Abu Wabu

For freeing Iraq when the idiots and terror apologists (you know who you are) would have left its citizens to rot in Saddam's hell. Especially as voiced by Barack Obama, so satisfying is it to watch him choke on Dubya's vision and on Iraq's historic accomplishment, both of which he vehemently opposed.

Mars, bitches!

Gateway Pundit

Track-A-'Crat

First he redefined the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians in the streets of Tehran as "vigorous debate". Then he stopped criticizing Israel's settlements just long enough to declare that America must not meddle in the affairs of Iran and other Islamofascist dictatorships. Now he is criticizing an action taken by the Honduras government pursuant to that country's constitution and sanctioned by its Supreme Court, as "a coup".

Which, given his record so far, should not surprise anyone that Obama appears confused, as he does in the case of ex-Honduras president Manuel Zelaya, who tried to subvert the Honduran constitution and award himself an entirely illegitmate, constitutionally-prohibited presidency-for-life.

Should America "meddle" in other countries? According to Obama, no, unless such meddling may prevent the ouster of a leftist thug aspiring to tinpot dictator status through unlawful means- then it's all about democracy and, yes, the rule of law! Except that Obama's appeal for adherence to the rule of law strangely omits the inconvenient fact that, in this case, "the rule of law" was handed down by the Honduras Supreme Court ordering the military detention of Zelaya and the transfer of presidential power to a legal successor.

Fausta's Blog translates from La Prensa:

An official statement of the Supreme Court of Justice explained that the Armed Forces acted under lawful grounds when detaining the President of the Republic, and by decommissioning the materials to be used on the illegal poll which aimed to bring forth Executive Power against a judicial order.

Other sources verified that the president of the Congress, Roberto Micheletti, will assume the presidency of the republic in a few hours.…Honduran president Manuel Zelaya was detained this morning by the military in compliance with an order of the courts of law.

For the administration to blatantly mischaracterise the constitutionally-mandated and legal ousting of an anti-democratic (to say nothing of anti-American), totalitarian-minded, law-flouting, leftwing fascist tyrant as some sort of "coup" is, well it's, uh, uh...

Never mind.

Drudge: OBAMA LASHES OUT AT HONDURAS; SIDES WITH CHAVEZ, CASTRO
Dan Collins: Obama calls on everyone in Honduras except Zelaya to respect the law.
Gateway Pundit: When a Leftist dictator’s career is on the line, Obama finds reason to meddle.
Don Surber: I guess actually he was against meddling before he was for meddling.

I do not doubt that Obama feels no small measure of discomfort at the prospect of something similar eventually happening much closer to home.

WSJ: Honduras Defends Its Democracy

UPDATE
Via Hot Air, Hillary! is calling it right; she just doesn't know it:

We call on all parties in Honduras to respect the constitutional order and the rule of law, to reaffirm their democratic vocation, and to commit themselves to resolve political disputes peacefully and through dialogue.

Done, Madame Secretary; done.

Now how's about you set the record straight on this ludicrous "coup" bidness, Hil!?

An Inconvenient Truth

Via The Good Michelle

Breaking late tonight, CEI has released the draft version of the censored study that the EPA doesn’t want you to see. You can read the entire 98-page document here.

Here is the preface, which begins, “We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and countries have paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups…as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation.” No wonder they tried to shut up senior researcher Alan Carlin (click on image for full-size):

Can't have the truth muddying up Obama's big Cap & Tax ambitions, now can we? The Competitive Enterprise Institute has caught Obama's EPA censoring the truth about global warming, specifically that there is no such thing. Remember Obama's high-sounding rhetoric about "returning science to its rightful place"? What he didn't tell you was that, by "rightful place", he meant "as a propaganda tool" to legitimize illegitimate pseudo-scientific nonsense. And if you don't believe him well, shuddup. And he means it.

Washington, D.C., June 26, 2009—The Competitive Enterprise Institute is today making public an internal study on climate science which was suppressed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Internal EPA email messages, released by CEI earlier in the week, indicate that the report was kept under wraps and its author silenced because of pressure to support the Administration’s agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.

The report finds that EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth assessment” report, is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments. Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.

New data also indicate that ocean cycles are probably the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, and that reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases. All of this demonstrates EPA should independently analyze the science, rather than just adopt the conclusions of outside organizations.

The released report is a draft version, prepared under EPA’s unusually short internal review schedule, and thus may contain inaccuracies which were corrected in the final report.

“While we hoped that EPA would release the final report, we’re tired of waiting for this agency to become transparent, even though its Administrator has been talking transparency since she took office. So we are releasing a draft version of the report ourselves, today,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman.

But don't believe your lyin' eyes: any idiot will tell you, and God knows they do at every chance, that global warming is an EMERGENCY that must be addressed immediately, and the only way to fix it is to tax you to DEATH.

So, here are a couple of words that are now spelled differently under Obamarule:

Transparency = c-e-n-s-o-r-s-h-i-p
Science = w-h-a-t-e-v-e-r-O-b-a-m-a-s-a-y-s-i-t-i-s

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff is not impressed with Obama's handling of the Iranian uprising:

Obama, as he often does, basically stringed together a series of cliches and talking points in the hope that he would come up with something pleasing to the ear, if short on substance or even coherence.

That is where the rubber hits the road:

More likely than not, and particularly if the U.S. adopts the passive posture Obama describes, the Iranians for the foreseeable future will judge their regime in a sullen, repressed whisper, fearful of arrest and persecution for any judgment uttered more loudly. The U.S., by contrast, will be a free agent -- free to negotiate with the regime, or to take measures against it, or to do nothing. If we negotiate with the murderous mullahs, or if we do nothing, the Iranian people will take no comfort from our role as witness and occasional lecturer.

To answer the question that appears at the top of this post, great powers are not limited to "bearing witness" and offering occasional lectures. Nor does Obama think they (we) are. For example, he is not content merely to bear witness to what he calls the "stalemate" on the West Bank, or even to the construction of some housing there by some Israeli settlers.

Like any leader of a great power, Obama picks and chooses which matters he wishes to interfere in. The rest of us bear witness and judge his choices.

He is on the verge of choosing very badly in Iran.

I concur. Obama may have a bitchin' blueprint for turning the U.S. into a socialist paradise, but his weakness on the international stage will undo him- Americans don't re-elect weak loser presidents.

The latest of Obama's outrages is the worst, as Andrew McCarthy reports today, for the Obama administration has been secretly negotiating with the mullahs even as they have carried out their massacre of the Iranian people.

This story explains much of Obama's dithering on behalf of the mullahs against the Iranian people.

I predict disastrous consequences for The Jugeared One.

Back in May 2008, in a speech before the Israeli Knesset, President Bush derided the “foolish delusion” of unidentified, naïve politicians who “seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.”

Exhibiting a thin-skinned consciousness of guilt, Sen. Barack Obama assumed Bush had been referring to him, and lashed out: “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists.” President Obama is now way beyond mere support of such engagement. Under his leadership, and even as the mullahs who have been at war with the United States for 30 years are engaged in a Tiananmen-style crackdown, Obama is neck-deep in terrorist-for-hostages negotiations with Iran-backed killers who have American blood on their hands.

Not good, son. Not good.

Jonah Goldberg:

A populist, nationalist, socialist, military strongman is whipping up anti-Jewish sentiment and yet he's a darling of the Left. Weird. If only someone could write a book that explained how such a thing could be possible.

And someone did.


