Abu Wabu

Power Line contributor Hillsdale College Professor Paul Rahe comments on the "grave misgivings" developing among Obama's group of high-level economic and finance advisers, who are now being ignored by the man who sought their cover during the financial crisis:

In Tuesday's New York Post, Charles Gasparino reports that, although they will not admit anything of the sort in public, people like Morgan Stanley's John Mack, BlackRock's Larry Fink, Greg Fleming (once at Merrill Lynch), JP Morgan's Jamie Dimon, and Goldman Sachs' Lloyd Blankfein, who backed Obama at the time of the financial crisis last Fall, are now, in private, expressing grave misgivings.

Rahe counsels all the players named in Gasparino's report to do the right thing:

At some point, if these men have any self-respect, they will have to separate themselves from the current administration. At the time of the campaign, there were plenty of indications of Obama's radicalism. But the Democrats on Wall Street and many of our leading economists chose to look the other way. Now a number of the latter find themselves associated with an administration that cares far less about American prosperity than about rearranging economic, social, and political relations in the country to their own liking.

Here is a question to ponder. If Barack Obama had a fully free hand, what would he do? I suggest that we should pay close attention to developments over the last few years in Venezuela - for the direction in which Obama's proposals point is the one followed by Hugo Chavez. That he admires what Chavez has done is evident from the fact that he has lent Chavez a hand in his attempt to export the Venezuelan revolution to the Honduras.

This is truly a grave omen for the future, news only made worse by Greenspan's prediction today of further slowing in the economy - exactly what Obama wants.

Read Paul Rahe: Obama's Wrecking Crew

Somebody tell me that's racist. Michelle Malkin won't.

I simply cannot believe that "leadership" in Chicago's black community, whence came the Messiah, would allow this to happen. But it does. Where is the "leadership" in this case? Does Obama have anything to say about this?

Gee, and we were just talking about the Working Familes Party -- boy, that didn't take long.

Biggovernment.com reports that the Working Familes Party and local Democratic Party officials are at the center of a massive voter fraud investigation in Troy, NY. Bertha Lewis is right in the middle of it, as she is in so many ACORN scandals. And Bertha Lewis is a very close friend of Barack Obama.

I appreciate the Good Lt's sentiments at The Jawa Report:

WFP is a subsidiary of ACORN, and in fact, they share the same director - Bertha Lewis - who serves as the co-chair for ACORN subsidiary "Working Families Party" as well as the executive director of NY ACORN. More at Big Government - read it all and throw up at the way your democracy is being defrauded and corrupted by the most base and vile filth leftwing society has to offer - criminals cloaking themselves in the feel-good bromides and mantles of "social justice."

Obama's ground troops, ladies and gents.

Well then let's take a look at them, shall we?

Stanley Kurtz has done excellent work following the ties that bind Obama to ACORN, SEIU and the radical Chicago political scene. One name that has heretofore stayed beneath the radar is that of White House Director of Political Affairs, Patrick Gaspard, who has demonstrably close ties to Bertha Lewis and to ACORN and the SEIU going back to the mid 90's when Obama was actively pursuing the endorsement of the radical New Party, a Marxist organization thoroughly dominated by ACORN and by an ACORN-controlled SEIU union local, for whom Gaspard was an organizer in New Jersey.

Now Kurtz directs concerned citizens to the investigative journalism of Matthew Vadum and Erick Erickson, both of whom have been scrutinizing Gaspard's history and ties to ACORN, SEIU, the New Party and Barack Obama.

Media Mutters has limply declared that there is nothing to see here, as they always do when the sun shines on Obama's seemingly limitless nefarious associations, but once again, they mislead. That's their business, and idiots lap it up, but both Vadum and Erickson are bang on in their accounts of Gaspard's shadowy history. As Vadum told me in a phone conversation today, Wade Rathke doesn't make mistakes as Politico's Ben Smith is contending he did in naming Gaspard as ACORN's New York political director. Did he have that title on his door? In keeping with ACORN/SEIU's proven practice of obfuscating and switching titles and duties, certainly not, which makes MM's misdirection nothing but another example of the left's persistent hairslpitting on all matters ACORN. The truth is that Gaspard's history as a radical under-the-radar political operative is well established. Writes Kurtz:

