Community Organizing At Its Ugly Worst - Who LIED? - Latest Commie Czar Sustein Says Obama Not Courts Should Interpret Laws - Obama's Twisted ACORN Roots - Poles: We've Been Sold To The Russians - Hypocrats - Genuine Catholic Concern That USCCB Will Be Conned Re Death Care Bill
[LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH] Community Organizing at its Ugly Worst! President Ob...
Mary Ann Kreitzer (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sat 9/19/09 9:57 AM
Note the tactics straight out of the Alinsky playbook: 1) identify an enemy, 2) freeze him, 3) choose a tactic your mob [okay, Alinsky doesn't call his lackeys a mob] will enjoy. [Union thugs enjoy "escalating" against their opponents, especially if they can do it with steel-tipped boots and brass knuckles.]
The article goes on, "The document, a copy of which was obtained by The
The organizers are getting more and more transparent and their tactics are no longer a mystery. Honest liberals need to wake up to the fact that they are nothing but pawns on a chessboard being used by unscrupulous politicians for their own purpose. The immoral men and women of both parties do it, liberals just do it more effectively. One big difference -- the mainstream media goes after Republicans, remember Richard Nixon and his "enemies" list? You won't read about this in the New York Times. They stopped being journalists years ago and are nothing but shills for liberal politicians.
thought - When you consider that Obama promised "hope" and
"change," this escalation of ugly mafia-style tactics is shocking.
Don't let the organizers win by default. As Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for enough good men to do nothing."
Posted By Mary Ann Kreitzer to LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH at 9/19/2009 08:18:00 AM
[LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH] Virtual Reality on Obama's Health Plan: A 50 day wai...
Mary Ann Kreitzer (email@example.com)
Fri 9/18/09 11:02 PM
Posted By Mary Ann Kreitzer to LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH at 9/18/2009 10:58:00 PM
Who LIED? - Latest Commie Czar Sustein says Obama not courts should interpret laws - Obama's twisted ACORN roots - Poles: We've been sold to the Russians - Hypocrats - Genuine Catholic concern that USCCB will be conned re death care bill -
by Phyllis Schlafly
September 18, 2009
The sanctimonious shock at Rep. Joe Wilson's (R-SC) calling out "You lie" when Barack Obama said the health care bill will not insure illegal aliens reminds me of the Casablanca police chief saying he was "shocked, shocked" to learn that gambling was taking place in the saloon. Barack Obama's congressional pals had defeated the Republican amendment to require proof of legal residency in order to be covered by the health care bill, and the American people know that illegals are now getting free health care at emergency rooms. The surprise was that nobody cried "You lie" when Obama said "Under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions." Anyone who follows this issue knows that all Democratic sponsored bills cover abortion funding, and that the Hyde Amendment does not apply to the health care bill because it only prohibits federal taxpayer funding of abortions financed through Medicaid.
Obama promised Planned Parenthood that "In my mind, reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care, and so it is at the center, and at the heart of the plan that I propose."
Obama also stated, "We're going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don't have health insurance. It'll be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services." Nobody disputes the fact that "reproductive services" includes elective abortions.
Obviously, the feminists in Obama's audience knew he was lying when he said that no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions. If they hadn't believed Obama was lying, the feminists from Nancy Pelosi to Barbara Boxer to Barbara Mikulski would have erupted in audible protest.
No way will the feminists allow Obama's health care "reform" to exclude payment for abortions-on-demand. The feminists have already demonstrated their considerable clout in the Obama Administration, and abortion funding is central to their long-term and short-term goals.
Rush Limbaugh pointed out the media's hypocrisy about the use of the word lie: there was
no outcry when the other Joe Wilson (Valerie Plame's
husband) accused President George W. Bush of lying in his State of the Union
Address to a joint session of Congress. Liberal etiquette decrees that it's
okay to call Bush a liar, but not Obama, with whom the media, as Bernard
Goldberg detailed in his most recent book
Obama told another lie when he claimed that the Democrats' health care plan does not set up "panels of bureaucrats" with the authority to withhold life sustaining treatment from elderly patients. He compounded his lie by accusing anybody who talks about such death panels of "a lie, plain and simple" (and everybody recognized as a not-so-subtle reference to Sarah Palin).
Another lie in Obama's speech was saying that the plan does not jeopardize Medicare benefits which seniors currently receive. He plans to cut $500 Billion out of Medicare "waste and inefficiency" which can't be done without reducing benefits.
Other lies in Obama's speech included his claim that the health care plan will not add to the deficit, that anyone who is satisfied with his current health plan can keep it, and that his plan will not require raising taxes on people earning less than $250,000 a year.
The fundamental lie in all the Democrats' plans is the pretense that they can insure an additional 50 million people without increasing costs and/or without reducing benefits for the other 250 million people who are basically satisfied with their current health care. People are protesting at Tea Parties and Town Meetings because they realize this is not possible no matter how many passionate speeches Obama gives.
The Tea Party march down on
Here are some samples of the home-made signs that show the rising activism of We The People: "The change I hoped for was freedom." "Recycle Congress." "1 Czar down, 43 to go." "Don't Tread On Me." "You are not entitled to what I have earned." "I love my country but I'm scared of my government." "Investigate ACORN." "Your fair share is NOT in my wallet." "Obamacare makes me sick." "I'm not your ATM." "Nurses Against Obamacare." "Abortion is not health care." "Undocumented worker" (under picture of Obama). "Congress pack your bags; you're going home in 2010." "If you're not outraged, you're not paying taxes." "Read the bill." "Bolsheviks promised change too." Quotes from John Adams. And a sign carried by a two-year-old child: "I owe $38,000."
Some signs were carried by immigrants: "Latinos are
conservative too." "I had enough Socialism in the
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour speaks at Heritage on Friday about implementing tort reform and restoring fairness in the civil justice system.
August 28, 2009
The Trial Lawyers' Earmark: Using Medicare to Finance the Lifestyles of the Rich and Infamous
Legal Memorandum #47
In one of the starkest examples of how plaintiffs' lawyers want to use Congress to get rich at the expense of the American taxpayer, an amendment that would have generated abusive Medicare litigation on a massive scale--along with the usual huge attorneys' fees--was recently added to the health care reform bill in the U.S. House of Representatives. The current Medicare statute simply ensures that Medicare is reimbursed for the medical benefits it pays when a third party is legally responsible for a Medicare beneficiary's injuries or medical costs. However, the tort lawyer amendment would:
· Allow new types of lawsuits against the makers of consumer products (including food) for supposed injuries to Medicare beneficiaries based on questionable statistical speculation;
· Flood the federal courts with lawsuits that circumvent state tort law and federal requirements for class action lawsuits, diversity jurisdiction, or amount in controversy;
· Violate the privacy of Medicare beneficiaries by making their medical records available to tort lawyers without their permission (or that of the government);
· Interfere with the rights of beneficiaries against third parties responsible for their medical costs; and
· Improperly and unwisely turn the Medicare reimbursement provision into a qui tam statute that would allow plaintiffs' lawyers to pursue claims that Medicare does not think are valid or proper, reducing the availability of medical treatment for Medicare beneficiaries.
Although the amendment would be
unconstitutional, it might take years for the courts to make that
determination. Fortunately, the amendment-- Section 1620--was removed before
the approval of the health care bill in the
First, Plaintiffs' proposed interpretation of [the MSP] would drastically expand federal court jurisdiction by creating a federal forum to litigate any state tort claim in which a business entity allegedly injured a Medicare beneficiary, without regard to diversity of citizenship or amount in controversy. Second...an alleged tortfeasor that is sued under the MSP (instead of under state tort law) could not contest liability without risking the penalty of double damages: defendants would have no opportunity to reimburse Medicare after responsibility was established but before the penalty attached. Third...[it] would allow individuals acting as private attorneys general to litigate the state tort liability of a defendant towards thousands of Medicare beneficiaries--as a predicate to showing MSP liability--without complying with class action requirements.
