ACORN's biggest lie

The most outrageous lie from ACORN can be found on this page of their web site:

ACORN is a non-profit, non-partisan social justice organization with national headquarters in New York, New Orleans and Washington, D.C.

Um, OK.

A tale of two crowds

No, this isn't another wingnut post on the Urinary Olympics over the crowd size for the 9/12 protest in Washington, but it's related.

The absolute mess left behind on the National Mall after Barack Obama's inauguration was well-noted on righty blogs, including this one. But what I'd been unable to find until now was anything showing the aftermath of last Saturday's 9/12 rally on the Mall. Roger at XDA, which I read all the time, had it all along and I somehow missed it.

Make of it what you will.

Russian president wants to meet with American "dissidents"

I had it wrong on Twitter earlier this evening. I thought I'd heard earlier in the evening that Vladimir Putin wanted to meet with American dissidents when he visits the US. I was way off. I should have known the whole idea was ridiculous...how silly of me.

It was Dmitri Medvedev who said he wants to meet with American dissidents! Boy, do I ever feel like a dork.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev says he would like to meet with "dissidents" when he visits the U.S. next week.

Russian news agencies quote him as telling a group of visiting foreign experts that "I believe there are dissidents in the United States."

Yeah, you bet your vodka-soaked ass there are dissidents in the US, sport. We're just not sent off to the gulags. Yet.

Tell you what, D. Come on over to my place and we'll talk.

The OTHER problem with ACORN

As ACORN officials issue one defensive statement after another in response to the devastating revelations about their criminal enterprise, they're revealing to the public what the Right-wing Noise Machine™ has known and been trying to call attention to for a long time: that ACORN is nothing more than an extension of the Democratic party and exists mainly to serve their agenda. Take, for example, this closing paragraph from ACORN's most recent statement announcing suspension of some services:

Said Ms. Lewis: "We have all been deeply disturbed by what we've seen in some of these videos. I must say, on behalf of ACORN's Board and our Advisory Council, that we will go to whatever lengths necessary to reestablish the public trust. For nearly forty years, ACORN has given voice to communities, and gotten results. Right now, our nearly 500,000 member are working their hearts out for quality, affordable healthcare for every American and to help stop the foreclosure crisis. We must get this process right, so the good work can go forward."

Huh-what? Passing the health care reform bill the Democrats so desperately want? Stopping the mortgage crisis of the Democrats' making? When the hell did those two things become ACORN's job? Oh, right...some time around 20 January this year, I guess. I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that ACORN probably wouldn't be too excited about pushing something from the Republican agenda, no matter how good it would be for everyone. Like tort reform, let's say. Or school vouchers. Or building nuclear plants and expanding domestic oil and natural gas production.

And that's the other problem with ACORN. Not so much that they're relentless advocates for the Democrats' agenda, but that they receive taxpayer funding to be advocates for the Democrats' agenda! They have zero accountability to Congress and therefore to the taxpayers who fund them.

So here's a challenge for the two or three people who might read this...name a non-profit community organization pushing a Republican agenda receiving taxpayer funding.

The public face of ACORN

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I remember seeing this guy on TV a couple times during the campaign when allegations about ACORN were really starting to boil over. Scott Levenson is easily the smarmiest, sleaziest most condescending spokescritter to ever hold the job. Oh, and as Allahpundit says, unctuous. If this is the best guy ACORN can put forward, just how rotten are the rest of ACORN's members?

Don't view the video above if you've got a queasy stomach. Instead, watch this one...it's basically what Levenson is reduced to:

ACORN: Ready, fire, aim

ACORN is reacting predictably in the wake of the damning video evidence of their criminal activities by threatening legal action and denying that they are, in fact, a criminal enterprise disguised as advocates for social justice.

I am appalled and angry; I cannot and I will not defend the actions of the workers depicted in the video, who have since been terminated. But it is clear that the videos are doctored, edited, and in no way the result of the fabricated story being portrayed by conservative activist "filmmaker" O'Keefe and his partner in crime. And, in fact, a crime it was - our lawyers believe a felony - and we will be taking legal action against Fox and their co-conspirators.