[I]n late 1995, just as Obama was seeking New Party endorsement in Chicago, Patrick Gaspard was working as a New Party organizer in New Jersey. (This was reported in "Jersey Man Hopes to Create Third Political Party," NPR, "Morning Edition, " September 28, 1995). Then, in the July 2, 2001 issue of "The Nation," Gaspard and Bertha Lewis jointly published a reply to a June 4 Nation article by Doug Ireland which had been critical of the New York’s Working Families Party (a successor to the New Party, led by New Party co-founder Dan Cantor, and largely controlled by ACORN and the SEIU). In the course of their letter, Gaspard and Lewis describe their extensive joint involvement in Working Families Party activities. The letter is signed: "Bertha Lewis, ACORN, WFP (Working Families Party ~ Ed.); Patrick Gaspard, SEIU State Council, WFP." This does seem to confirm and extend the new evidence of a close political tie between Patrick Gaspard and ACORN’s Bertha Lewis.

No doubt, some will dismiss the newly revealed connections between the Obama administration, Patrick Gaspard, Bertha Lewis, and ACORN as "guilt by association." Yet it seems to me that the evidence points to something more significant than that. We are talking about a persistent and shared political-ideological alliance between President Obama and the complex of community, labor, and party organizations controlled by ACORN. (See especially "Life of the New Party" for more on New Party ideology.) Again, the Gaspard issue is new and needs further investigation and consideration. Yet preliminary indications are that the Gaspard-ACORN-Bertha Lewis-New Party-WFP-SEIU ties are significant, and tell us something disturbing about the political ideology and intentions of President Obama. In particular, the connection between Gaspard, Lewis, the New Party, and the Working Families Party ought to draw our attention back to what may ultimately be the most important Obama-ACORN tie of all, his time with Chicago’s New Party.

Patrick Gaspard, ACORN, and Obama
ACORN's Man In The White House by Matthew Vadum
REDSTATE EXCLUSIVE: A Review of ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis’s Rolodex Suggests Strong White House Ties by Eric Erickson
Life of the New Party by Stanley Kurtz
Something New Here by Stanley Kurtz

Remember: Obama is ACORN; ACORN is Obama. And both are bigger than you want them to be.

Two weeks ago Obama declared that he was too busy lying to the public about Obamacare to take time off for a junket to Denmark on behalf of Chicago's Olympics bid. Now he's heading a delegation to do just that. Did the IOC corner Obama into flip-flopping on the matter? Sure looks that way, according to Allahpundit and Jim Geraghty, who writes in his post, "Obama's No-Time-for-Olympics-Trip Pledge Reaches Its Expiration Date":

The fact that Obama is going signals that Chicago is getting the Olympics, right? Would Obama go if he hadn't been told that his attendance was the difference-maker? Would the IOC have the nerve to reject the hometown of the president, after every international elite spent the last two years telling Americans to elect this man?

And with allied reinforcements in Afghanistan few and far between, Iran shooting off missiles, trade wars brewing with China, Mexico, and Canada, and Russia ignoring the "reset button," doesn't Obama need a big foreign win right now?

If Chicago doesn't get the Olympics, we'll hear a lot of people noting that Obama can't find time to meet with General McChrystal to decide on his Afghanistan plan, but he could find the time to go Denmark to get rejected . . .

If it's this easy to hook him by the short-and-curlies, good luck to Cajonus Giganticus with that whole Iranian thing.

Next up: the monstrous corruption that will naturally ensue once Chicago gets the Games.

That's the title of Sarah Palin's book, due out Nov. 17.

Word has it that Bill Ayers did not ghostwrite it.

Joshua Trujillo/seattlepi.com

"Have you no shame? Have you no decency?"

Mark Levin on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech to the U.N.









Full Text of Prime Minister Netanyahu's Speech to the United Nations

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland.

I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people.

The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events.

Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth. Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.

Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments. Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews. Is this a lie?

A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler’s deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?

This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie?

And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie? One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife's grandparents, her father’s two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state.