Artist's conception of Jonah Goldberg's
bestselling Liberal Fascism incorporating
the fabulous "Obamotif"! Love it or what?

Clarity, thy name is Andrew McCarthy, who explains for one and all in this NRO piece the reasons that Obama seemed to be on the side of the mullahs for the first few days of the Iranian uprising rather than on the side of the protesters.

Reason Number One: Obama identifies with the mullahs.

The fact is that, as a man of the hard Left, Obama is more comfortable with a totalitarian Islamic regime than he would be with a free Iranian society. In this he is no different from his allies like the Congressional Black Caucus and Bill Ayers, who have shown themselves perfectly comfortable with Castro and Chàvez. Indeed, he is the product of a hard-Left tradition that apologized for Stalin and was more comfortable with the Soviets than the anti-Communists (and that, in Soros parlance, saw George Bush as a bigger terrorist than bin Laden).

I am all too familiar with that particular brand of idiocy. It's the very coin of the idiot left, this pretense to a special virtue found only in the ability to loath one's own society, even when it affords the individual more freedoms than anywhere else on the planet, and even when it means "empathizing" with the monsters now at work beating and murdering Iranians. It's the same idiocy that would have left Saddam in power to keep massacring Iraqis to the tune of some 300,000 a year so they could feel good about hating President Bush; the same idiocy that would see every captured enemy combatant given the very rights he has tried to take from the idiots; the kind of idiocy that confuses itself with sophistication and magnanimity. Not to one's own, you understand, but to the enemy.

McCarthy:

Because of obvious divergences (inequality for women and non-Muslims, hatred of homosexuals) radical Islam and radical Leftism are commonly mistaken to be incompatible. In fact, they have much more in common than not, especially when it comes to suppression of freedom, intrusiveness in all aspects of life, notions of "social justice," and their economic programs. (On this, as in so many other things, Anthony Daniels should be required reading — see his incisive New English Review essay, "There Is No God but Politics", comparing Marx and Muslim Brotherhood theorist Sayyid Qutb.) The divergences between radical Islam and radical Leftism are much overrated — "equal rights" and "social justice" are always more rally-cry propaganda than real goals for totalitarians, and hatred of certain groups is always a feature of their societies.

The key to understanding Obama, on Iran as on other matters, is that he is a power-politician of the hard Left : He is steeped in Leftist ideology, fueled in anger and resentment over what he chooses to see in America's history, but a "pragmatist" in the sense that where ideology and power collide (as they are apt to do when your ideology becomes less popular the more people understand it), Obama will always give ground on ideology (as little as circumstances allow) in order to maintain his grip on power.

...It's a mistake to perceive this as "weakness" in Obama. It would have been weakness for him to flit over to the freedom fighters' side the minute it seemed politically expedient. He hasn't done that, and he won't. Obama has a preferred outcome here, one that is more in line with his worldview, and it is not victory for the freedom fighters. He is hanging as tough as political pragmatism allows, and by doing so he is making his preferred outcome more likely. That's not weakness, it's strength — and strength of the sort that ought to frighten us.

To Establish A Disconnect From Ongoing Investigations Of Voter Fraud In At Least 14 States

The new organization is called Community Organizations International. As the Washington Examiner reports, COI's job is to play a shell game with authorities investigating ACORN:

Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) leaders are using the threat of a law suit to silence and intimidate critics, according to current and former members of the liberal activist group.

In a letter dated June 11 an attorney for ACORN advised top whistleblowers that their unauthorized use of the organization’s name could make them liable for monetary damages and injunctive relief.

ACORN executives have also changed their organization’s name, which was tarnished by investigations in at least 14 states of allegations of voter registration fraud during the 2008 presidential campaign, and charges by current and former members of financial mismanagement and misrepresentation.

The new name will let ACORN leaders continue their operations without worrying about prior bad publicity, according to Marcel Reid of ACORN 8, a group of present and former members.

“We’ve known for many months now that the name ACORN is going to be retired,” Reid said. “The name has been so damaged to the point where the leadership knows it simply can’t go on as it has with the ACORN label out front and center, especially after all of the reporting.”

In fact, the process has already begun, she noted. Wade Rathke, who founded the organization, announced on his blog that ACORN International has officially changed its name to “Community Organizations International.”

Reid also said ACORN is in the process of dismantling Citizen’s Consulting Inc. (CCI), a New-Orleans based non-profit, which has been used to maintain centralized financial control, ACORN 8 activists claim. Tax records show that CCI is interlinked with several ACORN affiliates.

Dale Rathke, the brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke, embezzled almost $1 million from the organization in 1999 and 2000, while he was employed as the organization’s chief financial officer with the CCI affiliate. For almost a decade Wade Rathke and other staff members concealed the embezzlement from ACORN’s board of trustees, according to the criminal complaint ACORN 8 members filed against the organization.

ACORN’s national leaders withdrew a lawsuit Reid filed with fellow board member Karen Inman last October seeking access to internal financial records. Reid and Inman were also expelled from their board positions; a move they say was illegal. Reid and Inman then came together with six other colleagues to form ACORN 8.
“ACORN has to be decapitated,” Reid said. “The senior staff and current national board should be dismantled. The only way to have reform is for the current leadership to be removed completely. We also need a forensic audit.”

Arthur Schwartz, the general counsel for ACORN, has sent a “cease and desist” letter to Reid and Inman instructing them to discontinue using the name ACORN in a connection with their activities. This same letter threatens legal action if the ACORN 8 members do not provide written assurances that they will comply with this demand by the end of June.

“It is a violation of federal and state law for you to use the ACORN name and mark without the written permission of ACORN,” the letter states. “Should you continue to do so, you will be liable for monetary and injunctive relief.”

Reid told The Examiner that ACORN 8 will not comply.

“We have no intention of not using the name ACORN 8, it is not a trademark infringement,” she said. “This get tough attitude is part of larger attempt to silence people and shut them down. We are not going to be silenced.”

Meanwhile, ACORN’s Project Vote affiliate has filed suit against Anita MonCrief, a former employee, who has testified under oath on voter registration allegations. ACORN is currently under investigation in at least 14 states for electoral irregularities. The Project Vote suit claims that Anita MonCrief and an unidentified accomplice gained access into private e-mails from group executives and stole the group’s name without permission. It also accuses Moncrief of using a company credit card for her own purposes.

“ACORN is attempting to silence me, and the allegations in the lawsuit are false,” MonCrief said in statement emailed to The Examiner.

ACORN 8 has released its own statement on “whistleblower retaliation” through its national spokesman Michael McCray that expresses support for new protective legislation.

“On behalf of the national board of ACORN 8, we are all saddened by and express great concern due to ACORN’s court action filed against whistleblower Anita MonCrief,” the statement reads. “While we do not express an opinion on the merits of ACORN’s complaint; we as reform advocates decry the tactic of suing whistleblowers – especially, low to moderate income people who do not have the financial means to effectively fight back in courts of law. Moreover, this is yet another example of why congress must enact strong corporate, government and tax-payer funded whistleblower protection laws.”

ACORN 8 has endorsed H.R. 1507, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009.

Via the Good Michelle:

The White House is on a witch hunt against inspectors general who blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars.

And now, taxpayer-subsidized ACORN affiliate Project Vote — where President Obama cut his teeth as a community organizer and learned Leftist intimidation tactics up close and personal — is going after whistleblower Anita MonCrief and an anonymous “John Doe” defendant for posting invaluable documents that reveal the
money-shuffling racket.

