourite subject - "BABYGATE". Apparently enraged about the fact the "horrible internet rumors" about the faked pregnancy with Trig still exist, Greta desperately asks how Sarah should "overcome" these rumors. See for yourself (relevant part from 2:28):

Here is the relevant part from the transcript - the complete transcript can be found here:

VAN SUSTEREN: How do you show substance?

ROVE: Well, you show substance by -- you know, by -- by talking about it, by, you know, offering interesting ideas, by commenting about current events in a way that people find -- find revealing of your leadership skills, and by, you know, charting a course, by setting a theme and charting a course for what you want to do and where you want the country to go that people would find attractive.

VAN SUSTEREN: But here's the interesting thing, is that all those rumors about who her son, Trig -- you know, who is the real mother of her son, Trig, a horrible Internet rumor -- you know, there were Internet rumors about a lot of candidates. There were Internet rumors about President Obama that he was never confronted with, it would have been wrong to confront him about. But she gets slapped around with that. I mean, so how does she overcome the ones that she gets hit with?

ROVE: Well, look, it's to answer the -- the ones that she feels she needs to but move on. I mean, don't get stuck in this. Don't get -- you know, don't get in a debate with Levi Johnston. Don't get sort of focused on it. Don't show your anger.

VAN SUSTEREN: But she gets asked about that. What does -- what does she do...

ROVE: Well...

VAN SUSTEREN: ... if she gets asked about it? I mean, the problem is, you know, if she sits down in an interview and someone says, Hey, how about Levi Johnston? Is he really posing nude in the magazine? What do you think about it? Will he be there for Thanksgiving? What's she supposed to say?

ROVE: She needs to...

VAN SUSTEREN: Talk about Iran?

ROVE: She needs to -- well, no, she needs to find a way to move off of it and get on to things that are important because, look, the media wants to stick her there. They want to have her be somebody who's more comfortable -- that people are more comfortable seeing her on the front page -- on the front cover of "People" magazine than seeing her in the Oval Office. And the way to do that is to keep these questions about, you know, sort of minor side issues coming and keep her drawn into those conversations, rather than allowing her to begin to develop and flesh out a vision of where she would want to take the country were she to become a candidate.

Interesting how Greta brings up the fake pregnancy rumors and in his response, Karl Rove jumps immediately to the subject of Levi Johnston, although Greta hadn't mentioned Levi at all!

Did Karl Rove realise that it would be most advisable not to start talking about the fake pregancy rumors in more detail...?

In addition, it's of course a complete lie that President Obama was never confronted with the Internet rumors about him - after all, he felt compelled to provide his birth certificate, and several court cases were initiated to challenge Obama's birth certificate! These court cases were doomed right from that start, of course.

I have an answer fo Greta's question, how should Sarah "overcome" the Internet rumors "she gets hit with." Well, what about showing for example Trig's birth certificate and medical documentation about the pregnancy?

But then we know that Sarah cannot do it - because it is a FACT that she has faked the pregnancy.

Greta was wrong (surprise!). It is not an "internet rumor" that Sarah Palin has faked the pregancy with Trig. It is simply the truth!

Please click on the title of the blogpost or CLICK HERE before using the toolbar below for sharing!