What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations! Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong.

History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries. In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times.

Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization.

It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.

The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day. Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially.

It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.

What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come. We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet.

I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances – by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment. These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.

But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after an horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind. That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction.

The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood? Will the international community thwart the world's most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging. Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.

For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks. We heard nothing – absolutely nothing – from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.

In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn't get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.

Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded? Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country's civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II. During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians – Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.

That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances. Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas.

We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave. Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy's civilian population from harm's way.

Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel. A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.

By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth. What a perversion of justice.

Delegates of the United Nations,

Will you accept this farce?

Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.

If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity. And in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace. Here's why.

When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense. What legitimacy? What self-defense?

The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us –my people, my country - of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty!

Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

All of Israel wants peace.

Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace. We made peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. We made peace with Jordan led by King Hussein. And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the people of Israel, will make peace. But we want a genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace. In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples – a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted that resolution. The Arabs rejected it.

We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state. Just as we are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, the Palestinians must be asked to recognize the nation state of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in the Land of Israel. This is the land of our forefathers.

Inscribed on the walls outside this building is the great Biblical vision of peace: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. They shall learn war no more." These words were spoken by the Jewish prophet Isaiah 2,800 years ago as he walked in my country, in my city, in the hills of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem.

We are not strangers to this land. It is our homeland. As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own. We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity.

But we must have security. The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel.

That is why a Palestinian state must be effectively demilitarized. We don't want another Gaza, another Iranian backed terror base abutting Jerusalem and perched on the hills a few kilometers from Tel Aviv.

We want peace.

I believe such a peace can be achieved. But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran, that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order. The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.

Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the "confirmed unteachability of mankind," the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.

Churchill bemoaned what he called the "want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”

I speak here today in the hope that Churchill's assessment of the "unteachibility of mankind" is for once proven wrong.

I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history -- that we can prevent danger in time.

In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come.

Oh Goody.

President Obama's "safe schools czar" is a former schoolteacher who has advocated promoting homosexuality in schools.

Where does this end?

Hugh Hewitt and Peter Wehner on Obama's despicable U.N. panderfest.

Plus check out John Bolton's scorching admonition.

The operative word is "naive". From NRO:

• Obama's Speech
• SCHAEFER: Staggering Naïveté
• GARDINER: O's Most Naïve Speech Ever?
• KIRSANOW: What If They're Iranian Dissidents?
• LOWRY: Why Not Save the Manatee?
• MAY: 'Yearning for Peace' Pipedream
• ELJAHMI: Legitimizing Qaddafi

Yet another NEA tape reveals this totalitarian idiocy:

This group was inspired to further develop an idea that struck them during the briefing: the establishment of a new “Department of Alternative Thinking.” The DoAT would be a volunteer brain trust/think tank made up of the country’s most creative and maverick minds (thinkers, artists, innovators, and inventors). It would be set up as a free, public service to the White House and other government departments. The purpose of the DoAT is to integrate creative brain consultation (sideways thinking) into every aspect of governmental decision-making (whether it is the arts, the economy, healthcare, energy and environmental policy, international policy, national security, infrastructure, NASA, education, etc).

The Department Of Alternative Thinking.

Not only will Obama brook no competition with Obamacare, as he vehemently denies; he won't even allow it in the marketplace of ideas. Obama is silencing a dissenting insurer through his Department of Health and Human Services:

David Henderson writes:

One of the ways that governments try to "win" debates is to make debate by the other side illegal. This is what HHS is doing, at the behest of Senator Baucus. Asked on yesterday's Face the Nation on CBS whether a "sort of meanness" had settled "over our political dialogue," Obama said, "Right." I'm not sure that the questionner, Bob Schieffer, knows the difference between meanness and anger. I have seen some of the former, but much of the latter, at the various town hall meetings. But here's where Obama has a chance to practice what he preaches. He has the power to countermand HHS's order. And HHS's action would certainly qualify as mean. You can't get much meaner than to threaten someone with guns. And that is what a warning letter from HHS is. Think about what would happen if Humana ignored the HHS letter and kept speaking out critically on health care. The next step would be to bring Humana to court. If Humana refused, the next step would be, literally, for the Feds to come in with guns.