Obama. ACORN. Project Vote. Corrupt birds of a feather bully together.

The scoop: Project Vote has filed a federal lawsuit against MonCrief for blogging about her experience and knowledge of the non-profit 501(c)(3) organization’s partisan and political activities, including coordination with the Obama campaign. Project Vote seeks compensatory damages and exemplary damages “of at least $5 million” and all costs and attorney’s fees on trumped-up charges of “trademark infringement” and publication of “trade secrets.”

You don’t have to be a lawyer to see that this is a blatant act of retaliation. MonCrief has always been open and honest about her firing from Project Vote. The ObamACORN mob used the credit card incident as a pretext then and they are using it as a pretext now. The real reason they are going after her is because she poses a fundamental threat to ACORN’s criminal racket.

I’ve uploaded the entire 30-page complaint. Read it. Send it to your congressional rep. Spread the word:

This is what ObamACORN bullying looks like.

We'll follow the Good Michelle's example and reprint in full MonCrief's Febraury 6, 2009 blog post in which she details how "comprehensive her knowledge is of ObamACORN’s money-shuffling operations and political cunning. " This story aligns perfectly with Obama's ongoing purge of IGs whose work is getting too close to his crooked allies.

Friday, February 6, 2009
Has ACORN Become a Liability for Democrats?Author/source: Anita Moncrief’s blog
As the Senate debates the stimulus package, there has been yet another flurry of articles and blogs regarding ACORN receiving federal funds. Many Republican Senators has spoken out against the possibility of ACORN receiving funding; including Ohio’s John Boehner, who has taken an admirable stand in the face of outright pressure and the inference that debating the bill will harm the economy and the American people.

However, the silence from the Democrats is deafening. Besides the courage of some middle of the road Dems to challenge the pork, no one seems to be asking the million dollar question: “Why is ACORN even around to be eligible for this money.” Conservatives love to raise the standard in election years, but quickly loose interest when the elections are over. The problem with this approach is two fold. First, as stated in previous blogs, ACORN is fully prepared to fight allegations of voter registration fraud. Actually they use the press coverage to demonstrate to the members and funders how fragile minority voting rights are and that Republicans want to challenge them at the polls. Like the Christian Bale movie The Prestige they have one amazing trick that runs for limited performances. In this case, its every two years. Not to say that you are not correct in the assumption that there are problems with the voter registration cards, as noted in a December 2006 report:

“In 2004, voter registration quality control lapses led to some 20 criminal investigations around the nation and private lawsuits in Florida and Ohio. In 2006, much quality control around the nation was improved, but where there were failures, they were impressive (particularly in Missouri), and had national repercussions. In 2007 we face one grand jury investigation, 3 FEC complaints, and a possible investigation by the Senate and/or the IRS.”

Since ACORN is facing the same problems now, one must wonder what is the hidden benefit of keeping them around. In order to throw a line to my conservative friends; I have a little helpful hint to anyone who really wants to take down the criminal enterprise that is ACORN. Next time, instead of requesting mound of useless evidence related to voter registration fraud; (believe me, they will find some poor employee to pin it on) ASK TO SEE THEIR BOOKS. If anyone were to get a hold of what the ACORN 8 has come to realize is the Holy Grail of documents, I would have to find something else to blog about.

ACORN has systematically removed anyone from the organization that has made this simple request, including Marcel Reid and Karen Inman, the founding members of the ACORN 8. Eight board members had the courage to ask the one question that would bring ACORN down and Bertha Lewis and the management have exhibited mob like tactics in order to silence them.

Bertha Lewis and ACORN may scream racism and conspiracy whenever any even hints at impropriety; but former Chief Organizer and founder Wade Rathke wrote a very interesting summary of the organizations challenges after the successful 2006 elections that ended in a sweeping victory for Democrats.

Threats and Challenges
The Fredrick Douglass quote that essentially “power concedes nothing without struggle” is a byword for this current passage of the organization as we amass a larger and more powerful role in public affairs in the United States. ACORN is now seen as a central – and indispensable — component of the progressive coalition. The conclusion of the Democracy Alliance process of creating infrastructure was summed up for me recently by SEIU’s Andy Stern, as having concluded that there simply were only a few institutions that were capable of sustainable activity, and ACORN was on that short list.

The same conclusion has been made by the right as we saw in the coordinated and direct pre-election attacks on ACORN on websites, blogs, and at our own convention as well as on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, the FEC complaints filed by the Republican party in Pennsylvania, Florida, and Missouri, and the partisan accusations of voter fraud by conservative, party line hunkering ideologues in Kansas City and St. Louis.

The fine point of this attack were the requests for voluminous records by then Chairman and Senator Charles Grassley of the Senate Finance Committee from ACORN that are in fact still on-going. If it were not so tedious and expensive organizationally and angering and insulting personally, it would certainly be a damned fine honor!

Being of the school that “when they want you, they will get you” does not mean that we should not learn from this as we go forward and tighten up our internal procedures, inspect the borders and retaining walls between various organizations, and in some cases change what we are doing and the personnel in such a way to limit exposure and clarify operations, both for offense and defense. This review is still continuing in the immediate aftermath and mop-up from the exhilaration of the election, but internally this was the subject of leadership and management staff even before the ballots opened. Once all the information is in, all opinions are weighed, and counsel of various persuasions have spoken, we will shore up the operations to prepare for the continued onslaught that building – and exercising – real power will involve.

All of this in some ways is past due, but none of it will be without change, some pleasant and some more persnickety.

Considering the revelation of the Rathke embezzlement scandal in 2008, I am going to assume that they had a little trouble shoring up the walls. Citizens Services Inc. (CCI) is the for profit entity that handles all of the funds in the ACORN universe. According to ACORN staff lore, CCI was created after the Department of Labor made ACORN get an “outside” firm to handle payroll. After 30+ years of collecting membership dues, shaking down banks and mortgage companies, and secret side deals with the unions; ACORN did not want an outside firm to handle ANY of the money. Let’s examine why.

Notes from West Regional Meeting 8/15/08, Los Angeles
CCI is currently inadequate but is keeping us going day to day, they are not equipped for complex issues…Bertha has not been able to get Mike Jones to be cooperative on many issues and Mike signed contracts with Duplantier for more audits without consulting folks through 2008…causing major problems.

One major problem is that Whitney Bank allows us to overdraw and be unrealistic in financial management and planning, creating some major discrepancies between what is in accounts and what we have in reality.

To cover their actions while appearing to be in compliance ACORN uses the ceremonial board model throughout the organization. Most of the board members are either ACORN Staff that hold positions on the boards of other entities; or unsuspecting members recruited from the community who do not understand that they are fiscally responsible for the documents that ACORN wants them to rubber stamp.

It is ironic that ACORN management did not seem comfortable with African Americans in positions of power within the staff ranks (unless they could be used in some way) but it was okay to have the dues paying community leaders as the fall guys. For example, and with respect to a woman who has accomplished a great deal; it was common knowledge among staff that Maude Hurd was a pawn used by the Rathke’s to present the comforting, black, strong, mother image to the community. The emotion that meeting Ms. Hurd brought to some members would be awe inspiring, if were not for ACORN’s ulterior motives.

Chief Organizer Report December 2006
Over recent years the development of the partnerships produced from the struggle of campaigns with various corporations offer constructive learning models about the multiplier effects of such relationships forged in conflict. This is no more evident than in the developing relationship with Citigroup and H&R Block as two examples.