The intent of the proposed amendment is to override this common-sense ruling (and the rulings of the four other circuit courts that have heard similar claims and rejected them), to expand federal jurisdiction, to remove traditional tort law barriers to these claims, and even to circumvent the class action restrictions that would otherwise be applicable.
First, the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact"--an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of--the injury has to be fairly...trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not...th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court. Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
While the MSP amendment purports to permit "any person" into court to establish the liability of any entity, it is extremely questionable whether "any person" would satisfy the constitutional requirements for standing. The amendment is designed to permit speculative, conjectural, or hypothetical suits--the very type of claims that the standing doctrine prohibits.
In the context of the False Claims Act (FCA), which protects the government against paying fraudulent claims, the Supreme Court previously found that plaintiffs in qui tam cases have standing to assert the injury in fact suffered by the government. However, the putative qui tam provisions at issue here are significantly different from those in the FCA in ways that raise serious questions as to whether a plaintiff would likewise meet the standing threshold.
42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(A); See also Cochran v. United State Health Care Fin. Admin., 291 F.3d 775 (11th Cir. 2002).
42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b)(2)(B)(ii).
Glover v. Liggett Group, Inc., 459 F.3d 1304, 1306 (11th Cir. 2006).
Graham v. Farm Bureau Insurance Co., 2007 WL 891895 (W.D.Mich 2007) (citations omitted).
See e.g., Stalley v. Methodist Healthcare, 517 F.3d 911 (6th Cir. 2008).
Qui tam is from a Latin phrase meaning "he who brings a case on
behalf of our lord the King, as well as for himself." See
Memorandum from the U.S. Department of Justice on False Claims Act Cases:
Government Intervention in Qui Tam (Whistleblower) Suits, available at
Stalley, 517 F.3d at 919.
Phil Goldberg, Kudos to Congress for Saying "No" to Renewed Attempts to Turn MSP Act Into New Vehicle for Litigation Abuse, inBNA's Medicare Report (July 24, 2009).
If such claims were brought by the beneficiaries under state law, they normally would be barred under traditional state law by defenses such as "contributory negligence" and "assumption of risk."
Glover, 459 F.3d at 1309.
Warth v. Seldin, 422
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504
 Raines v. Byrd, 521
Gladstone Realtors, 441
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v.
See Lujan, 504
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, 529
In addition to these constitutionally relevant distinctions, there are policy distinctions suggesting that qui tam may be appropriate in whistleblower cases, which provide a remedy for individuals working for corrupt bosses or for being asked to participate in corrupt practices, but inappropriate here, where the lawyers bringing the actions have no such claim.
Beyond the Art. III standing problems, the MSP amendment raises substantial Art. II and constitutional federal concerns.
Olson, Chronicling the High Cost of Our Legal System--Medicare Qui Tam: a
Health Care Bill Surprise, July 17, 2009, available at http://overlawyered.com/2009/07/medicare-qui-tam-a-health-care-bill
Phil Goldberg, supra note 11.
apparently due to the efforts of Reps. Dave Camp (R-MI) and Eric Cantor
(R-VA). James K. Glassman, Trial Lawyer Medicare Bonanza Averted--For Now,
The American, August 5, 2009, available at http://www.
A similar effort was tried in the Senate Finance Committee in 2007. See Phil Goldberg, supra note 11.
Graham, 2007 WL 891895.
Quin Hillyer, How the Mighty Lerach
Has Fallen: Power Lawyer to Prisoner,
ACORN's impact on the poor
Posted: September 18, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
By Mike Lester
DAY OF INFAMY 2001
Obama offends patriots – are veterans next?
Exclusive: Rees Lloyd takes prez to task for tweaking with 9/11 remembrance
Obama offends patriots – are veterans next?
September 18, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
By Rees Lloyd
Sept. 11 has been annually observed since 2001 as Patriot Day – that is, until Sept. 11, 2009, when President Barack Hussein Obama proclaimed it "Patriot Day and National Day of Service and Remembrance." Why would the Obama regime redefine Patriot Day into a community-organizing slogan?
Patriot Day is not a day to gayly attend a community-organizing meeting of ACORN, whose organizers Obama trained, whose lawyer Obama was, and to whose corrupt leaders Obama has conduited millions of taxpayer dollars.
Today, the third Friday of September, is annual National POW/MIA Recognition Day, dedicated to honoring and remembering all those who suffered as prisoners of war and all the thousands still missing in action. Rear Adm. Jeremiah Denton (USN, retired), former U.S. senator (R-Ala.), a Vietnam prisoner of war for seven years, seven months, who detailed the torture and suffering of American POWs in his powerful book, "When Hell Was In Session" (a new edition of which will be released by WND Books on Veterans Day), will be the keynote speaker at national ceremonies at the Pentagon. Will the original purpose of POW/MIA Recognition Day be the next changed by Obama?
Patriot Day is a day of solemn remembrance of the horror of 9/11/2001 and the need to stand united against the Islamist terrorism that caused the death of almost 3,000 innocent people, including over 400 fire, police and other emergency personnel who died in valiant attempts to rescue those victims.
Instead, Obama, a Saul Alinsky-indoctrinated former "community organizer" cum president, diminishes the "Patriot" essence of Patriot Day to proclaim: "I call upon the people of the
Thus, Obama and his regime have shamefully degraded Patriot Day by an act further evidencing his apparently unrestrained narcissistic self-worship. He apparently is so self-absorbed that he is unable to recognize that Patriot Day is not about him and his community-organizer agenda or his personality cult.
Patriot Day is about those innocents who died and those heroes who died trying to save those innocents. It is about remembering and honoring the ordinary Americans on Flight 93, who, knowing that they would die, rose up and fought the Islamist terrorists who had hijacked the plane in order to fly it into the Capitol. That patriotic spirit is what is needed if we are to defend American freedom from Islamist jihadist terrorism.
Remarkably, Obama issued a proclamation that speaks of thousands who were killed, but never identifies who or what killed them. How is it that Barack Hussein Obama never identifies the attack as terrorism, or the perpetrators as terrorists, or identifies them as Muslim fanatics, almost all 19 of whom were Saudi Arabian members of al-Qaida. Why?
Patriot Day was established as a result of the action of the U.S. House of Representatives, by a vote of 407 to 0, on Oct. 25, 2001, to adopt Joint Resolution 71, which requested the president to designate Sept. 11 each year as "Patriot Day" in remembrance of all those who died as a result of the 9/11 attack on America. Then-President George Bush, on Dec. 18, 2001, signed Joint Resolution 71 into law, establishing Sept. 11 as Patriot Day.
Since then, Patriot Day has become an American tradition – a day of nationwide solemn observances, especially among veterans, remembering the horror of 9/11, remembering terrorism's victims, remembering the heroes, and remembering the reasons why we must be prepared to stand and fight terrorism and the terrorists if we are to preserve freedom, just as we do on POW/MIA Day, Veterans Day, Pearl Harbor Day, Four Chaplains Day, Memorial Day or D-Day.
In his proclamation, Obama said he was changing Patriot Day because the Edward M. Kennedy Serve
I, with other veterans, observed Patriot Day as Patriot Day, notwithstanding Obama's purporting to change a day of patriotic purpose into a community organizer's opportunity to change patriots into statist subjects or serfs kowtowing to government.
The nation should repudiate Obama's tortured redefining of Patriot Day. Congress should act to restore Patriot Day. And neither Obama nor any other self-obsessed, narcissistic politician should ever again attempt to pervert Patriot Day – or POW/MIA Day, Veterans Day, Pearl Harbor Day, Four Chaplains Day, Memorial Day or D-Day – from a day remembering and honoring those who lost their lives by acts of war, as 9/11 was, into an opportunity to advance that politician's personal political agenda or personality cult.