So, let's see...the video tapes were doctored and edited and the whole story "fabricated", yet they still fired the workers involved. Way to undermine your own assertion, ACORN.

On top of that, they're targeting Fox News and their "co-conspirators". Fox had nothing to do with the production of the videos and merely reported on the furor that arose over them after they were posted on biggovernment.com and YouTube. Their motive in targeting Fox is a two-fer; they get to go after the big, bad Fox News Channel, plus they surely have deeper pockets than Hanna Giles and James O'Keefe, the two independent producers of the videos.

But there's a saying I've heard regarding civil lawsuits: "Discovery's a bitch." During the discovery phase of a lawsuit, the defendants get to demand all kinds of information of the plaintiff, information which may not be in ACORN's best interests to disclose. And in naming Fox in a possible suit, they'll have battalions of Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp attorneys to contend with.

I hope ACORN is foolish enough to go forward with a lawsuit. It'll be fun to watch.

Update: Good lord...yet another video released, this time from NYC. Ed at Hot Air says the same thing today that I said yesterday.

"The powers that be" are protecting ACORN

Back in June, nearly three months before James O'Keefe's exposé blew the lid off the criminal enterprise that is ACORN, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) backed off from his plan to investigate the taxpayer-funded liberal activist group.

"The powers that be decided against it," Mr. Conyers told The Washington Times as he left the House chambers Wednesday.

The chairman declined to elaborate, shrugging off questions about who told him how to run his committee and give the Democrat-allied group a pass.

So just who are the powers that be? The paragraph following those quoted above implies that Conyers was referring to himself, but it really doesn't matter. As a Democrat he certainly is one of "the powers that be" so it probably wouldn't have taken much arm-twisting by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or Barack Obama to dissuade Conyers from pursuing his investigation, which was surely political grandstanding for public consumption, anyway.

Under the stimulus Obama's political remuneration bill, ACORN stands to receive some $5.2 billion in funding. That's close to the annual budget of the Department of Commerce and more than that of the Army Corps of Engineers, and effectively elevates ACORN national president Maude Hurd to a cabinet-level post. I guess that makes her Community Organizing Czar.

Clearly, ACORN needs to be investigated for its criminal activities. Just don't hold your breath waiting for it from a Democrat-controlled Congress or an Obama-controlled Justice Department.

Washington money

Each Labor Day, the Washington Post runs a feature listing salaries for various jobs in and around Washington, DC. A few interesting ones:

Marion Barry, City Councilman, Washington, D.C.: $125,583
$125K a year will buy a lot of crack!

Stephen Dumaine, Tuba Player, National Symphony Orchestra, Washington, D.C.: $125,000
That salary makes getting your ass kicked in high school worth it, I guess.

Gustavo Carpio, Shoe Shiner, Ashburn, VA: $32,000
32 grand a year for shining shoes?

Jimmy McKennelly, Panhandler, Washington, D.C.: $20 a day
$7,300 a year may not sound like much, but he's got low overhead.

Alexander Ovechkin, Hockey Player, Washington Capitals: $9 million
But his dental expenses consume half of it.

Josh Wicks, Goalkeeper, D.C. United (Soccer), Washington, D.C.: $42,000
Should've taken up hockey instead.

Lonnie Wade Jr., Dead Animal Operator, Department of Public Works, Washington, D.C.: $38,000
I guess just figuring out how to operate a dead animal is worth $38 grand to the city.

It's NOT the speech, stupid

Lefties everywhere are having themselves a good laugh over righties' objections to Barack Obama's upcoming address to American schoolchildren. Some columnists, such as Bob Ray Sanders, find it all "so sinister and so sickening".

Unfortunately for a growing number of frightened, misguided and hate-filled Americans, this president should not and must not be a role model for their children. Therefore, their young sons and daughters should not be in class — or perhaps even in school — if there’s a remote possibility that the plague-spreading left-wing devil called Obama will speak to them.

They’ve labeled him the Antichrist who is set on desecrating the Constitution, destroying the country and annihilating their children’s futures.