Continuing the work the partnerships aggressively and across operations has paid significant benefits throughout the ACORN family and continues to do so. The supplemental side letter being finalized with Citigroup during the 1st week of 2007 to add 10 offices with an “elastic” footprint for the agreement is very important. Citigroup’s interest in adding support and discussion of international operations to the relationship meeting at the same time in order to discuss partnerships in Latin America, India, and Africa with ACORN could be significant in stabilizing resources capacity for expansion and maintenance in these emerging ACORN International operations.

None of this is every sure fire or guaranteed. We still seemingly have a long way to go to create a stable and sustainable relationship across operations with Household and HSBC, but the point of this discussion is that we are targeting this sector for aggressive exploration around resource development. This corporate and related assault has been tasked to Mitch Klein as my assistant in the Office of Chief Organizer. Thus far we have either met or have meetings scheduled with Entergy, Allstate, Florida Power & Light, Prudential, General Services, GMAC, and Mitsubishi for example.

To put this passage in context let’s examine a couple of missing facts. ACORN members are paying dues, marching, calling, knocking, and chanting for campaigns that they are told are to benefit their quality of life. ACORN then makes a side deal for funding and development for resources that are going directly overseas. The second point here is that Wade is still Chief Organizer of ACORN International and its total assets are unknown. According to board members and staff, ACORN International was always apart of the Council of Organizations, that is until Wade was removed.

“An invitation is being evaluated seriously for ACORN Nigeria. Bertha Lewis of NY ACORN visited over Thanksgiving week and was very impressed with front end work having been already done by former Brooklyn ACORN leaders, including potential donation of a piece of land to provide resource support for the first 2 years of the organization on the proposal we have made to the Nigerian sponsoring committee. I am visiting late in January to also assess. Meetings with Sunday Alabie (MN ACORN) and Tunde of KNON hopefully will create a US based ACORN Nigeria support committee to raise money for the ongoing organizing to supplement dues…

Internationally, ACORN Canada now seems legally set. This is NOT the case in other extra-USA ACORN operations. Solving these problems will be a major matter for 2007.”

According to a undated 2008 letter sent to ACORN lawyer Beth Kingsley from a St. Petersburg attorney named Christine L. Allamanno, “ACORN International is a separate corporation with a separate board of directors from ACORN.” The letter goes on to state that ACORN Int. relationship with CCI “is also a relationship that is independent of ACORN, and CCI and ACORN Int. are free to negotiate their own relationship without outside interference from ACORN, and will continue to do so.”

The board members appointed to review the situation afterward the embezzlement must have been appalled to find that members money and sweat were just gone without any accountability as to what happened. Why is ACORN borrowing money now? What happened? While this situation worked out nicely for the Rathkes’ there have been other painful separations in the ACORN family regarding CCI.

Chief Organizer Report, December 2006
…my inability to convince SEIU 880 not to leave the shared collective of our family of organizations around the shared services of CCI was my major disappointment of the year and represents in a small way the largest internal threat to our family of organizations. In the simplest of terms it costs everyone money to have 880 leave, but that loss is negligible and inconsequential compared to the loss of unity and shared vision of both risks and rewards from collective enterprise.

Equally disappointing was what we discovered about the weakness of our internal process at any level of management to find a voice for such a departure. It became a matter of a notice from a lawyer, rather than even an announcement at a meeting of managers, thereby sounding the death knell to many of our structures as lacking even the formality and manners of respect and accountability. No one structure was inadequate to this problem, but all of our structures were too weak in this instance and most of our top managers were unable to separate our great friendships from our awesome responsibilities to the collective.

SEIU 880 is of course a vital part of our family of organizations, and states that it intends to maintain its place at the forefront of our COUNCIL and that is both appreciated and immensely valued. Nevertheless this is a difficult passage, and it would be a lie to state otherwise. One can only hope that as chains are broken, they are welded even more strongly together for the future. We will see as this unfolds in the future and hope for the best.

In 2008 others began to see the cracks in ACORN and pulled their funding. CCHD suspended all money to ACORN after finding out about the misappropriation of funds. ACORN internally admits the mistake that led to the CCHD pulling the plug.

Rebuilding ACORN’s Social Impact Central Meeting: Monday, August 11, 2008

I think CCHD thinks they are helping the poor and they don’t know about all these other CCI fees. They don’t realize they are paying for all this other stuff. Are we accountable to our members as staff or are we accountable to those people who are not accountable to the members.

Good question.

ACORN says that it will not apply for any of the stimulus money, and it probably wont; but some of the 204 organizations will. ACORN Housing, perhaps, or maybe ACORN Fair Housing? Reading ACORN’s 300+ page year end report is really enlightening.

Building Community Institutions and Resources
Our efforts are concentrated on housing counseling, housing development, media, and schools. We made continued progress in most areas in 2006 perhaps with the exception in schools, which separate reports will detail. Special note must be made of the progress in housing development, which continued to accelerate throughout the year especially in New Orleans and the expansion from New York’s experience.

You might be wondering know how much money ACORN could bring in from these endeavors, and the answer lies in the same report.

ACORN Fair Housing
Year End/Year Begin Report December 2006Staff: Valerie Coffin, Director Maxine Vasquez, Research Assistant

Overall evaluation: Despite having a rather successful year with five simultaneous fair housing projects, we’re ending on a sour note by having problems with HUD to receive 3 of 6 grants we were originally awarded for the coming year. Continuing work will be done with testing and identification of fair housing issues as part of tenant campaigns in Los Angeles and work on insurance issues in various cities. Other areas of work including the annual lending study, and GIS/Mapping have had no major changes.

New grant applications- We were originally awarded five FY2006 FHIP grants totally $450,000 for projects in Louisiana, Maryland, Denver, Las Vegas, and New Mexico. Shortly afterwards we awarded an additional $100,000 for the 2005 application in Louisiana bringing the new grant total to $550,000. However, we have only negotiated three projects with HUD (NM & 2 LA) and are running into problems with the other three (CO, MD, NV) that appear to be a result of both local HUD incompetence and larger political motives. It is unclear if we will be able to save this funding.

Outlook for 2007
Three FHIP grants are entirely up in the air right now making it difficult to make too many definite plans other than fighting to maintain the funding that HUD already awarded us. It’s a reminder that we need to maintain tight record-keeping on federal-funded projects and offices awarded these grants need to take them very seriously.

Federal Funding: In 2006, we helped win grant awards for $912,378 in federal funding from HUD. Overall, we helped write and submit 13 federal grants to HUD for FY2006, four of which are still outstanding. With Valerie Coffin, Fair Housing Director, we helped raise $450,000 in FY2006 FHIP funding for fair housing education and outreach. This year New Orleans also received an additional $100,000 in new funding from reallocated FY2005 FHIP funding. In Dallas, the ACORN Institute received a ROSS grant for $362,378 over three years from reallocated FY2005 funds to provide services and training to public housing residents in that city. We have also continued to provide support on reporting and other requirements for approximately $4 million in LEAP grant funds (FY2004 and FY2005)

If one ACORN entity with two full time staff can aquire this much in Federal funding, I wonder what the other 203 ACORN organizations are doing. In a year where the “nanny problem” has already been replaced by the “tax problem,” Democrats need to wake up from the after glow of the elections and look really hard at the liability that is ACORN. Republicans should take heed and hold these Dems accountable for their relationships with ACORN. When does turning a blind eye to corruption turn into turning a blind eye towards the people?

More to come.