Sunstein: Obama, not courts, should interpret law
'Beliefs and commitments' of nation's leader should supersede judges
Posted: September 18, 2009
12:10 am Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
"There is no reason to believe that in the face of statutory ambiguity, the meaning of federal law should be settled by the inclinations and predispositions of federal judges. The outcome should instead depend on the commitments and beliefs of the President and those who operate under him," argued Sunstein.
This statement was the central thesis of Sunstein's 2006
Sunstein debated the precedent-setting 1803 case, Marbury v.
He concludes "the executive should usually be permitted to interpret (law) as it reasonably sees fit."
"The allocation of law-interpreting power to the executive fits admirably well with the twentieth-century shift from common law courts to regulatory administration if the governing statute is ambiguous," he writes.
Sunstein is not shy about expressing his radical beliefs in papers and books, although many of his controversial arguments have received little to no news media attention or public scrutiny.
Earlier this week, WND first reported Sunstein drew up in an academic book a "First Amendment New Deal" – a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves.
WND also reported Sunstein proposed a radical new "bill of rights" in a 2004 book, "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR'S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever," in which he advanced the radical notion that welfare rights, including some controversial inceptions, be granted by the state.
Sunstein has been a main participant in the movement, which openly seeks to create a "progressive" consensus as to what the U.S. Constitution should provide for by the year 2020. It also suggests strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.
Just before his appearance at the conference, Sunstein wrote a blog entry in which he explained he "will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party."
In his book, Sunstein laid out what he wants to become the new bill of rights, which he calls the Second Bill of Rights:
Among his mandates are:
· The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
· The right of every family to a decent home;
· The right to a good education.
On one page in his book, Sunstein claims he is "not seriously arguing" his bill of rights be "encompassed by anything in the Constitution," but on the next page he states that "if the nation becomes committed to certain rights, they may migrate into the Constitution itself."
Later in the book, Sunstein argues that "at a minimum, the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of
JUST PLAIN NUTS
twisted ACORN roots
Track timeline of president's ties
to group immersed in scandals
JUST PLAIN NUTS
Unearthed! Obama's twisted ACORN roots
Track timeline of president's ties to group immersed in scandals
Posted: September 18, 2009
12:10 am Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
While ACORN remains riddled in scandal, lawmakers have voted to cut off federal funding to the group, the U.S. Census Bureau has severed ties to the organization – and the White has blasted its behavior as "unnacceptable."
But just how extensive are President Obama's personal ties to ACORN?
The following is a timeline outlining some of the purported connections between the president and ACORN through the years:
1990s: Obama meets ACORN
ACORN, or the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, first noticed Obama when he was organizing on the far south side of the city with the Developing Communities Project. A March 2, 2008, Los Angeles Times article by Letta Tayler and Keith Herbert, titled "Obama Forged Path As Chicago Community Organizer," explored Obama's pre-law school days as a community organizer in Chicago and his efforts to build a partnership with Chicago's "Friends of the Parks."
"Obama's task was to help far South Side residents press for improvement," the Times article explained.
National Review Online noted, "Part of Obama's work, it would appear, was to organize demonstrations, much in the mold of radical groups like ACORN."
The Times article reveals that Madeleine Talbot, who at the time was a leader at Chicago ACORN, was thoroughly impressed with Obama because "he got people to vote with their feet."
"At the time, Talbot worked at the social action group ACORN and initially considered Obama a competitor," the article stated. "But she became so impressed with his work that she invited him to help train her staff."
Talbott personally led Chicago ACORN's campaign to intimidate banks into making high-risk to low-credit customers, Stanley Kurtz reported.
"Long the director of Chicago ACORN, Talbott is a specialist in 'direct action' – organizers' term for their militant tactics of intimidation and disruption," Kurtz writes. "Perhaps her most famous stunt was leading a group of ACORN protesters breaking into a meeting of the Chicago City Council to push for a 'living wage' law, shouting in defiance as she was arrested for mob action and disorderly conduct. But her real legacy may be her drive to push banks into making risky mortgage loans."
1992: Project Vote! and training green ACORNs
As WND reported, in 1992, while he was working as a community organizer in
After completing his legal education at Harvard in 1991, Obama returned to
Kurtz wrote, Obama also "conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN's up-and-coming organizers. That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott's drive against
1993: Woods Foundation
In 1993, Obama joined the board of the Woods Foundation, a non-profit foundation which declares its goal to "increase opportunities for less advantaged people and communities by giving money primarily to not-for-profit groups involved in housing, the arts and other areas." Obama served along with Bill Ayers and remained on the board until 2002.
Pajamas Media reports that during Obama's time there, ACORN received grants of $45,000 (2000), $30,000 (2001), $45,000 (2001), $30,000 (2002) and $40,000 (2002) from the Woods Fund.
1994: Buycks-Robinson v. Citibank
As WND reported, in 1994, Obama, a graduate of
After obtaining a settlement in the Citibank litigation, ACORN used its subsidiary organization ACORN Housing, a nationwide organization with in more than 30
1995: ACORN attorney in
In 1995, Obama was hired as a lawyer for ACORN in a major lawsuit. As a lawyer with civil-rights law firm Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland, he sued the state of
Also in 1995, as WND's Jerome Corsi reported, Bill Ayers co-founded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge with a $50 million grant program for the
In his Wall Street Journal article, Stanley Kurtz wrote that the Annenberg project funneled money to through various far-left community organizers, including ACORN.
1996: New Party ties
As WND reported, newspaper evidence shows Obama was a member of the New Party, which sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda. While running for the
According to Democratic Socialists of America documents, the New Party worked with ACORN to promote its candidates.
In 1995, the DSA's New Ground newsletter stated, "In Chicago, the New Party's biggest asset and biggest liability is ACORN.
"Like most organizations, ACORN is a mixed bag," the newsletter said. "One one hand, in
In 1997, Obama became an
Foulkes wrote in "Case Study: Chicago – The Barack Obama Campaign":
[Obama] when he was organizing on the far south side of the city with the
Developing Communities Project. He was a very good organizer. When he returned
from law school, we asked him to help us with a lawsuit to challenge the state
In 2005, Obama became a
2007: From Obama's own mouth ...
On Obama's Organizing for
When Obama met
with ACORN leaders in November, he reminded them of his history with ACORN and
his beginnings in
Again, on Dec. 1, 2007, Obama spoke at the Heartland Democratic Presidential Forum, a meeting for community organizing groups including ACORN. Obama received wild applause from the crowd as he promised that community organizing groups such as ACORN would help shape the agenda for his presidency.
Naked Emperor News posted the following video of his pledge:
He was asked, "If elected president of the Unites States, would you agree, in your first 100 days, to meet with the delegation of representatives from these various community organizations that campaigned for community values? Could they count on you in your first 100 days to sit down with them?"
Obama responded, "Yes. But let me even say before I even get inaugurated, during the transition, we're going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda. We're going to be having meetings all across the country with community organizations so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the
2008: ACORN endorses Obama
On Feb. 21, 2008, the Acorn Political Action Committee endorsed Obama over Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primaries.
During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, insisted they had nothing to do with ACORN after the inner-city advocacy group became engulfed in controversy over voter-registration fraud.
But in August 2008, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported that the Obama campaign paid $832,598.29 to ACORN "offshoot" Citizens Services Inc. for "get out the vote" projects from Feb. 25 to May 17.
The newspaper revealed that Obama's payments to CSI for services were unusual: "For example, CSI received payments of $63,000 and $75,000 for advance work. Excluding the large payments to CSI, the average amount the Obama campaign spent with other organizations was $558.82 per check on more than 1,200 entries classified as advance work."
According to the report, Citizens Services Inc. is headquartered at the same address as ACORN's national headquarters in
In 2008, Anita MonCrief, a woman who worked in the Strategic Writing and Research Department of ACORN Political Operations and its affiliate Project Vote from 2005 through January 2008, said ACORN acted as an unofficial arm of the Democratic Party during the election and used cash operations to keep some financial transactions under wraps.