For years, various commentators have said that Friedrich Hayek, in The Road to Serfdom, and Milton Friedman, in Capitalism and Freedom, exaggerated the dangers to freedom of speech from government control. But also for years, drug companies have feared criticizing the FDA because the FDA has so much discretionary control over their economic livelihoods. Now HHS has upped the ante. Will the defenders of freedom of speech step up to defend Humana's rights, as opposed to Humana's statements. How many people will there be who disagree with what Humana said, but who defend (I don't even need "to the death"—I'll settle for a letter and postage stamp) their right to say it?

Thuggery, straight up. The Chicago Way is the Obama Way. He wants Americans angry at insurance companies and this is how he hopes to do it.

It ain't gonna work.

Like he did with the all-encompassing ACORN scandal, Cajonus Giganticus will tell George Stephanopulous he doesn't know anything about using the National Endowment for the Arts as a propaganda arm of his regime. But the Liar-in-Chief is in even more trouble, because Andrew Breitbart strikes again:

EXPLOSIVE NEW AUDIO Reveals White House Using NEA to Push Partisan Agenda
by Patrick Courrielche

Should the National Endowment for the Arts encourage artists to create art on issues being vehemently debated nationally?

That is the question that I set out to discuss a little over three weeks ago when I wrote an article on Big Hollywood entitled The National Endowment for the Art of Persuasion?”

The question still requires debate but the facts do not.

The NEA and the White House did encourage a handpicked, pro-Obama arts group to address politically controversial issues under contentious national debate. That fact is irrefutable.

But some have claimed that the invite and passages, pulled from the conference call that inspired the article, were taken out of context. Context is what I intend to establish here.

And boy does he ever. First by playing the voice of Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, with the following quotes:

-“I just first of all want to thank everyone for being on the call and just a deep deep appreciation for all the work you all put into the campaign for the 2+ years we all worked together.”
-“We won.”
-“I’m actually in the White House and working towards furthering this agenda, this very aggressive agenda.”
-“We’re going to come at you with some specific asks here.”
-“I hope you guys are ready.”

Ready for what, you ask? Ready for marching orders, in their new roles as Obama Propaganda Tools, from Yosi Sergant, Communications Director of the National Endowment for the Arts. Quoth Yosi,

-“I would encourage you to pick something, whether it’s health care, education, the environment, you know, there’s four key areas that the corporation has identified as the areas of service.”
-“And then my ask would be to apply artistic, you know, your artistic creative communities utilities and bring them to the table.”
-“Again, I’m really, really honored to be working with you; the National Endowment for the Arts is really honored.”
-“You’re going to see a lot more of us in the next four and hopefully eight years.”

No doubt. Just maybe now not in the way poor Yosi first conceived. Writes author Courrielche,

As someone that has been creating arts initiatives and marketing campaigns for over 14 years, I feel like I have a good sense as to how a pro-Obama arts group, when requested by the NEA to address politically contentious issues, could so easily turn very partisan.

Consider:

Three days after the conference call a coalition of arts groups, led by Americans for the Arts, a participant on the conference call per the meeting contact list and recipient of NEA grants, sent out a press release with the heading “Urgent Call to Congress for Healthcare Reform,” which called for the creation of “a health care reform bill that will create a public health insurance option.” Eleven days after the conference call, Rock the Vote, another participant on the call, announced a health care design contest. “We can’t stand by and listen to lies and deceit coming from those who are against reforming a broken system,” they stated in their announcement. “Enough is Enough. We need designs that tell the country YES WE CARE! Young people demand health care.”

These may both be coincidences and I am not suggesting that the NEA or these groups definitively violated the law in these efforts. That’s for others to discuss and investigate. As I’ve stated in various television interviews, the organizers never discussed any specific policies. However, as can be seen below in the exchange between Nell Abernathy of the Corporation for National and Community Service, a federal agency, and Michael Skolnik, the third party moderator, the meeting seemed designed to deflect any questionable conversations to the “third party”, while keeping the issue of health care top-of-mind with the precision of a well positioned product placement...