Uh Oh.

The Washington Times starts Obama's week off with a bang:

Now here is where the story gets really interesting. On the very same day that the president fired Mr. Walpin, St. Hope's executive director, Rick Maya, left his job at St. Hope. He did not go quietly. His resignation letter charged Mr. Johnson and several St. Hope board members with numerous ethical violations. Most explosively, he charged that a board member improperly deleted e-mails of Mr. Johnson's that already were under a federal subpoena.

Suddenly, the problems at St. Hope begin to look as severe as Mr. Walpin had charged rather than being minor infractions.

And just as suddenly, I'm very interested in this Rick Maya fellow. So is the FBI.

From that same link, a St. HOPE timeline:

1989: Johnson founds non-profit St. HOPE corporation in Oak Park, focusing on education, economic development, civic leadership and arts.

2003: St. HOPE takes over Johnson's alma mater, Sacramento High School, and converts it to charter school.

March 5, 2008: Johnson announces his candidacy for mayor.

April 25, 2008: The Sacramento Bee reports that St. HOPE program known has Hood Corps is under investigation for possible misuse of federal funding and failure to report a claim of sexual abuse against Johnson.

Aug. 2008:
Inspector General Gerald Walpin completes investigation and sends it to U.S. attorney in Sacramento.

Sept. 25, 2008: Walpin releases report saying Hood Corps volunteers were used to run personal errands for Johnson, wash his car and campaign for school board candidates. Johnson and St. HOPE are placed on list barring them from receiving federal funding. Johnson says the problems are nothing more than "administrative mistakes."

Nov. 4, 2008: Johnson defeats incumbent Heather Fargo.

March 21, 2009: The Sacramento Bee reports that an independent attorney has warned that the city's federal stimulus funding may be at risk because of Johnson's status.

March 23, 2009: Acting U.S. Attorney Larry Brown tells KCRA 3 his office is negotiating a civil settlement with Johnson and St. HOPE and expects resolution within a matter of weeks.

April 3, 2009: St. HOPE Executive Director Rick Maya resigns and accuses a board member of erasing Johnson e-mails during the St. HOPE investigation. Later, Maya will receive a severance package of $98,916.

April 9, 2009: Acting U.S. Attorney Larry Brown announces he has reached a civil settlement with St. HOPE and Johnson. The mayor and St. HOPE will repay roughly half the misused money in exchange for being allowed to receive future federal funding.

June 10, 2009: Inspector General Gerald Walpin is informed by a White House official that he is being terminated by the White House. Walpin says, "I was fired because I did my job."

June 12, 2009: Sen. Charley Grassley, R-Iowa, writes a letter to the agency overseeing Americorps saying he is "very concerned" about Walpin's dismissal. Grassley asks administration officials to provide e-mails and other documents.

June 16, 2009: Johnson says Walpin's dismissal was "100 percent within the purview of the administration. ... Obviously I was not consulted in that decision."

June 17, 2009: The U.S. attorney's office in Sacramento says that the FBI has begun an investigation into allegations of deleted e-mails at ST HOPE.

In following the uprising in Iran, the writers at Power Line are also examining Obama's weird behavior and preposterous statements that point to almost total paralysis on the matter. The question they raise is "Why is Obama AWOL on Iran"?

There is more than one possible answer, but they all appear to point in one direction: Obama just isn't all that enamored of democracy as we know it, an alarming proposition for Iranians, to say nothing of everyone else in the world living under tyranny.

Charles Krauthammer has issued a scathing indictment of Obama's cluelessness on Iran in an article titled, what do you know? Obama Clueless on Iran:

Millions of Iranians take to the streets to defy a theocratic dictatorship that, among its other finer qualities, is a self-declared enemy of America and the tolerance and liberties it represents. The demonstrators are fighting on their own, but they await just a word that America is on their side.

And what do they hear from the president of the United States? Silence. Then, worse. Three days in, the president makes clear his policy: continued "dialogue" with
their clerical masters. ...

[T]his incipient revolution is no longer about the election. Obama totally misses the point. The election allowed the political space and provided the spark for the eruption of anti-regime fervor that has been simmering for years and awaiting its moment. But people aren't dying in the street because they want a recount of hanging chads in suburban Isfahan. They want to bring down the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy that has imposed itself with the very baton-wielding goons that today attack the demonstrators.

This started out about election fraud. But like all revolutions, it has far outgrown its origins. What's at stake now is the very legitimacy of this regime -- and the future of the entire Middle East.

This revolution will end either as a Tiananmen (a hot Tiananmen with massive and bloody repression or a cold Tiananmen with a finer mix of brutality and co-optation) or as a true revolution that brings down the Islamic Republic.

The latter is improbable but, for the first time in 30 years, not impossible. Imagine the repercussions. It would mark a decisive blow to Islamist radicalism, of which Iran today is not just standard-bearer and model, but financier and arms supplier. It would do to Islamism what the collapse of the Soviet Union did to communism -- leave it forever spent and discredited.
...

All hangs in the balance. The Khamenei regime is deciding whether to do a Tiananmen. And what side is the Obama administration taking? None. ...

Joshua Muravchik arrived at a similar conclusion even before the Iranian election and its violent aftermath that has so flummoxed this weak president, in the Commentary Magazine article The Abandonment of Democracy. What follows is just the introduction to Muravchik's charge that Obama has abdicated the American president's traditional role around the world as champion of democracy and individual freedom, and in so doing has abandoned the Iranian people and all others seeking relief from tyranny:

Iranian exiles in the U.S. are receiving calls from back home asking why President Obama has “given Khamenei the green light” to crack down on the election protestors. To conspiracy-minded Middle Easterners, that is the obvious meaning of Obama’s equivocal response to the Iranian nation’s sudden and unexpected reach for freedom. How to explain that this interpretation is implausible? That the more likely reason for Obama’s behavior is that he is imprisoned in the ideology of loving your enemies and hating George W. Bush?

Whatever the reason, Obama's failure may destroy his presidency. His betrayal of democracy and human rights through a series of pronouncements and small actions during his first months in office had been correctable until now. But the thousand daily decisions that usually make up policy are eclipsed by big-bang moments such as we are now witnessing. Failure to use the bully pulpit to give the Iranian people as much support as possible is morally reprehensible and a strategical blunder for which he will not be forgiven.

Muravchik builds on this in his reference to Obama's pathetic performance in Cairo, during which he dispensed with democracy in his ongoing rush to moral equivalency with even the worst regimes:

[T]he Cairo oration was a culmination of the themes of Obama's early months. He had blamed America for the world financial crisis, global warming, Mexico's drug wars, for "failure to appreciate Europe's role in the world," and in general for "all too often" trying "to dictate our terms." He had reinforced all this by dispatching his Secretary of State on what the New York Times dubbed a "contrition tour" of Asia and Latin America. Now he added apologies for overthrowing the government of Iran in 1953, and for treating the Muslim countries as "proxies" in the Cold War "without regard to their own aspirations."

Toward what end all these mea culpas? Perhaps it is a strategy designed, as he puts it, to "restor[e] America's standing in the world." Or perhaps he genuinely believes, as do many Muslims and Europeans, among others, that a great share of the world's ills may be laid at the doorstep of the United States. Either way, he seems to hope that such self-criticism will open the way to talking through our frictions with Iran, Syria, China, Russia, Burma, Sudan, Cuba, Venezuela, and the "moderate" side of the Taliban.