"It has always been a Democrat operation," she recently told WND. "They've never made any secrets about who they support. Their political action committees are usually set up to support these Democratic candidates."
She said political action committees support Democrat candidates, and the at the same time voter registration drives were being conducted, the group was putting out propaganda in communities telling people not to vote for Republicans.
According to a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review report, she further told a
As WND reported, Project Vote, an affiliate of ACORN, is now suing MonCrief to the tune of $5 million.
2009: Criminal case against ACORN
According to the results of a congressional investigation done in July, ACORN was found to be rife with criminal activity.
A report from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform states that ACORN "has repeatedly and deliberately engaged in systemic fraud. Both structurally and operationally, ACORN hides behind a wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of , to launder federal money in order to pursue a partisan political agenda and to manipulate the American electorate."
Since 1994, ACORN has received more than $53 million in federal funds, according to the report.
"Under the Obama administration, ACORN stands to receive a whopping $8.5 billion in available stimulus funds. Operationally, ACORN is a shell game played in 120 cities, 43 states and the
The report continued, "Lobbying is a substantial part of what ACORN does. It has endorsed Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Representative Albert Wynn (D-MD), and Representative Donna Edwards (D-MD). ACORN keeps donor records from the
ACORN became a hot topic during the 2008 presidential race because of Obama's ties to the group as well as its own admission that more than 400,000 of the 1.3 million voter registrations it claimed to have collected were not valid. ACORN registered 1.3 million new voters last year, and it is now under investigation in numerous states and faces voter fraud charges in nearly two dozen states.
The Obama administration selected ACORN to recruit counters for the 2010 Census, but the Census Bureau severed its ties with ACORN on Sept. 11.The Internal Revenue Service has also indicated that it is conducting a "thorough review" of its agreements with ACORN. According to Bloomberg, ACORN has has helped prepare about 150,000 free tax returns since 2004 for low-income families. Those returns have generated $190 million in tax refunds.
Cutting ties with ACORN?
Obama has tried to publicly disassociate himself from the group.
"The only involvement I've had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs," Obama declared in one of the presidential debates.
"Now, with respect to ACORN, ACORN is a community organization. Apparently what they've done is they were paying people to go out and register folks, and apparently some of the people who were out there didn't really register people, they just filled out a bunch of names," Obama said.
"It had nothing to do with us. We were not involved," he declared.
Today, the House voted 345-75 to eliminate federal funding of ACORN after undercover videos showed counselors giving advice on tax evasion to a undercover reporters posing as a pimp and prostitute.
According to Fox News, the Defund ACORN Act prohibits any "federal contract grant, cooperative agreement or any other form of agreement (including a memorandum of understanding)" from being awarded to or entered into with ACORN. It also prohibits federal funds "in any other form" from being granted to ACORN.
The decision followed a Sept. 14 Senate vote to strip millions of dollars in federal housing funds for ACORN.
House Minority Leader John Boehner has called on President Obama to indicate whether he would sign a bill forbidding ACORN from receiving federal funding, the New York Times reported. The White House is now distancing itself from ACORN and its scandals.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs referenced the video that revealed ACORN employees giving illegal tax advice to a man and woman disguised as a pimp and prostitute.
"Obviously, the conduct that you see on those tapes is completely unacceptable. I think everyone would agree to that," Gibbs said. "The administration takes accountability extremely seriously."
Gibbs said he does not know whether Obama will ask Democrats to sever ties with ACORN.
"I don't know that I've had any discussion with him about that," he said.
Jimmy Carter's new
twist on Old South race baiting
Exclusive: Alan Keyes on why 'Obama's skin color doesn't make him a black American'
Jimmy Carter's new twist on Old South race baiting
1:00 am Eastern
As it has in so many other ways, Barack Obama's political victory in 2008 has proven false to the hope that the election of someone of African heritage would help carry the American people beyond the tragic legacy of guilt, mutual ignorance and resentful fear left by past sins of slavery and racial discrimination. Instead, the racial divide seems every day exacerbated by another instance in which someone salts the ancient racial wound with some new attempt to portray as racist all reactions against Obama's push to establish his alien neo-totalitarian ideas in place of the constitutional liberty Americans have enjoyed.
The latest such exploitative slander comes from former President Jimmy Carter. In his AP story, correspondent Greg Bluestein reports: "Responding to an audience question at a town hall at his presidential center in Atlanta Carter said Tuesday that [Rep. Joe]
So, let's see. Anyone not willing to swallow the radical, un-American national socialist proposals of a communist-leaning Saul Alinsky protégé, enamored of radical Marxist teachers and ideas, is a racist who believes, according to Carter, "that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country." True to his "bigoted liberal" roots, Carter has invented a new racial stereotype. All blacks are communist-leaning proponents of national socialism. That's the only premise on which opposition to Obama's policies can be offered as prima facie evidence of anti-black racial bigotry.
As I recall it was quite common for hard-line segregationist opponents of the civil-rights movement to characterize blacks as communist agitators. It seems to me that the Southerner who's harking back to those old stereotypes isn't Joe Wilson. It's Jimmy (smile-when-you-say that) Carter. Of course, he's not alone. For years white liberals and their fawning black Quimbos (the wicked slaveholder Simon Legree's sadistic black overseers in Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin") have made it clear that only those who buy into their irrational leftist bunk will be accepted as genuine black people. Perhaps this is their recipe for getting beyond race. It worked so well for them that, after his sexual escapades in the Oval Office, they proclaimed Bill Clinton to be the first black president. (Apparently, accepting leftist bunk means rejecting traditional sexual morality. Thus, as it was for the old Southern segregationists, so too for these leftists – uncontrollable fornication becomes a sine qua non of the black identity.)
Carter is clearly working with the same logic. You can't tell a black by his cover. You have to look at his ideology. There's actually a serious truth hidden in that self-serving logic. Pigmentation may determine race, but it is not a proper basis for human communities. In this respect, though, it's impossible to see why Carter and the other Obama faction apologists keep insisting that Barack Obama has anything to do with the black American heritage. His "black" background is that of a biologically African Muslim, with a strong element of Indonesian upbringing early on. His personal history in no way leads back to the experiences that forged the black American identity. His ethnic tie to
We can be thankful that, unlike Jimmy Carter, we're not trying to exploit the racist epithet for political gain. Therefore, we can discard these sophistical mental contortions and simply admit that racism has nothing to do with it. There's a rising tide of opposition to Obama because he's a communist-leaning national socialist. A majority of Americans don't want to live in a society governed by a communist-leaning national socialist regime. Therefore, they will oppose Obama once they understand what he's up to.
What's more, once they realize how thoroughly he rejects the basic premises of American liberty and justice, they will realize that, whatever his skin color, he has little or nothing in him that respects the black American identity. Forged in the struggle to survive slavery and racial injustice, the identity of black Americans has at its heart the moral premise that also informs their identity as Americans – the self-evident truth that we are all created equal, and endowed by our creator with unalienable rights. Obama is the fervent, dedicated leader of a cult of death that rejects this confirmation of the intrinsic God-ordained worth of every human life. He rejects the soul of black folk.
Dowd, Carter guilty of that which they decry
David Limbaugh: Obama supporters are manufacturing phony charges of racism
Dowd, Carter guilty of that which they decry
Posted: September 18, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
I'm sure New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd and former President Jimmy Carter derive a great deal of self-satisfaction slandering other people with false charges of racism, but the damage they're doing to race relations is worse than any bona fide racist could of doing.
I ask you: Who is more likely racist, the person who sees race every time she turns around or the person who aspires toward colorblindness? Could those always pointing the accusatory finger be projecting their own discomfort with race?