...The NEA did encourage a handpicked, pro-Obama arts group to address issues under contentious national debate. That fact is irrefutable.

This practice has never been the historical role of the NEA. The NEA’s role is to support excellence in the arts, to increase access to the arts, and to be a leader in arts education. Using the arts to address contentiously debated issues is political subversion. And the fact that the White House played a role in encouraging the arts to address contentious issues should also be considered a government overreach.

There's much more to the story of how Obama is subverting this government agency and bending it to his personal will; read it all here.

Meanwhile, the pressure starts to build:

Demand Congressional Investigation: NEA Conference Call Broke Laws
by Ben Shapiro

In the aftermath of the Andrew Breitbart/James O’Keefe/Hannah Giles-broken ACORN scandal, President Obama and his allies in Congress have distanced themselves from the community organizing goliath. Congress has cut off funds, and Obama has refused to speak about the matter. End of story, right?

Wrong.

There’s only one problem: the ACORN mentality – pinpointing and mobilizing particular groups in support of a radical-left agenda – is no longer restricted to government-funded private non-profits like ACORN. The ACORN mentality now dominates the government itself. Taxpayer dollars are being used by elected officials to encourage the deification of President Obama and his agenda. And one of the chief organs of the government propaganda machine is the National Endowment for the Arts.

Let’s start from the beginning. On August 25, artist Patrick Courrielche told the story of a conference call he attended on August 10. That conference call was hosted by the NEA, the White House Office of Public Engagement, and United We Serve. The goal of the conference call: “to help lay a new foundation for growth, focusing on core areas of the recovery agenda – health care, energy and environment, safety and security, education, community renewal.” The call would push “a group of artists, producers, promoters, organizers, influencers, marketers, taste-makers, leaders or just plain cool people to join together and work together to promote a more civically engaged America and celebrate how the arts can be used for a positive change!”
If this sounds suspicious to you, that’s because it is. Never before has the NEA explicitly urged artists to tackle particular social issues like health care. But that is how this Administration works.

The people behind the conference call, Courrielche reported, were Yosi Sargent, Director of Communications for the National Endowment for the Arts; Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement; Nell Abernathy, Director of Outreach for United We Serve; Thomas Bates, Vice President of Civic Engagement for Rock the Vote; and Michael Skolnik, Political Director for Russell Simmons. Sargent sent the actual email invitation. When The Washington Times called Sargent for confirmation, Sargent denied involvement with the email. He claimed that Skolnik had sent the invitation.

He lied.

The email came directly from Sargent – which is to say, from the NEA itself. Most astonishingly, the email contained a copy of a notice from United We Serve. That notice read: “A call has come in to our generation. A call from the top. A call from a house that is White. … President Obama is asking us to come together … Now is the time for us to answer this call.” Sargent has since been “reassigned” at the NEA.

Two days after the conference call, on August 12, 21 separate arts organizations came out and endorsed Obama’s health care plan. One of the endorsing organizations, the non-profit “charitable organization” Americans for the Arts, denied any presence on the conference call.

Like Sargent, they too were lying.

According to The Washington Times, both a participant on the call and a partial list of participants confirm that Americans for the Arts board member Kerry Washington was on the call. In the past, Washington has testified before Congress as a representative of the Americans for the Arts Artists Committee.

Americans for the Arts is a 501(c)3, which means that legally, it must remain apolitical and cannot endorse candidates. It has an associated 501(c)4, ArtsVote or Arts Action Fund, a non-profit political action wing that can stump for causes, not for candidates. Naturally, the two wings are closely associated; the CEO of both is Robert Lynch, who participated in a subsequent NEA call that occurred on August 27. The 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 have the same Washington D.C. and New York addresses. And Lynch, naturally, supports President Obama to the hilt.

In fact, the private organizational participants sponsoring the call comprise what can best be described as ACORN For The Arts. Each and every organization was deeply involved with President Obama as a candidate, and each and every one pledges allegiance to him now that he occupies the Oval Office.