This strategy might be called peace through moral equivalence, and it finally makes fully intelligible Obama's resistance to advocating human rights and democracy. For as long as those issues are highlighted, the cultural relativism that laced his Cairo speech and similar pronouncements in other places is revealed to be absurd. Straining to find a deficiency of religious freedom in America, Obama came up with the claim that “in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation.” He was referring, apparently, to the fact that donations to foreign entities are not tax deductible. This has, of course, nothing to do with religious freedom but with assuring that tax deductions are given only to legitimate charities and not, say, to “violent extremists,” as Obama calls them (eschewing the word “terrorist”).

Consider this alleged peccadillo of America’s in comparison to the state of religious freedom in Egypt, where Christians may not build, renovate or repair a church without written authorization from the President of the country or a provincial governor (and where Jews no longer find it safe to reside). Or compare it to the practices at the previous stop on Obama’s itinerary, Saudi Arabia, where no church may stand, where Jews were for a time not allowed to set foot, and where even Muslims of non-Sunni varieties are constrained from building places of worship.

In short, while it may be possible to identify derogations from democracy and human rights in America, those that are ubiquitous in the Muslim world are greater by many orders of magnitude. If democracy and human rights are held as high values, then all societies are not morally equal. This is a thought that cuts sharply against Obama’s multicultural sensibilities.

America not only embodies these values, it is also more responsible than any other country for their spread. Many peoples today enjoy the blessings of liberty thanks to the influence of the United States, thanks to its aid, its example, and its leading role in bringing down the Axis powers, the Soviet Union and European colonialism. Moreover, the advancement of human rights and democracy requires the exercise of American influence and in turn may serve to strengthen that influence—neither of these, it seems, processes to be welcomed by apostles of national self-abnegation.

Power Line's John Hinderaker:

Muravchik has performed a useful service in observing comprehensively how Obama has removed human rights and democracy from the agenda of our foreign policy, and how odd it is for him to have done so. Whatever the reasons, Muravchik's conclusion applies in spades to Obama's equivocaton and ambivalence on events in Iran: "In this can be found neither strategic nor moral coherence."

The health care "debate" is raging and president Gigantic Hussein Cajones is set to propagandize on the subject from the White House via his shiny new All Barack Channel, so it's instructive to fire up the Wayback Machine and study Obama's tactical evolution from declaring outright that he advocates single payer health care to a more stealthy approach designed to fool the American people into accepting this destructive policy.

First, let's listen to this statement before a fawning AFL-CIO audience of single-payer cheerleaders in 2003, when he could say whatever he wanted and get away with it because he was, well, a nobody:

"I happen to be a proponent of a single payer health care plan."



Notice that he does not offer the caveat that pure single payer isn't practical and he would only go with it if he could start from scratch, as he later claims he Always Said™; he just points out that first, he has to capture the White House, Congress and whatever other branches of the government he can control. He offers no caveats in favor of sharing ground with private insurers as he does later when the heat is on; it's a straight-ahead, unequivocal ideological commitment to single payer health care.

Now let's go to the Today Show, where Meredith Viera plays a clip from the primary showing Obama denying that he'd ever been a proponent of single payer health care, because he's beginning to realize that won't play with the American public standing between him and the White House. Ironically, it's Hillary!, who campaigned for single payer Hillarycare, who nails Obama's ass to the wall here and gets him all astutter:



Sure. Whatever you say.

But here's the giveaway in this clip from an Obamahall meeting, where he admits that he knows the only way to get to single payer care is by first latching on to the present system to get a foothold, after which he can take it down from within and replace it with single payer, which has been his intention all along.



"Making that transition in a rapid way would be very difficult (because of the effect it would have on the people presently employed in that system, people he needs for now until he is in a position to destroy that system later on)... and people don't have time to wait, they need relief now, so my attitude is let's build off the system that we've got, let's make it more efficient, and we maybe over time, as we make the system more efficient and everybody's covered, decide that there are other ways to provide care more effectively."

What "other ways" would there be, pray tell, besides single payer, which is the only way that would be left once Obama's plan has laid waste to the eeeevil private medical insurance industry.
The press, all of whom except for FOX are in the bag for Obama, are even resorting to editing His comments to hide His dream of single-payer care. And of course, he is using another of his favorite devices, the straw man, to paint the opposition as dishonest, unreasonable, even paranoid.

Democrat Russ Feingold lets slip the Obamian veil obscuring the single-payer Trojan Horse in a moment of rare (for a Demoocrat) candor in this clip showing at Hot Air:



Feingold:

I believe the goal here is to create whatever legislation we have in a way that could be developed into something like a single-payer system.

Obama's method never changes: tell your base constituency what you honestly plan to do, then tell the fawning media, who never question your lies, that you "have never said" whatever it was you are on record as actually having said; then telegraph how you are going to implement exactly what you originally said you would, with the caveat that you aren't doing it for reasons of ideology or politics, but simply out of pragmatism required to deal with the mess left behind by the Bush administration. Oh yes, almost forgot: it is also now a crisis! and it must be dealt with! ASAP! or the skies will fall! and the oceans! will once again! begin to rise!

If you want to know what Obama plans to do, listen to what he tells you he doesn't want to do, then pay close attention to his straw man argument, such as this elegantly illustrative gem:

Let me also dismiss without addressing it what I want portrayed as an illegitimate concern that’s being put forward by those who are claiming that a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system.

in which he characterizes the opposition's concerns as "illegitimate" when in fact they are clearly not only perfectly legitimate, but exactly on target as Feingold and others have already made abundantly clear. Oh, and I may have reworded some of that.

Again: if you want to cut through Obama's bullshit and get to the truth, just listen to what he claims he specifically does not want to do; then identify what he dismisses as "illegitimate concerns", and that will unfailingly tell you exactly what he plans to do.

Peter Whener writes in his Commentary Magazine article, Decoding Obama:

Then there are the things that have almost been forgotten by now. Obama, during the campaign, said, "[Lobbyists] will not work in my White House" – even though he immediately allowed waivers for lobbyists. Having pledged to slash earmarks by more than half when he became president, Obama signed an omnibus spending bill containing 8,500 of them. Having made bi-partisanship a pillar of his campaign, Obama has so far governed in a more partisan fashion than any president in generations. Having claimed the capacity to “see all sides of an argument,” the president routinely constructs strawmen he can set ablaze. And having said “nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past,” Obama spends an inordinate amount of time and energy doing just that (in one speech alone, he included more than two dozen critical comments, direct or implied, against the Bush Administration).

It is hardly unprecedented for a politician to rely on contradictory, misleading, and intellectually dishonest statements. But in only five months, Barack Obama – the man who campaigned on a new kind of politics, who ran on hope and against cynicism, and who insisted “words mean something” – has set a pace that is going to be hard to match, and hopefully hard to sustain.

It's About Time

I have no idea how much screeching is going on in Idiotworld because I don't go there, but I'm sure it's reaching a fever pitch since President George W. Bush had the unmitigated gall to make a speech, answer questions and just generally hide behind the First Amendment last night in front of a crowd of rightwing nutjobs.

Repeatedly in his hourlong speech and question-and-answer session, Bush said he would not directly criticize the new president, who has moved to take over financial institutions and several large corporations, the paper reported. Several times, however, he took direct aim at Obama policies as he defended his own during eight years in office.

"Government does not create wealth. The major role for the government is to create an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate in the United States," the Times quoted him as saying to huge cheers.