Listen to how Maureen begins her snarky Sept. 12 column, in which she posited that Rep. Joe Wilson's "you lie" outburst was driven by racism. She writes: "Surrounded by middle-aged white guys – a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men's club – Joe Wilson yelled 'You lie!' at a president who didn't. But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!"
I don't know whether "middle-aged white guys" and "their own men's club" flow more from some bitter feminist strain Dowd seems to possess or her liberal obsession with the superficial aspects of people's differences in pigment, but it is nonetheless bizarre.
Why is it that Dowd sees race in the politicians sitting beside Joe Wilson? And why is she compelled to make "white guys" a pejorative? In her world, to be white and male is to be guilty. Well, I reject the charge, thank you, and would appreciate a little due process before condemnation by such self-proclaimed open-minded liberals as Dowd.
One of the main sins of racism is its devaluation of the individual worth of a member of a racial group based on membership in that group. How ironic that in her thinking and Dowd commits the very sin she decries: condemning "middle-aged white guys" by virtue of their skin and age.
Moving on from
Dowd's indictment of
Oh? I wasn't aware that former President George W. Bush is black. For Dowd didn't have the same sensitivities toward the Democrats' "shocking disrespect for of the president" in their choral booing of President Bush in the House chamber. Perhaps that's because the left had already so demeaned President Bush through their daily slandering that there was no way to further disrespect him, House chamber or not. What would have been noteworthy is if they'd showed him or the office a modicum of respect.
As for Dowd's divination that "some people ... will never accept" a black president, we'll just have to assume she's projecting or engaging in wishful thinking – the kind of thinking that leftists engage in about conservatives.
liberals like Dowd believe (I'm not assuming; they've told me) that
conservatives – based solely on conservatives' ideology – are racists. That's
how Dowd can freely jump to such an obscene conclusion about
Then there's the perennial sermonizer Jimmy Carter out on the stump affirming Dowd's clairvoyance with his own: "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."
What entitles Carter to make that leap? Oh, simple, it's when people "begin to attack" Obama "as a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler." I wonder, then, why so many leftists depicted President Bush as Hitler.
I also wonder how Maureen Dowd, absent some strain of perversion in her thinking, can hear "You lie, boy!" in Rep. Wilson's statement. I'm not denying that some white-on-black racism still exists, but Dowd and Carter are obviously manufacturing it here both to validate their own prejudices against conservatives and as a weapon to advance their policy preferences.
Most conservatives – and increasing numbers of independents and even some Democrats – strongly disapprove of Barack Obama's policies and what we believe are his deceitful tactics in trying to implement them. He has earned this stunning reversal of support from taking office with 70 percent approval ratings.
reaction to Hurricane Katrina, Dowd and Carter are doing great damage to race relations in this nation by attributing base racial motives to people where none exists, thereby legitimizing the worst fears of some that racism is thriving in places it is not. I'm sorry, but that is contemptible behavior.
A VOICE OF SANITY
Who's calling whom 'loud and shrill'?
Exclusive: Robert Ringer says 'I told you so' over 'The Obama Socialist Express'
Who's calling whom 'loud and shrill'?
1:00 am Eastern
Democrats are famous for finding a way to shoot themselves in the foot once they gain power. Since a majority of Americans perceived Bill Clinton's presidency to be successful, it took a bit of sexual pervasion and blatant lying to destroy his own presidential legacy.
Now, the new progressive power holders in Washington, including and especially those in BHO's inner circle of mischief, continue to increase their determination to provide freedom-loving Americans with more and better ammunition than they could ever come up with on their own. BHO's strategy to overwhelm the system with one (illegal) socialist proposal after another has turned out to be an embarrassing, self-destructive strategy.
Having said this, fairness compels me to admit that had BHO enacted his agenda slowly, it would have given people more time to catch on and fight back against his implementation of socialism. From day one, BHO's plan has been to push as much "stuff" through – legally or illegally – before the Nov. 2, 2010, elections – at which time a whole lot of Democrats are going to feel like on her worst (and last) day.
Which brings us to the Dems' latest foot-shooting episode. Last Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation," presidential senior adviser David Axelrod said of the rally in D.C., "I don't think it's indicative of the nation's mood." Say what? It was yet another 180-
switcheroo by the panicked . Whatever you do that's bad, accuse the other side of doing it. Whatever the other side does that's good, just claim it's bad – or that it didn't happen.
But even better than Axelrod's self-delusive remarks was what Obama said in yet another "60 Minutes" interview: "The loudest, shrillest voices get the most attention." Again, projection – flip what progressives say and do and claim that the right is guilty of it.
I was at the D.C. rally, and I can tell you that the voices were not shrill, though some of them were at times loud – as well they should have been. But take a cue from Che Prez, because he comes from the ranks of the enemy – the enemy who invented loud and shrill.
You may not be old enough to remember the antics of the hippies in the '60s, but they mastered the of loud and shrill to move the country irreversibly to the left. Loud and shrill ended the Vietnam War. Loud and shrill kicked the deadly "green movement" into high gear. Loud and shrill reduced God's role to that of a bench player. And loud and shrill brought Barack Hussein Obama out of the manger and into your .
I'm not sure what Saul, King of Radicals would say about how badly the progressives have botched things up since BHO left the
BHO and his partners in crime should reread "Rules for Radicals." It's not cool to high-tail it out of town and speak to your own followers while hundreds of thousands of voters are protesting in the town where you live and (well, leave it at live … BHO is not known for doing a lot of heavy lifting). It's not cool to dismiss folks who are furious about your policies. It's not cool to wave aside dissenters as not representing the mainstream view when clearly they do. And it's certainly not cool to threaten them (as well as congressmen and women) for challenging you on the facts.
My about what would happen if a born-and-bred communist became president go back at least a year and a half, and they easily could have been written today. Though I wish I had been wrong, it's at least a small consolation to be able to say, "I told you so." Nor was I alone. A significant number of columnists and radio and TV commentators saw The Obama Socialist Express coming almost from the day he announced his candidacy.
What's puzzling to me are those remaining "conservatives" on TV who still don't see it! (You know, "I don't doubt for a second that Barack Obama has good intentions for
policy with him, czars that want to sterilize you and give your dog the right to sue you, and other assorted chutzpah that would have bought about the wrath of Saul, King of Radicals, for it's lack of subtlety.
BHO is right: Loud and shrill get the most attention. Those who are not members of that shrinking progressive minority that still wants to "fundamentally change
THE SQUEAKY WHEEL
From red, white and blue to just plain red
Exclusive: Burt Prelutsky asserts O's commie connections haven't changed, just widened
From red, white and blue to just plain red
1:00 am Eastern
Editor's note: Longtime WorldNetDailiy exclusive colummnist Burt Prelutsky, beginning today, will be featured each week on Friday on WND's commentary page.
Before last year's election, I heard a lot of people claim they didn't feel they knew who Obama really was. For my part, I felt I knew him all too well – which was why I didn't like him and wouldn't have voted for him even if he'd run unopposed, which, now that I think about McCain's campaign, was pretty much the way it was.
Boneheads would have you believe my opposition to Obama is based on racism. I, on the other hand, would insist that when a presidential candidate announces that once his energy plan is in place, our will soar; that he will bury you if you have the temerity to own a coal company; and that he believes, as he told Joe the Plumber, that it is government's job to redistribute wealth, what does race have to do with it? I hated all that stuff back when it was being promoted by such white con artists as Karl Marx, Josef Stalin and Saul Alinsky.
Furthermore, the way that blacks and other liberals label everyone they're against as racists, I think conservatives should start suing these punks for slander. Make them either prove it in court or pay through the nose.
Obama would have you believe that anyone who doesn't buy into his squandering trillions of dollars on pork, his cap-and-trade insanity or his attempt to turn America's over to such left-wing loonies as Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers and Henry Waxman, is a racist. It's the-one-size-fits-all insult.