Again, much more including a full list of partisan players from Camp Cajonus Giganticus. The bottom line:

Every government employee involved in this conference call should be fined and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. We need a full Congressional investigation – we already know that it infects members of the White House staff, including Buffy Wicks. The transformation of our government into a self-entrenched continuous campaigning machine must be stopped now.

Again, read it all.

Ace points out that Winner & Associates, the PR firm (tied to David Axelrod) that put together the Sarah Palin hit-job vids, was in on the NEA conference call. Wonder what they were doing there, hmm? Well that's easy: helping run the whole Obama Propaganda campaign.

Who would have guessed this shockah? Patterico has proof the White House was lying about the nature of the NEA conference call:

I believe I might have mentioned that Andrew Breitbart signaled that his next news drop would relate to the NEA.

And it does. But it involves so much more.

Today’s revelation is the extensive proof that shows the White House used the National Endowment for the Arts to push a political agenda favorable to President Obama. But it gets worse: the Administration lied about it, and tried to cover it up.

You already know the background: an NEA spokesman participated in a conference call designed to encourage artists to further Obama’s legislative agenda. This was revealed back in August at Big Hollywood. What is new today is the full transcript of the call — and how clearly the NEA was involved in urging artists to propagandize for Obama.

Naturally, the NEA and the Obama administration denied this. According to the Los Angeles Times (in a blog post, of course, and not an actual newsprint story), the NEA denied any purpose to further a legislative agenda:

The NEA issued a statement saying that it took part in the conference to help inform arts organizations about opportunities to sponsor volunteer service projects themselves, or have their members take part in other volunteer efforts. “This call was not a means to promote any legislative agenda, and any suggestions to that end are simply false,” the statement said.

The White House similarly denied any desire to further a legislative agenda:

Responding by e-mail Wednesday, White House spokesman Shin Inouye said the Aug. 10 teleconference “was not meant to promote any legislative agenda — it was a discussion on the United We Serve effort and how all Americans can participate.”

More on what Patterico calls "this corrosive precedent".

Please, sir, I want more.

UPDATE
Well, that was prescient, because I see El Rushbo has more.

Ask the U.S. Marines: Bush has it in spades, Obama never will. Witness the virtual fragging when Cajonus Giganticus laughably enters the room to the tune of "Hail to the Chief", reminding us all of the ridiculously pompous "Office of the President-Elect" signage he carried around - but you can't fool this audience with bullshit* pomp and circumstance:



Of course, to earn respect a President must have real-world experience, which is another thing Opey lacks:



*Disallowed under the new House Rules, section 370.

Via Ace

Mark Levin interviews Stephen A. Smith.

Before American Thinker's James Simpson began digging at the relationship between Obama and ACORN, he discovered the Cloward-Piven Strategy. In July 2007, Simpson wrote in "What We Face":

In 1966, two Columbia University sociologists, Richard Cloward and Frances Piven, wrote an article for The Nation explaining how to destroy capitalism by overwhelming government with excessive demands for services, pushing government and society into economic collapse in order to usher in a new socialist paradise. They proposed using low-income blacks as foot soldiers to make ever-increasing, strident demands.

The Coward-Piven Strategy was implemented to its greatest effect in New York City between 1965 and 1974, after which the decade of orchestrated and crushing welfare demands finally bankrupted the city. Most recently California's economy has been ruined by over thirty years of radical-orchestrated welfare entitlement, environmentalism and immigration campaigns.

In a subsequent American Thinker piece Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis, Simpson tied the Cloward-Piven Strategy to Democrat candidate Barack Obama:

The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Barack Obama [is] at the epicenter of an incestuous stew of American radical leftism. Not only are his connections significant, they practically define who he is. Taken together, they constitute a who's who of the American radical left, and guiding all is the Cloward-Piven strategy.

Conspicuous in their absence are any connections at all with any other group, moderate, or even mildly leftist. They are all radicals, firmly bedded in the anti-American, communist, socialist, radical leftist mesh.

Read it all.

Then read The Cloward/Piven Strategy of Economic Recovery, in which Nancy Coppock describes the Obama administration's deployment of the Cloward-Piven Strategy on every facet of the American republic.

Let's say I'm a loudmouthed self-absorbed asshole who did something I kinda remember and I sure don't dig the tapes I've seen because it looks like I was being an asshole in front of a country of 300 million people.