Bush weighed in on some of the most pressing issues of the day: the election in Iran, the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba, and his administration's interrogation policies of terrorists held there and elsewhere. The former president has not commented on Obama's decision to ban "enhanced interrogation techniques" such as waterboarding, which the current president has called "off course" and "based on fear."

"The way I decided to address the problem was twofold: One, use every technique and tool within the law to bring terrorists to justice before they strike again," the newspaper quoted him as saying, adding that the country needs to remain on offense.

"I told you I'm not going to criticize my successor," Bush said. "I'll just tell you that there are people at Gitmo that will kill American people at a drop of a hat and I don't believe that persuasion is going to work. Therapy isn't going to cause terrorists to change their mind."

One anticipates the usual passel of leftist idiots, perhaps including even president Hussein Cajones Himself, complaining that Dubya has violated the custom of remaining respectfully silent on his successor's time in office, a custom repeatedly broken by modern Democrats Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and most ridiculously and dishonestly Algore (who, sort of like John F'n Kerry, got served but in Florida not Vietnam), and assiduously observed by every Republican President since God knows when.

And now that Bush is expressing himself, I'm sure Obama's thin skin will force he of the Gigantic Cajones to cry foul, even louder and more pointedly than his mouthpiece Robert Gibbs already has- because Bama just can't stand criticism. He has every major MSM outlet bowing and scraping at his feet like a zillion frothing Brian Williamseseses and grovelling for every sacred drop of his precious lovin', and Michelle's little baby still whines about FOX, whose roster is loaded with suckers like Beckel, Williams, Colmes, Smith and several frequent guests, but also features something the rest of the MSM lacks completely: honest critics with quality air time, air time they have earned by being honest with their viewers.

I hope Bush gets all over Obama using Gigantic Hussein Cajones' own favorite and most transparent device, the pre-trash disclaimer followed by the trash.

"I have no intention of litigating president Obama's time in office so far or criticizing his policies. But I will say this...nnnduhhhhhh."

It's Getting Bigger

The Chicago Tribune: Senator questions firing of 3 inspectors general

He was appointed with fanfare as the public watchdog over the government’s multi-billion dollar bailout of the nation’s financial system. But now Neil Barofsky is embroiled in a dispute with the Obama administration that delayed one recent inquiry and sparked questions about his ability to freely investigate.

The disagreement stems from a claim by the Treasury Department that Barofsky is not entirely independent of the agency he is assigned to examine — a claim that has prompted a stern letter from a Republican senator warning that agency officials are encroaching on the integrity of an office created to protect taxpayers. …

The dispute comes as Grassley, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is looking into the abrupt firings within the last week of two other inspectors general -- one of whom was fired by the White House and the other by the chair of the International Trade Commission.

Both inspectors general had investigated sensitive subjects at the time of their firings.

Grassley is now concerned about whether a pattern is emerging in which the independence of the government’s top watchdogs — whose jobs were authorized by Congress to look out for waste, fraud and abuse — is being put at risk.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air: Obama has fired 2 IGs in 2 weeks, leashed another

We are seeing a pattern, no longer just a single data point. IGs work independently to protect taxpayers from corruption and abuse from its own government agencies. A coordinated attack on IGs certainly suggests hostility to that mission, which isn’t the Hope and Change Obama promised on the campaign trail.

All The Time



It's old news by now but there's still a huge wow-factor to this insanity. More Obamaspeak, too: ABC has responded with this absurdity:

ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.

ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience.

Really?

Ace: ABC: We Want to Hear from All Voices in the Health Care "Debate," But We Sure the Hell Don't Want to Hear from Dissenters

Refusing to accept advertising from groups opposing the health care scheme.

ABC claimed it wasn't running an informercial for ObamaCare -- and yet, even when someone wants to pay them to get their views aired, ABC refuses.

The Good Michelle has a question: Will libertarian John Stossel be part of ABC’s Obama infomercial?

What is "No"?

Almost As Creamy Rich As "Gigantic Cajones"

Hilarious: Now Obama's surrogate in the Walpin firing is spewing Obamaspeak. Byron York reports:

A top White House lawyer called the firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin an act of "political courage," according to House Republican aides who were in a meeting with the lawyer Wednesday.

Norman Eisen, who is the White House Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, met with staffers for Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Wednesday. Eisen, along with a few White House staffers who accompanied him, "wanted to talk broadly about inspectors general," says a GOP aide familiar with what went on at the meeting. "When we pressed them on specific questions and documents, they said they weren't prepared to give us information on that."

No doubt.

At today's meeting, Sen. Grassley's staffers wanted to know more about the White House review. "Unfortunately," Grassley writes in a letter just sent to White House counsel Gregory Craig, "Mr. Eisen refused to answer several direct questions posed to him about the representations made in his letter."

Just so I have this straight: breaking the law to protect a fraudulent supporter from taxpayer scrutiny is "an act of political courage"; I suppose Obama will now describe refusing to answer direct questions as "openness and transparency".

Grassley says that since Eisen refused to answer the questions in person, Grassley would submit a dozen of them in writing. Here they are:

1) Did the [Corporation for National and Community Service] Board communicate its concerns about Mr. Walpin to the White House in writing?

2) Specifically, which CNCS Board members came forward with concerns about Mr. Walpin's ability to serve as the Inspector General?

3) Was the communication about the Board's concerns on or about May 20, 2009 the first instance of any communications with White House personnel regarding the possibility of removing Mr. Walpin?

4) Which witnesses were interviewed in the course of Mr. Eisen's review?

5) How many witnesses were interviewed?

6) Were any employees of the Office of Inspector General, who may have had more frequent contact with Mr. Walpin than the Board members, interviewed?

7) Was Mr. Walpin asked directly during Mr. Eisen's review about the events of May 20, 2009?

8) Was Mr. Walpin asked for his response to the allegations submitted to the Integrity Committee by Acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown?

9) What efforts were made during Mr. Eisen's review to obtain both sides of the story or to afford the Office of Inspector General an opportunity to be heard?

10) In addition to the claim that Mr. Walpin was "confused" and "disoriented," the letter also says he exhibited "other behavior" that led to questions about his capacity. What other behavior was Mr. Eisen referencing?

11) If the initial and primary concern had to do with Mr. Walpin's capacity to serve for potential health reasons, why was he only given one hour to decide whether to resign or be fired?

12) If Mr. Walpin's telecommuting arrangements since the beginning of this year were a major concern, then why was Mr. Walpin not simply asked to stop telecommuting?

Walpin is indisputably not as the White House slandered him, as will become all too obvious as the scandal continues to fester.

Gigantic Hussein Cajones reminds me of the invaders in Mars Attacks!, who by the end of the movie are rampaging around Las Vegas, blasting everything to smithereens and vaporizing everyone in sight while broadcasting over loudspeakers, "We come in peace! We are your friends! We mean you no harm!"

Same with GHC: what he says while he destroys everything that makes America what it is, is the exact opposite of what you see; what he promises (a personal fave, a real knee-slapper: his claim to the AMA in his Obamacare speech: "I'll be honest with you.") is the exact opposite of what he then does.

That was the very first conclusion I ever drew about this feckless crapweasel (kudos to Jonah Goldberg for coining the term) the first time I heard him speechify: that he hides behind Orwellian doubletalk and therefore can't be trusted in the least; my spider-sense was not just tingling, it was on fire. He has proven me right every step of the way and will continue to do so. It's simply who he is.

All Bullies Are Cowards Dept.