When people insisted that Obama was an enigma, I assumed they just hadn't been paying attention. In his own words, he described his coming of age politically in college when he'd begun seeking out Marxist professors for instruction and radicals, Communists and
It's funny how years ago, everybody laughed when Bill Clinton said he'd smoked marijuana, but he hadn't inhaled. But when Obama told a much bigger whopper, one that came with cheese and fries, about sitting in a church for 20 years without ever hearing Rev. Wright utter a single unseemly remark about
Even the fact that Obama chose to marry a woman who, in her college thesis, wrote that Princeton served as a perfect microcosm of racist
When Obama, a veteran of
There are conservatives who see FDR when they look at Obama, but I'm not one of them. There's no doubt that Obama shares FDR's dream of centralizing all power and wealth in the hands of the federal government, and whereas FDR liked and admired Josef Stalin, Obama has fond feelings for Castro and Chavez. (Chavez, by the way, suggested to Castro, after Obama took control of GM, that there was a very real possibility that the two of them would eventually wind up to the right of the president. He may have meant it as a joke, but I don't think so.) The major difference I see between Roosevelt and Obama is that I believe FDR, for all his faults, loved this country and regarded it as a special place based on a very special set of principles, whereas Obama believes it's an arrogant country run solely by and for rich white people.
But, of course, by this time, even lunkheads who managed to sleep all the way through 2008 should be able to figure out that, as president, Obama hasn't changed his , but only his address. His circle of acquaintances has certainly widened, but it hasn't improved. All you have to do is look at the thugs in ACORN and the SEIU, at people like self-proclaimed Communist Van Jones, who served as one of Obama's czars, and Jeff Jones, another close adviser, who joined with Bill Ayers in creating the terrorist group known as the Weathermen.
And, lest we forget, Attorney General Eric Holder, who has now decided to prosecute members of the CIA whose gravest sin was doing what needed to be done to protect America from a recurrence of 9/11, but decided to drop all charges against the Black Panther pluguglies who disenfranchised white voters by scaring them away from the polls. For anyone who knows the history of the anti-slavery movement in
By now, I'm sure you're aware that there's a concerted effort to get Glenn Beck knocked off Fox by scaring off his sponsors. Even though I'm a fan of his and even though I believe in free speech, I have no problem with Americans trying to generate boycotts of goods and services. For instance, I happen to be all in favor of boycotting
Still, before we get too big for our moral britches, we should keep in mind that whereas one football player got two years for merely shooting himself in the leg, another served a scant 18 months for hanging, beating, drowning and electrocuting a large number of dogs. Therefore, I have no moral objection to ColorOfChange, a black activist group co-founded by that very same Van Jones, from threatening to boycott companies that dared to sponsor Beck's TV show.
But, I think it should be noted that the guy who currently runs ColorOfChange is James Rucker. Mr. Rucker formerly worked for MoveOn.org, a left-wing propaganda organ financed largely by George Soros, yet another ex-con in Obama's inner circle. Soros is also the fellow who offered to help his own mother commit suicide. While it's true that she was a member of the Hemlock Society, it certainly helps explain why Soros thinks so highly of Obama's approach to revolutionizing health care for seniors in
If anyone questions my use of "left-wing propaganda organ" to describe MoveOn.org, let me just say that when I paid a recent visit to their website, the first thing I saw was a picture of an old man holding a sign that read: "83 percent of Americans Favor Obamacare." God knows I rarely quibble with my elders – and hope that, impressed with my shining example, those people younger than 69 won't quibble with me – but unless there was very tiny on the sign and what it actually said was "83 percent of Americans who belong to MoveOn.org Favor Obamacare" or "83 percent of Americans Who Are in George Soros' Will Favor Obamacare," that's a bald-faced lie. Actually, if you reversed the eight and the three, you'd be far closer to the truth.
As I was saying, ColorOfChange has every right to try to persuade companies to withhold their
dollars from Glenn Beck. In the same way, there's nothing to prevent all of you from withholding your own dollars from the likes of Proctor & Gamble,
Finally, I could hardly believe my ears when Barney Frank told a woman at his town hall meeting that arguing with her would be like arguing with his dining room table. His usual arrogance and bad manners aside, I would actually pay good money to see Barney Frank debate his dining room table. What's more, I'd give odds and take the table.
BORN IN THE
The media's attack on the truth
Exclusive: Floyd and Mary Beth Brown rip L.A. Times over anti-WND story
The media's attack on the truth
1:00 am Eastern
By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
David Frum is a conservative? That is shocking news to us. The L.A. Times quoted the "conservative" Frum, to attack news organizations that demand the truth about Obama's eligibility. Frum called these theories "wild accusations and the paranoid delusions coming from the fever swamps." He is worried that these groups will somehow diminish the credibility of the more mainline critiques of Obama's liberal agenda.
It is quite ironic that the L.A. Times quotes David Frum, and refers to him as a "conservative," when the former Bush speechwriter endorsed Obama over McCain in the last presidential election. So a former Republican operative who endorses a liberal Democrat and makes his living disparaging conservatives in the press is a "conservative"? Interesting. What is also interesting is that the L.A. Times hit piece that attacked WorldNetDaily did not bother to interview the news site's editor, Joseph Farah. Unlike the rest of the Obama-loving media, Farah and his crew at WorldNetDaily are pursuing the truth and reporting on and investigating the Obama eligibility story.
Rather than being fringe or unnecessary, the questions WorldNetDaily and others are reporting on remain very significant.
Call us crazy. Call us conspiracy theorists. We prefer to think of ourselves as inquisitive and investigative. If someone tells us to ignore the in the room, we generally ignore the messenger. While the media and their favorite "mainstream" conservatives are willing to ignore the mounting questions and evidence, we prefer to dig deeper into yet unanswered questions. If the same people in the media who are disparaging those who ask these questions would have done some investigating in the past, perhaps the issue would be resolved.
President Obama has hidden and suppressed more information than any other president in recent . While Obama campaigned on the promise of a "more open and transparent ," he has conveniently exempted his personal records from that promise. Obama has yet to release his long-form birth certificate, numerous university and college records, his and a myriad of other documents. As a candidate for the highest in the land, with a top-secret clearance, shouldn't Obama be required to produce a document that the rest of us show to get a driver's license at 16? Doesn't Obama have a constitutional obligation to prove his eligibility?
We now know that Obama lied in his autobiography as well as in his recent speech to schoolchildren. Obama claimed his father left him and his mom behind when he headed to Harvard in 1962. In reality, his mom began attending class at the
The media have never vetted Obama – all we know about him comes from two autobiographies that when stacked against the historical record do not add up. This has nothing to do with racism. If a president is caught lying, those lies should be investigated.
With the media constantly neglecting their duty to report objectively on Obama, it should surprise no one that they are ignoring the recent news that a federal has ordered a federal eligibility case to go to trial. You would think it would be slightly newsworthy that the president of the
As was shown in the recent reporting on ACORN and the reporting on Obama Green Czar Van Jones, the mainstream media are powerless to censor the news. Persistent conservative and investigative journalists now have the ability to push the story to the forefront even when the mainstream media do their best to ignore it, or even worse, suppress it.
The conservative movement and, more importantly, the American people benefit from true journalists who pursue the truth without regard for what so-called "conservatives" like David Frum or the Los Angeles Times think about them. Rather than discrediting the movement as a whole, these people who put the truth first will ultimately lead our movement and our country back to prominence.
'Nothing but love for Obama'
September 17, 2009
The judge who dismissed a complaint by Capt. Connie Rhodes, the medical doctor and Army officer who wanted a restraining order to prevent her overseas on the basis President Barack Obama has not demonstrated himself to be a natural-born citizen under the U.S. Constitution, has been accused of exhibiting "subservience" to that "same illegitimate chain of command."