Then I wake up to hear my own personal Messiah call me a jackass.

Fuck My Life.

This is all anyone needs to know about the State-Controlled Media. They're uninformed, grossly embarrassed and in Jeopardy.



Yikes.

John Romano at Big Hollywood:

This morning I saw a video of a school bus filled with primarily African-American kids cheering while a white student is beaten to a pulp. Already the police are saying race had nothing to do with the attack. Oh really? So a white kid being beaten has no racial undertones yet Joe Wilson’s inappropriate scream of “You Lie!” is solely about race?

Via Mark Levin, the Provocateur:

Here's something I know. We are into our seventh month of this debate. After all this time, we don't know what the president's plan is. There is no debating that and that's pretty sad. After seven months, the president still can't decide whether or not it will have a public option. He still can't decide how it will be paid for. He still can't decide if there will be "advanced care planning". We don't know if there's going to be any tort reform in the plan. In fact, we still know nothing.

To understand the roots of the subprime-mortgage crisis, look to ACORN's Madeline Talbott. And to see how Talbott was able to work her mischief, look to Barack Obama.

Obama's newest lie in the wake of the ACORN scandals is that he never really had much to do with the criminal enterprise with which he has infected government at all levels. This is not only brazen, as are so many of Obama's lies, but it was completely dismantled exactly one year ago today by Stanley Kurtz during his investigation of the candidate and his very close community organizer kindred spirits, clients and beneficiaries at ACORN.

Via Andrew C. McCarthy, here as a public service and antidote to the amnesia Obama is attempting to flog on America, is a link to Kurtz' article, O's Dangerous Pals:

IT would be tough to find an "on the ground" community organizer more closely tied to the subprime-mortgage fiasco than Madeline Talbott. And no one has been more supportive of Madeline Talbott than Barack Obama.

When Obama was just a budding community organizer in Chicago, Talbott was so impressed that she asked him to train her personal staff.

He returned to Chicago in the early '90s, just as Talbott was starting her pressure campaign on local banks. Chicago ACORN sought out Obama's legal services for a "motor voter" case and partnered with him on his 1992 "Project VOTE" registration drive.

In those years, he also conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN's up-and-coming organizers. That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott's drive against Chicago's banks.

More than that, Obama was funding them. As he rose to a leadership role at Chicago's Woods Fund, he became the most powerful voice on the foundation's board for supporting ACORN and other community organizers. In 1995, the Woods Fund substantially expanded its funding of community organizers - and Obama chaired the committee that urged and managed the shift.

That committee's report on strategies for funding groups like ACORN features all the key names in Obama's organizer network. The report quotes Talbott more than any other figure; Sandra Maxwell, Talbott's ACORN ally in the bank battle, was also among the organizers consulted.

MORE, the Obama-supervised Woods Fund report acknowledges the problem of getting donors and foundations to contribute to radical groups like ACORN - whose confrontational tactics often scare off even liberal donors and foundations.

Indeed, the report brags about pulling the wool over the public's eye. The Woods Fund's claim to be "nonideological," it says, has "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and government 'establishments' without undue risk of being criticized for partisanship."

Hmm. Radicalism disguised by a claim to be postideological. Sound familiar?

The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN's Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts.

And, as the leader of another charity, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama channeled more funding Talbott's way - ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORN's overall efforts.

In return, Talbott proudly announced her support of Obama's first campaign for state Senate, saying, "We accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer."

IN short, to understand the roots of the subprime-mortgage crisis, look to ACORN's Madeline Talbott. And to see how Talbott was able to work her mischief, look to Barack Obama.

Then you'll truly know what community organizers do.

By his fruits ye shall know him.

Rich Lowry: A Masterstroke Of Weakness

Charles Krauthammer: Obama is surrendering Eastern Europe to Russia

Eric S. Edelman: Obama’s new missile-defense policy is fraught with danger.

WSJ: The start of a new nuclear arms race.

Fakt: Obama fukt Poland.

Putin: Thanks for surrendering, idiot.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk: Take a message.

