The Incredible Arrogance Of An Obamunist Masquerading As A Rep Of The Chamber Of Commerce - Democrats Dying To Kill Us With Obamacare - ACORN Watch: Fight The Thugs – Muslim Dem Rep Ignores Teachings Of Quran – Obama Officials Love Mass Murderer Mao - Cap And Trade For Babies: One Child Policy Coming To USA?
Chamber of Commerce's opposition to health, climate change bills triggers all-fronts administration backlash
White House Targets Chamber of Commerce Over Opposition to Reform Plans
The Obama administration is trying to neutralize the Chamber of Commerce by doing an end-run around the group and dealing directly with its members.
Reid, Schumer, Kerry shield own states from Obamacare
GOP's Shadegg: Senators flexing muscles to defray costs of health-care overhaul
54% oppose Obama's health-care plan
Just 36% of nation's senior citizens favor current legislative effort
Don Feder: Democrats Dying to Kill Us With Obama-Care
Tue 10/20/09 9:32 PM
Democrats Dying to Kill Us With
By Michelle Malkin • October 20, 2009 05:34 PM
Photoshop credit: Leo Alberti
ACORN is a criminal enterprise. It took decades to build up its massive coffers and intricate web of affiliates across the country.
It will take months and years to untangle the entire operation.
And it will take time, money, and and relentless sunshine to dismantle the government-subsidized, partisan racket. It can’t be “reformed.” It is constitutionally corrupt.
testimony, research, and blogging by former ACORN/Project Vote development
associate Anita MonCrief has provided an invaluable
amount of fodder for reporters (before their editors “cut bait,” that is) and congressional investigators trying to get to the
bottom of ACORN’s tax law-undermining, campaign
finance disclosure-evading ways. Most recently, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported this week on how ACORN’s
voter drives in
The reward for MonCrief’s truth-telling? An intimidation lawsuit to shut her up.
Yesterday, MonCrief’s lawyers filed an answer to the ACORN/Project Vote lawsuit and counterclaims against the racket for its frivolous and bullying attempt to silence her. There is also a new website to help with her legal defense fund here.
MonCrief’s team has exposed the ACORN/Project Vote alliance’s joint and inseparable speech-stifling tactics and laid bare the legal chicanery. Pay attention. This is what ACORN’s worst enemies have to look forward to — and they will all need support to beat the silencers back. From the counterclaim:
12. There is overlap and exchange of employees and officers between ACORN and Project Vote. Many employees of Project Vote simultaneously serve as staff members of ACORN and/or other affiliated organizations of ACORN.
13. Before she began working at Project Vote, MonCrief believed she was applying for a staff position with ACORN. She sent her resume to an ACORN employee, at an ACORN email address, and interviewed with an ACORN official. She was subsequently offered a job in the political operations department of ACORN. However, upon arriving at the ACORN office for her first day of work, MonCrief was informed that a decision had been made to have her employed instead by an organization called Project Vote.
15. Moreover, while serving as a Development Associate at Project Vote, MonCrief was simultaneously considered to be a member of the “political operations” staff of ACORN. At the outset of her employment with Project Vote MonCrief was issued an ACORN email address (email@example.com). It was not until July of 2007 that MonCrief was given a Project Vote email address (firstname.lastname@example.org) as well.
17. Citizens Consulting, Inc. (“CCI”) which like Project Vote is an affiliated entity of ACORN and member of the COUNCIL, handles all accounting, payroll, and other administrative matters for both ACORN and Project Vote.
22. On information and belief, both Project Vote and ACORN have failed to maintain proper corporate formalities, including failing to take and\or record minutes, and board meetings have been infrequently held.
24. Beginning in the summer of 2008 and continuing through the present, MonCrief has engaged in an effort to shed light on unethical, inappropriate, and potentially illegal activities conducted by both Project Vote and ACORN while MonCrief was an employee of Project Vote.
25. MonCrief initially attempted to contact
members of the press, including Stephanie Strom of the New York Times, to share
her information. MonCrief participated in ongoing
discussions with Strom, contributing information that Strom used in various
ACORN exposes during 2008. However, just weeks before the 2008 presidential
elections, Strom told MonCrief that her editors had
asked her not to follow up on or print damaging information
regarding ACORN due to its potentially deleterious effects (Strom used the term “game- changer”) on the electoral success of then-candidate Barack Obama.