Posted: September 18, 2009
The evidence that alleges 1970s radical Bernardine Dohrn, who with her husband Bill Ayers helped launch Barack Obama's political career, was involved in the bombing death of a California cop is mounting, with new witnesses being cited in a report from writer Peter Jamison of Village Voice Media.
How much more does the average American, indeed the average decent Democrat, need to say: enough is enough! This is not the kind of change I voted for!
Joseph A. Gamero
You can see why I call the LIEberal/Marxist/Dems: Hypocrats. They are probably one, if not the, most racist groups in the world, but they have mastered the “art” of calling their opponents the names that apply to them. On the other hand, the right has been very stupid in allowing that. Result: we get to be, in the perception of the average politically ignorant American, what the Hypocrats are.
Case in point. Joe Wilson is right, Barack Hussein lies. Did Joe Wilson do the right thing? No, he was in breach of decorum, but he promptly apologized to the Commander-in-Chief whom, by-the-way accepted the apology. That’s that!
Joe Wilson had a moment of outraged patriotism watching his president lye time after time, without the natural watchdog, the Media, doing its job. He was wrong; he should’ve waited until the end and then told him to his face.
Did you watch Nancy Pelosi’s face of disgust at that moment? Where were the outraged Hypocrats when President Bush was booed by his opponents?
Where were the outraged Hypocrats when Nancy Pelosi made a false statement that the Tea Party demonstrators were carrying Swastikas? That was a lie!
In a court of law, you have to prove an accusation is incorrect to get a verdict of libel. Apparently not in Congress, all you need is majority.
Do Americans realize that in these very troubled times, Congress must devote all of its time to the problems that are hindering the American economy and security? To spend one second on a vote of disapproval of Joe Wilson, is a dereliction of duty.
Another case in point; two courageous youngsters do what any responsible member of the media should have done long ago, when it was first noticed that ACORN isn’t was it claims to be.
These two American heroes are viciously maligned by the big media – that is- by the fraction of the media who even bothers reporting what it’s probably the most important news of the time. Thank God for WND and Fox News or we would be as ignorant as the New York Times et al, want us to be.
I fear for their lives as well as for Glenn Beck’s life. I know the forces that are operating out there.
No congressional investigation thus far, into the vitriol that is destroying
In stead, the powers that be in ACORN are denying the facts which are on tape, and are threatening the two heroes with prosecution. Talk about shooting the messenger!
In the last video (to date), an ACORN employee claims to have killed her abusive husband! This is the organization which surrounds the current president? That’s in addition to the facilitation of prostitution; the counselling of how to evade taxes; the tacit approval of children’s prostitution, etc.
How much more does the average American, indeed the average decent Democrat, need to say: enough is enough! This is not the kind of change I voted for!
Remember the famous quote: “all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing”!
Wake-up my friends, before it is too late!
Joseph A. Gamero
By Michelle Malkin • September 18, 2009 08:33 AM
My column today blasts ACORN Housing Corporation’s criminal-enabling home loan program for illegal aliens. To paraphrase Jon Stewart: Where the hell is everyone?
AHC is one of the endless non-profit arms of ACORN. Their response to the BigGovernment.com sting videos hasn’t received as much attention as the national ACORN flagship’s. You can read AHC’s CYA reaction here.
ACORN’s illegal alien home loan racket
by Michelle Malkin
There’s one thing more shocking than the illegal alien smuggling advice that an ACORN official in
On Wednesday, O’Keefe and Giles published the fifth in a series of BigGovernment.com sting videos. ACORN official Juan Carlos Vera coached the pimp-and-prostitute-posing pair on how best to pull off a border-busting smuggling operation. It would be “better from
GOP California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger now wants an investigation. But neither the Terminator nor any other
The San Diego Union-Tribune reported that “undocumented residents” comprise a vast market representing a potential sum of “$44 billion in mortgages.” Citibank enlarged its portfolio of subprime and other risky loans. ACORN enlarged its membership rolls. The program now operates in Miami; New York City; Jersehttp://acornhousing.org/index.phpy City, N.J.; Baltimore; Washington, D.C.; Chicago; Bridgeport, Conn., and at all of ACORN Housing’s 12 California offices. San Diego ACORN officials advised illegal alien recruits that their bank partners would take applicants who had little or no credit, or even “nontraditional records of credit, such as utility payments and documentation of private loan payments.”
The risk the banks bear is the price they pay to keep ACORN protesters and Hispanic lobbyists from the National Council of La Raza screaming about “predatory lending” off their backs. These professional grievance-mongers have turned the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act – which forced lenders to sacrifice underwriting standards for “diversity” – into lucrative “business” opportunities. Or rather, politically correct blackmail. As the Consumer Rights League noted in a 2008 report on the group’s successful shakedowns of financial institutions, “an agreement with Citibank, a significant ACORN donor and partner, showed that some activists become less active when deals are in place.”
In the wake of the sting videos, ACORN officials are making a great show of clamoring for “reform.” ACORN chief executive Bertha Lewis blamed the debacles across the country on the “indefensible action of a handful of our employees.” But the corruption is systemic. ACORN has long thrown rank-and-file operatives under the bus to cover for its management’s indefensible conduct. And ACORN’s highly-touted advisory watchdogs include inherently conflicted foxes guarding the henhouse:
ACORN advisory council member Henry Cisneros resigned from his post as Clinton HUD Secretary after lying to FBI agents about payments to a former mistress.
And ACORN advisory council member Eric Eve of Citigroup is a champion of the ACORN/Citibank illegal alien loan program that openly undermines immigration laws and integrity in banking.
The truth is more sordid than any fictional scenarios caught on tape: ACORN is a criminal enterprise.
September 17, 2009 08:51 PM by Michelle Malkin
By Michelle Malkin • September 17, 2009 08:51 PM
Governor Bobby Jindal today cut off state funding for
the community activist group ACORN.
Jindal has also blocked any state agency for entering into contracts with the organization.
The executive order also cuts off any future state funding of ACORN, on the heels of a series of embarrassing incidents for the organization.
The governor’s action follows a subpoena of documents from the group’s national headquarter office in
According to Jindal’s executive order, “ACORN’s actions make clear that financial involvement with ACORN is contrary to the public policy of the State of
Better late than never.
It’s just the start.
Just yesterday, Michael Hichborn, host of our ALL Report, got roped into the unbelievable task of reviewing the new Max Baucus version of the health care reform bill. Now, before I highlight some of the things Michael found, I have to share what he said to a member of our board of directors, Mildred F. Jefferson, M.D.:
The title of this act, “
If that doesn’t give you a flavor for what is patently wrong with this proposal, then there is nothing more to say. Take two aspirin and we’ll call you when this nightmare is over.
The following is excerpted from the actual piece of legislation, pages 25-27, which as you might recall, was not supposed to provide a single cent of taxpayer money for abortion:
Application of State and Federal Laws Regarding Abortion
The performance of and payment for abortions is regulated by both state and Federal laws. State law, for example, sometimes prescribes parental notification, waiting periods and other procedural requirements before an abortion may be performed. Under Federal law, certain kinds of Federal funds may not be used to pay for abortions and certain recipients of Federal funds may not discriminate against specified health care entities that perform or refuse to perform, pay for, provide referrals for, or provide training for abortions.
This provision would ensure that state laws regarding the prohibition or requirement of coverage or funding for abortions, and state laws involving abortion-related procedural requirements are not preempted. The provision similarly provides that Federal conscience protections and abortion-related antidiscrimination laws would not be affected by the bill. The rights and obligations of employees and employers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would also not be affected by the bill. In addition, this bill does not affect state or Federal laws, including section 1867 of the Social Security Act (EMTALA), requiring health care providers to provide emergency services.
The above is a smooth, if not deceptive, way of agreeing to the status quo insofar as abortion services are concerned. When dealing with a “surgical procedure,” which is what abortion is called in some circles, there are certain things the federal law should not prohibit. In other words, killing the preborn child is still an option according to what you have just read.