It is theater of the absurd, being played out in exaggerated dramatic fashion on stages large and small — in offices, backrooms, broadcast studios and on the World Wide Web.

I would find it laughable if it were not so tragic, so sinister and so sickening.

First of all, the outrage isn't about the speech itself, but the original (and since stricken) "guidance" provided to educators to accompany the broadcast. Obama's Department of Education Indoctrination suggested teachers assign students the task of writing themselves a letter detailing ways in which the student can help Barack Obama. How creepy is that? If Obama simply gave a speech to kids exhorting them to stay in school, study hard, and work hard, and a handful of kids heeded his words, have at it, sport. Hell, do a weekly address. But, no, the original intent was to bolster his personality cult.

Second of all, Sanders, where the hell were you for the last eight years when the collective fevered mind of the left accused Bush of everything from being a warmonger to being evil incarnate?

Fucking hypocrite.

H/T Hot Air headlines for the Sanders column.

Thank your lucky czars

Much is being made over Barack Obama's legion of "czars", one of which had his shit kicked to the curb this weekend for being a communist and all-around dickhead.

The number of czars varies depending on the source, but the numbers I hear most often are north of 30. Which sounds like an awful lot because, well, it is. So I did some Googling to see if I could find a definitive list of czars in the Obama White House and - sorry all you Glenn Beck haters - the most complete list I found was this one. Beck lists 32 czars, and marks with an asterisk those positions which existed in prior administrations. There are eight such posts, leaving us with 24 "czar" positions created by this administration. But are there really 24 new positions reporting to the Executive Office of the President? Er, no.

Take for example David Hayes, "California Water Czar". His real title is Deputy Interior Secretary. He was confirmed by the Senate and reports to Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior. So this is most likely an existing position given a different, dedicated mission.

And then there's Ashton Carter, "Weapons Czar", a kick-ass job title if ever there was one. He's actually Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, reporting to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

And...well actually, that's it. So even after the asterisks and the positions that exist elsewhere, we've still got 22 newly-minted czars courtesy of Barack Obama. I'll throw out a figure of $160,000 for an average annual salary, putting the czar payroll budget at around $3.5 million a year.

As Beck points out, nearly all (if not all) of these positions overlap significantly with established agencies. And some of them are (or at least sound) just plain silly, such as "Great Lakes Czar" (Cameron Davis) and "Domestic Violence Czar" (Lynn Rosenthal). That's not to trivialize these issues, particularly domestic violence, but does Obama really need "czars" covering them? Hardly. Hey, how about a Silly Walks Czar?

Clearly, these jobs are exactly what they appear to be: political patronage for campaign services rendered or money contributed. They're accountable to nobody, and - at best - represent a waste of money and - at worst - an extra-Constitutional branch of the federal government.

Notes on Fredericksburg, VA health care town hall

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) held a health care town hall at the Fredericksburg Expo Center last night, which was heavily attended. Mrs. Pool Bar and I went, and I had a few questions I was prepared to ask, but alas, never got the chance. Numbers were handed out on request on the way in, and then randomly drawn during the event. Unfortunately, my luck was about as good as it is with any other kind of raffle, but I thought it was about as fair a way of selecting questions as could be asked for.

Some observations...

I would guess the anti-Obamacare crowd at about 65-70% of attendees. Not too surprising in this part of the state, even factoring in the oh-so-blue city of Fredericksburg.

My wife and I were seated next to a gentleman who was decidedly pro-healthcare reform. After we cheered an anti-Obamacare sign, he joked "I feel like I'm at the Alamo." He was a good-natured guy, and we chatted with him throughout much of the event, and I think that atmosphere was also reflected throughout much of the rest of the event. I saw no bickering among individuals from opposing sides, which may be attributable to the fact that...

The MoveOn.org and SEIU contingents were notably absent from this event. There was some pro-healthcare reform group or another handing out pro-reform signs to any takers on the way in, but I'm not sure what group they were with. In any event, this gives lie to the left's claim that anti-Obamacare protesters are "astroturfers" in the employ of the GOP, the health insurance lobby, etc.