26. MonCrief, also a supporter of Barack Obama, nonetheless persisted in her efforts to bring her information to the public. She created a personal blog for herself in November of 2008 (http://anitamoncrief.blogspot.com) and began regularly posting entries to that blog.
27. MonCrief’s blog posts primarily contain
political speech about current events, issues, candidates, public figures, and
organizations. They also include personal, biographical reflections. Many of MonCrief’s blog posts have been critical of what she viewed
as unethical, inappropriate, and potentially illegal activities on the part of
Project Vote and ACORN, as well as other ACORN affiliated entities such as
Citizen Services, Inc.
(“CSI”), and CCI.
28. MonCrief also published many of her blog
posts on other websites such as
33. On October 29, 2008, MonCrief testified in
a lawsuit filed in
34. On March 19, 2009, portions of MonCrief’s
testimony from the
of ACORN and Project Vote, including potential violations of the United States Internal Revenue Code and the Federal Election Campaign Act.
35. In July of 2009, the Committee of Oversight and Governmental Reform
of the United States House of Representatives issued a report on ACORN titled
“Is ACORN Intentionally Structured As a Criminal Enterprise?,” which accused
ACORN of multiple violations of federal law. The report relied in part on
information provided by MonCrief, who had previously
met with members of the Committee to discuss wrongdoing on the part
of ACORN and Project Vote.
36. On June 17, 2009, Project Vote filed its current complaint against MonCrief in the
37. Project Vote’s sole basis for bringing these claims in federal court (not counting their minimal contribution to Project Vote’s claim for $5 million in economic damages, which implicates diversity jurisdiction) is supplemental jurisdiction—their supposed “common nucleus of operative fact” with Project Vote’s claims regarding MonCrief’s email and blog postings, which are discussed below.
39. Project Vote asserts causes of action based upon trademark violations, trespass to chattels, misappropriation of trade secrets, interference with business expectancies, conversion, misrepresentation, breach of contract, and civil conspiracy.
40. Project Vote prays for damages over $5 million as to its trade secrets, tortious interference, trespass to chattels, and civil conspiracy claims. Moreover, Project Vote seeks treble damages related to its trademark claims.
41. Project Vote’s theory of damages on its tortious interference claims is that MonCrief attempted to “embarrass Project Vote” and “drive a wedge” between itself and ACORN, CSI, Kevin Whelan, Zach Polett, and donors to Project Vote.
42. Project Vote has not identified any contribution it has lost, any financial loss that it has sustained with respect to its contributors, or any reputational or financial damage it has sustained with its own admittedly affiliated organizations (ACORN and CSI) as a proximate cause of MonCrief’s email or posting.
43. Contemporaneously with its Complaint, Project Vote filed a motion seeking leave from this Court to undertake emergency discovery of MonCrief in order to determine what third parties might be providing MonCrief with damaging information about Project Vote.
47. Failing to pierce the corporate veil of Project Vote to reach ACORN would permit ACORN to hide behind the corporate fiction of Project Vote to shield itself from liability for its wrongful actions.
48. ACORN has attempted to use its allegedly separate existence from Project Vote to manufacture a claim that by posting critical emails or blog entries, MonCrief has (or somehow could) damage the allegedly arms-length relationships between ACORN, CSI, and Project Vote. Under this damage theory, such reputational or financial harms would proximately cause loss to Project Vote. But in reality, this is impossible because Project Vote is an organization that, like its sibling CSI, is a mere instrumentality of ACORN.
51. ACORN, Project Vote, and CSI are alter entities of one another and have attempted to use the fiction of independent corporate identities to create the possibility of damages and to manufacture a good faith basis for this lawsuit.
52. The primary purposes and intentions of this lawsuit against MonCrief are not to seek recovery and redress for the causes pled, but (a) to silence MonCrief’s criticism and pressure her to cease her whistle-blowing activities that shed light on wrongdoing on the part of Project Vote, ACORN, and other affiliated organizations of ACORN, and (b) to obtain information from MonCrief as to the current and former sources of her information in order to discover their identity and engage in similar retaliation.
54. ACORN and Project Vote have no legal right to prohibit MonCrief from participating in various investigations of Project Vote and ACORN, and have no legal right to prohibit her from engaging in public discourse related to wrongdoing on the part of ACORN and Project Vote.