To continue, the following is also found in the document:
Abortion Coverage Prohibited as Part of Minimum Benefits Package
Currently, Federal funds may be used to pay for abortions only if a pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest, or where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed. However, many private insurance plans include coverage for abortion beyond these limited categories.
This provision provides that abortion cannot be a mandated benefit as part of a minimum benefits package except in those cases for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted. A qualified health plan would not be prohibited, however, from providing coverage for abortions beyond those for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted. Federal funds continue to be prohibited from being used to pay for abortions unless the pregnancy is due to rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger.
Red alert, folks. Please read the current law again, just to make sure you get the gist of the statement in the Chairman’s Mark, which reads, “except in those cases for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted.” In other words, just as the USCCB had hoped, federal dollars can only be used for the killing of babies set aside by the watered-down, abortion-for-some Hyde Amendment from days gone by; or for that matter, any reason that an abortionist can justify based on his argument that continuing the pregnancy might result in the mother’s death.
Nowadays, the language — or at least a version of it — is more commonly referred to as the Stupak/Pitts amendment. Congressmen Stupak of Michigan and Pitts of Pennsylvania proposed an amendment which has already been defeated in previous attempts. It goes like this:
No funds authorized under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.
It’s another way of giving an out to the abortionist. But after more than 20 years of playing Russian roulette with the lives of the preborn, some actually hail this language as pro-life. Not American Life League, thank you. We know that this is hogwash. We also know that when the government is involved, a whole lot of slop gets through the big cracks created by exceptions. Apparently this new proposal is no different.
Here’s another excerpt:
Rules Regarding Coverage of and Tax Credits for Specified Services
The Secretary would ensure that in each state exchange, at least one plan provides coverage of abortions beyond those for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted. The Secretary would also ensure that in each state exchange, at least one plan does not provide coverage of abortions beyond those for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted.
This can be interpreted to mean a number of things, I suppose. But the fact is, according to the proposal, there must be abortion coverage “beyond those for which federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted.”
This means that the federal government is placing itself in the role of marketing abortion and requiring abortion coverage beyond what the taxpayer has to actually pay for at a given moment. If this sounds a little bit like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, you’re onto something. Only in this case, it is the lives of babies that are being held in the balance, so that not a single abortion is left behind. And you thought President Obama meant it when he guaranteed the people of our nation that abortion would not be covered in health care reform.
The gist of this proposal is deadly. Deal Hudson, having analyzed the very same bill that we quote above, explained in his blog:
Right now, the USCCB is hoping the Obama administration will honor its promise. That's fine and good, but are they willing to use their muscle? We will see.
My greatest fear is not only that the USCCB will be happy with the exceptions as noted in the Baucus proposal, but that they will once again surrender to political pragmatism and accept the killing of some. It is high time that Catholics and, for that matter, all pro-life Americans, stood up and made it perfectly clear that the emperor has no clothes. Exceptions have created gaping holes in his stockings, accommodations to evil have disintegrated his moral authority and decay, passed off as tolerable federal law, fills the pockets of his tunic.
To suggest that the commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill” must take a backseat to legislative garbage — allegedly supposed to make us all happy about our “healthy future” as we permit our tax dollars to be used to pay for child killing in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, or whatever — is disgusting. We’ve had enough.
Happy Puppies and Rainbows doesn’t save preborn children from murder by abortion, regardless of the excuse used to murder them; courage does!
illegals to get them health care... - TRANSLATION: Legalize illegals to give them the vote ASAP to keep me in
power in perpetuity! Obama doesn't give a whit about social concerns
which are a means to an end for Obama's lust for power!
Krauthammer: President's persona cool, distant, imperial...
Does He Lie?
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, September 18, 2009
You lie? No. Barack Obama doesn't lie. He's too subtle for that. He . . . well, you judge.
Herewith three examples within a single speech -- the now-famous Obama-Wilson "you lie" address to Congress on health care -- of Obama's relationship with truth.
(1) "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits -- either now or in the future," he solemnly pledged. "I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future. Period."
Wonderful. The president seems serious, veto-ready, determined to hold the line. Until, notes Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, you get to Obama's very next sentence: "And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize."
This apparent strengthening of the pledge brilliantly and deceptively undermines it. What Obama suggests is that his plan will require mandatory spending cuts if the current rosy projections prove false. But there's absolutely nothing automatic about such cuts. Every Congress is sovereign. Nothing enacted today will force a future Congress or a future president to make any cuts in any spending, mandatory or not.
Just look at the supposedly automatic Medicare cuts contained in the Sustainable Growth Rate formula enacted to constrain out-of-control Medicare spending. Every year since 2003, Congress has waived the cuts.
Mankiw puts the Obama bait-and-switch in plain language. "Translation: I promise to fix the problem. And if I do not fix the problem now, I will fix it later, or some future president will, after I am long gone. I promise he will. Absolutely, positively, I am committed to that future president fixing the problem. You can count on it. Would I lie to you?"
(2) And then there's the famous contretemps about health insurance for illegal immigrants. Obama said they would not be insured. Well, all four committee-passed bills in Congress allow illegal immigrants to take part in the proposed Health Insurance Exchange.
But more important, the problem is that laws are not self-enforcing. If they were, we'd have no illegal immigrants because, as I understand it, it's illegal to enter the
When Republicans proposed requiring proof of citizenship, the Democrats twice voted that down in committee. Indeed, after Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" shout-out, the Senate Finance Committee revisited the language of its bill to prevent illegal immigrants from getting any federal benefits. Why would the Finance Committee fix a nonexistent problem?
(3) Obama said he would largely solve the insoluble cost problem of Obamacare by eliminating "hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud" from Medicare.
That's not a lie. That's not even deception. That's just an insult to our intelligence. Waste, fraud and abuse -- Meg Greenfield once called this phrase "the dread big three" -- as the all-purpose piggy bank for budget savings has been a joke since Jimmy Carter first used it in 1977.
Moreover, if half a trillion is waiting to be squeezed painlessly out of Medicare, why wait for health-care reform? If, as Obama repeatedly insists, Medicare overspending is breaking the budget, why hasn't he gotten started on the painless billions in "waste and fraud" savings?
Obama doesn't lie. He merely elides, gliding from one dubious assertion to another. This has been the story throughout his whole health-care crusade. Its original premise was that our current financial crisis was rooted in neglect of three things -- energy, education and health care. That transparent attempt to exploit Emanuel's Law -- a crisis is a terrible thing to waste -- failed for health care because no one is stupid enough to believe that the 2008 financial collapse was caused by a lack of universal health care.
So on to the next gambit: selling health-care reform as a cure for the deficit. When that was exploded by the Congressional Budget Office's demonstration of staggering Obamacare deficits, Obama tried a new tack: selling his plan as revenue-neutral insurance reform -- until the revenue neutrality is exposed as phony future cuts and chimerical waste and fraud.
Obama doesn't lie. He implies, he misdirects, he misleads -- so fluidly and incessantly that he risks transmuting eloquence into mere slickness.
Slickness wasn't fatal to "Slick Willie"
CONTROL: Fed 'to approve banking salaries'... - Goodbye 'Land of the free'; hello 'Land of slaves to the state.'
MILBANK: First Lady market shopping leaves 'carbon footprint of several tons'... - Do as I say under force of law, not as I do!
On Thursday's Mark Levin Show: Why doesn't President Obama ever thank the doctors, nurses, and surgeons? Our healthcare program is one of our greatest successes - and the Democrats want to completely destroy it so that they can have more power and control. Do any of you actually believe that the government is competent and efficient? Former ESPN Analyst Stephen A. Smith calls in and talks with Mark about the race card, and why disagreeing with Obama doesn't mean your racist. Also, Andrew Breitbart of BigGovernment.com calls in and discusses the ongoing story regarding ACORN.
Thursday, September 17th, 2009