Only at one point did someone stand up and start ranting without his number being called, but he was eventually silenced. He was a bit too far away to see if he was escorted out or just persuaded to sit down and shut up, and it was all handled by event staff with no need for the cops to get involved.

A transplant from Britain was lucky enough to get called on, and he proceeded to deliver a litany of reasons why our government should stay the hell out of the health care business. He received a standing ovation from a large majority of the crowd.

Sen. Warner himself was clearly in favor of some kind of health care reform, but was careful not to take a position on this health care reform bill. He did acknowledge after someone brought up the issue of tort reform that tort reform is needed, but he was clearly reluctant to link it to health care reform.

A couple of my favorite signs:

"This wise Latina says NO to Obamacare"

And:

Health care town hall tonight in Fredericksburg

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) is hosting a health care town hall at the Fredericksburg Expo Center in Fredericksburg, VA. Mrs. Pool Bar and I will be there, and if given the opportunity, here's a partial list of questions I plan on asking:

Back in July, the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress were frantically trying to rush a vote on an eleven hundred-page health care reform bill which was not yet finished, and none of them had read. Why?

The stated purpose of health care reform is to drive down costs associated with health care and make it more affordable. One of the biggest contributors to health care costs are legal costs and malpractice insurance expenses incurred by health care professionals, and yet Democrats in Congress consistently resist any efforts at tort reform. Why?

HR 3200 includes individual mandates, requiring citizens – under threat of tax penalties - to carry medical coverage for themselves and any dependents. From which article does Congress derive the Constitutional authority to compel private citizens to purchase something they may neither need nor want?

Still compiling more questions as I research more.

File under "What if Bush did it?"

Twitter user clobrien tweeted this item this morning, pointing to a White House "Secret Plan to Harvest Personal Data from Social Networking Sites". The only quibble I have with her tweet is that the plan is not very secret.

Her tweet links to an article at National Legal and Policy Center which describes a request for contract proposals (PDF of the RFQ) from the White House New Media Office for contractors to submit bids to "ensure that content published by the Executive Office of the President (EOP) on publicly-accessible web sites is archived in accordance with the Presidential Records Act (PRA)".

OK fine, you say. The White House wants to make sure that whatever they publish on sites such as Facebook, MySpace and Twitter gets properly archived. But that's not all, folks. From the RFQ:

The contractor shall provide the necessary services to capture, store, extract to approved formats, and transfer content published by EOP on publicly-accessible web sites, along with information posted by non-EOP persons [That'd be me and you! --ed.] on publicly-accessible web sites where the EOP offices under PRA maintains a presence, throughout the term of the contract.

The term of the contract, not coincidentally, is eight years (base year plus seven renewals).

NLPC nails the big problem with this at the close:

Perhaps anticipating negative reaction to the invasiveness of the plan, a justification is provided in a Q&A. section of the solicitation. Question #9 reads:

The Presidential Records Act does not require the storage or archiving of non-EOP content, as such is there a specific reason as to why the content provided on EOP related websites in the form of comments is included in these archiving procedures?

Answer: The PRA includes in its definition of presidential records content ―received by PRA components and personnel. Out of an abundance of caution, we are treating comments made by non-PRA personnel on sites on which a PRA component has a presence as presidential records, requiring them to be captured or sampled.

Of course, this interpretation of the Presidential Records Act is so expansive that virtually any communication mentioning the president or the Administration could become subject to collection and archiving under the Act. This is not out of an “abundance of caution,” but out of an over-abundance of power. President Obama should make sure that this plan goes no further.

There's that overly-broad definition problem again. NLPC correctly points out that under the definitions in the RFQ, nearly any mention of the administration by non-EOP users can be considered appropriate content to harvest.

Oh, and by the way...White House staffers are already doing this, they just need a more efficient tool. From the RFQ:

Currently, the Government team is capturing the data and content both programmatically (via Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) from social networks) and manually (through daily screen shots).

I'm sure the ACLU will be all over this any minute. Yessiree, any minute now.