56. On information and belief, prior to filing this lawsuit, ACORN and\or Project Vote terminated staff members whom they suspected of providing information to MonCrief, but believe that other sources of information remain in the organization.
58. ACORN and Project Vote’s lawsuit is manifestly improper because it
attempts to pervert the judicial process to achieve ends (namely, silencing of MonCrief’s criticism and forcing her to disclose her
sources) which they cannot otherwise legally or regularly compel, but which are
also collateral to the relief (payment of over $5 million, presumably
accounting for unidentified, unalleged lost
contributions and MonCrief’s alleged outstanding
loan and credit card balance) which they purport to seek.
59. MonCrief has suffered damages as a result of Project Vote’s and ACORN’s abuse of process, including but not limited to the costs associated with defending herself against Project Vote’s lawsuit and the chilling of her First Amendment rights.
ACORN’s next big chill attempt is aimed at Hannah Giles, James O’Keefe, and Andrew Breitbart (defense fund links here), who were all sued last month by ACORN as a result of their investigative journalism stings into the community organizing racket. Breitbart and MonCrief hosted a blogger call this afternoon to discuss MonCrief’s legal defense; Breitbart, Giles, and O’Keefe will host a National Press Club event tomorrow to discuss the next chapter in the ACORN sting saga:
Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government will hold a
press conference featuring James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, the two daring young
journalists who, posing as a “pimp” and “prostitute,” exposed massive
corruption within ACORN’s offices throughout the
country. The Press Conference will be held at the National Press Club of
After suing Breitbart.com, Mr. O’Keefe and Ms. Giles in
Mr. O’Keefe and Ms. Giles are now prepared to respond.
According to Mr. Breitbart, “ACORN
representatives claim James and Hannah were kicked out of
Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) who was first elected to Congress in 2006, recently gave the keynote speech at a forum in
Ellison claims that the Jihadists are engaging in worldwide terrorism because they're angry about Western colonialism in the past. This is wrong. Ellison clearly hasn't studied the violent history of Islam.
Ellison is portraying a false view of why the Jihadists hate Western Civilization. The Jihadists are killing "infidels" (all non-Muslims) because the Quran (supposedly the revelation of Allah to Muhammad) demands that faithful Muslims kill or enslave anyone who refuses to acknowledge Allah or submit to Islam.
The Jihadists are killing "infidels" (all non-Muslims) because the Quran (supposedly the revelation of Allah to Muhammad) demands that faithful Muslims kill or enslave anyone who refuses to acknowledge Allah or submit to Islam.
The Jihadists have waged relentless warfare against the West since the 7th Century when Muhammad sent his armies to conquer, kill and enslave. They have never needed "colonialism" as an excuse to kill infidels. They kill because they're told to kill as part of their religious duty. Killing non-believers in Islamic theology is a sacrament – like taking communion or being baptized in the Christian faith.
In the past centuries, there were two great waves of Islamic imperialism.
The first wave of Islamic invasions began in 622 with Muhammad leading his
armies to slaughter infidels. The second wave began in 1071 and lasted until
1683 when an Islamic army was destroyed at the Battle of Vienna (
The Quran tells faithful Muslims that they must kill non-Muslims or enslave them. In addition, Islamic Shariah law is to be imposed on the whole world. Thus, Islam has always been an aggressive, merciless political system that seeks to dominate the world through the sword.
According to Ellison, "… the
Last year, Ellison took a Hajj to
According to Akram, Muslims in America "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack."
Is Rep. Ellison aware of this memo by Mohamed Akram? If so, does he care? Is he helping to sabotage the West as a Member of Congress? Is he loyal to the U.S. Constitution or loyal to Shariah law, which demands absolute submission to the demands of the Quran?
The Quran he used was Thomas Jefferson's copy. According to Ellison: "The very foundation of our nation, the authors of our Constitution impressed, is religious freedom, and the use of Jefferson's Quran shows that the founders not only knew of the Quran but also used it."
Wrong. Jefferson read the Quran to understand the kind of merciless
Muslims the new
A good first step in separating "good" non-violent Muslims from the terrorist variety would be for people like Mr. Ellison to step forward and condemn the violent ones by name. If a Congressman is too frightened or too corrupted by Saudi money to do this -- how can we expect mere citizens to stand up to the Jihadists?