Byron York reports that president Gigantic Cajones is refusing to answer questions about the illegal firing of AmeriCorps IG Gerald Walpin, who has stood up to Obama's accusations of deteriorating capacity and mental infirmity and called them what they are: lies.

Norman Eisen, the White House Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, met with investigators on the staff of Republican Sen. Charles Grassley at Grassley's offices Wednesday morning. The investigators wanted to learn more about the circumstances surrounding the abrupt firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin. According to Grassley, Eisen revealed very, very little, refusing to answer many questions of fact put to him. And now Grassley has written a letter to the White House counsel asking for answers.

Grassly has given Obama until June 24.

Norman Eisen of course is president Gigantic Cajones' personal surrogate in this matter, so it should not be taken any other way than that he was sent by Obama to slam the lid on this. Obama's problem, one of them at least, is that he can't slam the lid on Walpin, Grassly or York, none of whom are afraid of Obama's bullying tactics.

One American has spoken up for all. It's not about partisan politics; it's about the Constitution and the coming hell to be paid for violating it. Glenn Beck read her words on the air:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.

Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.

Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.

Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.

Emphasis mine.

There is much more to The Letter- read it all. Then sign the petition.

Wherein Mr. Walpin Swats The Thug-In-Chief Like A Fly. Did You Get That, Gibbs?

Fired AmeriCorps IG Gerald Walpin is calling bullshit on President Gigantic Hussein Cajones, who doesn't have the jam to admit Walpin's honesty stood in the way of paying off Obama's political supporters. There is no other honest explanation for Walpin's ouster, and you will never hear anything stronger than the lame excuse Obama sent to Congress. You may hear other lame excuses from Obama, but none of them will be honest. FOX News:

The government watchdog President Obama canned for allegedly being "confused" and "disoriented" fired back sharply Wednesday, saying the White House explanation for removing him was "insufficient," "baseless" and "absolutely wild."
Gerald Walpin, who until last week was the inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service, told FOXNews.com that part of Obama's explanation was a "total lie" and that he feels he's got a target on his back for political reasons.

"I am now the target of the most powerful man in this country, with an army of aides whose major responsibility today seems to be to attack me and get rid of me," Walpin said.

Facing bipartisan criticism for the firing, Obama sought to allay congressional concerns with a letter to Senate leaders Tuesday evening explaining his decision. In the letter, White House Special Counsel Norman Eisen wrote that Walpin was "confused" and "disoriented" at a May board meeting, was "unduly disruptive," and exhibited a "lack of candor" in providing information to decision makers.

"That's a total lie," Walpin said of the latter charge. And he said the accusation that he was dazed and confused at one meeting out of many was not only false, but poor rationale for his ouster.

"It appears to suggest that I was removed because I was disabled -- based on one
occasion out of hundreds," he said, adding that the administration is grasping at "non-existent straws" to explain its actions.

"I would never say President Obama doesn't have the capacity to continue to serve because of his (statement) that there are 56 states," Walpin said, adding that the same holds for Vice President Biden and his "many express confusions that have been highlighted by the media."

Walpin on Glenn Beck:
Part 1



Part 2



Walpin, who unlike Obama is a man of some considerable accomplishment, certainly doesn't seem disoriented to me. Can't say that about President McJugears:



More:
The Good Michelle: Obama’s AmeriCrooks and cronies scandal Updated, a must read:

Implying that Walpin has lost his marbles is desperate and lame. Walpin has been consistenly lucid and laser-sharp in every TV and radio interview I’ve seen or heard — including on the Laura Ingraham show yesterday, where he noted that evidence in the Sacramento mayor/NBA star/Obama crony Kevin Johnson case was destroyed.
Far from being “confused” and “disoriented,” Walpin is clear as day. Anyone who actually reads through his audits and investigative reports knows that. You can, should, and must read Walpin’s reports both on CUNY funding abuse and on the Johnson scandal here.

I also continue to hammer at the Michelle Obama angle. Her vested interest in propping up the government-subsidized volunteer industry stretches back to her days leading the Chicago non-profit Public Allies (scroll down to the end of my column for what the AmeriCorps’ inspector general found while investigating money troubles at Mrs. O’s old friends at Public Allies).

And we can’t forget her days working to promote national service — and to set up cozy public chat forums with her husband and Weather Underground Bill Ayers — while at the University of Chicago.

Last week, I said this reeked of the Clintons’ Travelgate. It’s much, much worse.

Andrew McCarthy:
Why would someone who did not care about his public popularity standings when it would have been in his personal interests to pay more attention to that stuff, and who did not care precisely because he thought it was more important to protect the country, NOW decide that he wanted Americans to die so he could prove a policy point?

It's not just a disgusting personal attack, it's a moronic one. Coming from the guy now analyzing intelligence for the president, it's frighteningly stupid.

Power Line:
It does seem odd that Obama is willing to tell certain Israelis that they cannot build homes for their families, even as his respect for Iranian sovereignty makes him too bashful to talk about basic questions of human rights except in the most general terms.

Thomas Sowell:
If it is all right to discriminate today against individuals who have done you no harm, then why was it wrong to discriminate against you in the past?

Ace:
Will Wolverines Bite You If You Cover Yourself in Marshmallow Fluff and Taunt Them With Your Genitals?

Ed Morrissey:
Reagan led, and he inspired the Poles to continue the struggle that eventually helped free half of Europe from iron-fisted domination by the Soviet Union. Obama wants to manage the crisis to keep from having to lead. Big, big difference.

Mona Charen:
It has suddenly become much more difficult to pretend that by engaging with this junta you are not betraying the Iranian people.

Dana Perino:
[I]t’s hard not to look like you’re in the tank when you’re anchoring from the Blue Room.

Just last week President Gigantic Cajones was congratulating himself for what he imagined was the magnificence of his Cairo speech and its miraculous affect on the Iranians, whom Obama also imagined were poised to elect a new, perhaps even marginally less insane leader:

We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran. And obviously after the speech that I made in Cairo, we tried to send a clear message that we think there is the possibility of change. And ultimately, the election is for the Iranians to decide. But just as has been true in Lebanon, what can be true in Iran as well is that you're seeing people looking at new possibilities and whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact that there's been a robust debate hopefully will help advance our ability to engage them in new ways.

In other words, thank me very much.

Well now. That was Friday. But there has been no debate; instead ActMadInJihad has stolen the election and once again robbed the Iranian people of their God-given right to freedom. Now they are fighting in the streets and getting beaten, arrested and shot at by the Basiji. The international media are being sent home so the "election wrap-up" can continue unreported and the mullahs can grind Iranians' bones to make their bread. In the New United States of Obama, this is what now stands as "robust debate".

Obama has addressed the crisis with the courage and conviction of which only He is capable, in this statement of support for the Iranian people against their government's murderous anti-protest crackdown:

It's up to Iran to determine its own leaders.

Wow. I tremble at his god-like wisdom. In fact, millions of Iranians are trembling as I write this.

Actually, Opie, its up to the mullahs to determine Iran's leaders, and it sure looks to me like they don't give a rat's ass what you say because you've shown them that all you do is talk and preen.

May God help the Iranian people and bless America, because Obama is a horribly ill-equipped Commander-In-Chief with the instincts of a dung beetle.

Gateway Pundit: Video: Iranian Basiji Guards Fire On Massive Crowd at Azadi Square
U.K. Telegraph: The Iranian election: Barack Obama’s cowardly silence
Power Line: We're sorry in advance
PJM: [Obama] Sleeps While Iranians Confront Evil