Another tape has surfaced of another Obama official praising Mao Tse-tung. Let's first go back to June the
5th. We had this for you last Friday. This is Anita Dunn, White
House communications director at a high school graduation at the Washington
• The Hill: House Dem: Obama Not Leading on Healthcare
RUSH: All right, here's installment
two of the CNN stalker, Carol Costello. She's the beat reporter
assigned to me. A portion of her report on "Anger on the
Ignorance is bliss, so the saying goes, and right about now there are a lot of blissfully ignorant folks prattling about, thumping their chests – characteristic of their simian ancestry save for the scratching of their underarms. I'm talking about those who are taking credit for undermining Rush Limbaugh's enjoining a group interested in purchasing the St. Louis Rams football team.
To hear them tell it, Rush is the devil right out of hell for daring to speak his opinion (in a free society), and often for stating the obvious. Those involved would be laughable in their complaint if they weren't unambiguously ignorant and totally given over to a set of double standards.
Would Rush be worse for the game than Ricky Williams or Lawrence Phillips? One is a self-described "poster child for marijuana," the other a thug who serially beat women. Would Rush be worse for the game than the dozens and dozens of players and coaches who have been arrested (many repeatedly) for drugs, steroids, assault, murder, drunk driving and firearms offenses?
Mercury Morris has no room to cast stones at Rush from his glass house, or does he forget his career included a 20-year prison sentence on cocaine charges – his subsequent new trial and plea-bargain arrangement that netted him three years notwithstanding?
Rush may have spent a brief chapter of his life addicted to prescription painkillers, but I have never heard of anyone saying Rush's entire staff and conglomerate were doing drugs. Yet, not so very long ago, I spent time in an AFC East team locker room where 40 out of 45 players were doing drugs by their own admission.
When is the last time Rush was accused of rape or spousal abuse? When is the last time Rush was involved in gun-play or a stabbing at a nightclub? Has Rush ever been charged with felony DUI? How many NFL players and coaches has the net of those charges ensnared? I don't recall Rush ever being charged with having a private residence for the express purpose of having sex, drug and alcohol parties as one group of NFL players did.
That this amalgamation of arrogant, self-indulgent athletes, with limited social and lingual marketability, are held up as role models, while Rush is bastardized, is an indictment of the zeitgeist that champions touchdowns and tackles over the freedom of reasoned expression. The NFL has welcomed back with open arms the likes of Leonard Little (DUI resulting in death, his blood alcohol .19 percent), Chip Banks, Billy Lane, Adam "Pacman" Jones, Michael Vick, Donte Stallworth (who received 30 days house arrest for DUI manslaughter with a blood alcohol of .126 percent), Lawrence Taylor, a coach threatening to kill another coach, and the list goes on and on. But Roger Goodell and the player's association thinks Rush would be bad for the NFL. I submit the NFL would welcome back Rae Carruth if his 18-24 year sentence for conspiracy to murder his pregnant girlfriend were shortened, assuming he still had the requisite skills.
Does anyone think Jim Brown would be held to the same standard being applied to Rush? Brown's extraordinary record of assaulting women, accusations of rape, an unexplained instance of a woman being thrown from a balcony, assault, ad nauseam, would not be a blip on the radar screen, if he were inclined to be involved in the purchase of a franchise.
It's a shame that the decent, honest, reputable players are often branded with the thugs of the league. But that is what they are attempting to do to Rush. They are attempting to brand someone they know nothing about as a racist and a bigot, when the truth is he has done more for the ordinary person than the NFL thug-nasties – unless supporting bars and nightclubs by perpetual drunkenness counts.
Agree with his opinions or not, Rush Limbaugh is singularly responsible
for a generation of talk-format opinion and national debate. No has done more
for the cause of public discourse and involvement than Rush has done. The thuggery responsible for scaring those considering the
purchase of the St. Louis Rams and Rush's participation in same have further
paved the way for the downward spiral of
Their capitulation and transpicuous display of cowardice based on greed has strengthened and encouraged those who would ransack the rights of an individual to buy, own and make gain. The Checketts group's act of cowardice will further be used in the current administration's attempt to silence the voice they fear most. Congratulation, guys – you've contributed to the very campaign you privately decry.
Lest I omit the involvement of Jackson and Sharpton in the attacks against Rush – maybe they can put together a group of interested buyers. After all, they have just the kind of sordid backgrounds Roger Goodell and the league obviously find appealing – it's white conservatism they cannot abide.