Barack Obama: Yes I Can Make Us Defenseless

The last time the Democrats were in charge of defense and intelligence gathering, Americans got 9/11. What will it be this time?

Funny, I don't recall Nancy Pelosi tearing up when Charlie Brooker asked that question in reference to George W. Bush. Or when Howard Dean growled, "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for." Or when Jonathan Chait wrote his famous tome titled "Why I Hate George W. Bush". Or when Democrat Pete Stark called Bush a liar in a House session.

Neither does Victor Davis Hanson, who remembers what the left wants us to forget:

So far, unhinged Republican senators have not blasted Obama and suggested that our troops are akin to Nazis, terrorists, Khmer Rouge killers, and Baathists (in the manner of Senator Durbin or the late Senator Kennedy).

When an Iraqi threw shoes at President Bush, there was plenty of undisguised delight among liberal columnists and bloggers. I can imagine the response had a Bush-appointed green-jobs czar said that 9/11 was a government inside job, that Democrats were "a—holes," that Obama was like a crackhead, and that black people were more prone to shoot people and pollute. He would be fired on the spot, and his insanities cited as proof of larger social pathologies.

Joe Wilson was boorish and absolutely wrong to have yelled out during a presidential speech. And a few of the signs at Saturday's march in Washington were, like their counterparts on the left during their marches, way over the top. But so far, we have seen in the opposition to Obama none of the hatred and sickness that characterized a wide swath of opinion on the left during the Bush years — hatred and sickness that were mainstreamed by the likes of Alfred Knopf, the Guardian, and the Democratic party.

One of my favorite devices here is co-opting the language, imagery and manners that have permeated lefty blogs and MSLSD for a solid decade. When idiots of frail sensibilities see it reflected back at them, they spin into paroxisms of self-righteous huffery-puffery, none of which is the least bit honest.

Neither is any of this phony crap spewing from all these shamelessly manipulative leftist racebaiters.

Of course, there is another thing that invariably angers idiots: the truth.

Jay Nordlinger, you dear, trusting man, you:

I thought Barack Obama would be a poor and troublesome president. Did I think he would yuk it up with Hugo Chavez, smirk with Daniel Ortega about the Bay of Pigs, turn his wrath on a Central American democracy trying to follow its constitution, denounce President Bush abroad, bow to the king of Saudi Arabia, endorse a radical Middle Eastern view of how Israel came into being, knock Western countries that try to protect Muslim girls from unwanted shrouding, invite the Iranian regime to our Fourth of July parties, stay essentially mute in the face of counterrevolution in Iran, squeeze and panic Israel, cold-shoulder the Cuban democrats in order to warm to the Cuban dictatorship, scrap missile defense in Eastern Europe, and refuse to meet with the Dalai Lama — in addition to his attempts to have government eat great portions of American society? No, I did not. You?

As a matter of fact, yes I did, because I listened to the promises he made his acolytes that he thought no-one else would hear.

Mending fences with America's allies, Obama-style:

Anger in Europe as Barack Obama 'Scraps Missile Defence Shield'

Reports that US President Barack Obama is to scrap plans to deploy a missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic have provoked anger in Europe.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the US is to shelve the plan, which was first mooted by the Bush administration and has been a source of friction with Russia ever since.

The move would be a cause of celebration in Moscow but of real concern to Eastern European countries which have looked to Washington for support against their former imperial master Russia. The US has said the shield is to guard against attacks by rogue states, such as Iran.

The former Czech prime minister, Mirek Topolanek, said: "This is not good news for the Czech state, for Czech freedom and independence. It puts us in a position wherein we are not firmly anchored in terms of partnership, security and alliance, and that's a certain threat."

The Polish deputy foreign minister, Andrzej Kremer, saidthat Warsaw had heard from different sources there were "serious chances" the anti-missile system would not be deployed.

Russian officials said they did not want to immediately comment on media reports that cited unidentified US officials.

"We are waiting for confirmation of these reports," a source in Russia's foreign ministry said. "In principle, such a development would help the development of our bilateral relations with the United States."

The newspaper said the decision followed a review ordered by Mr Obama. He called the current Czech prime minister Jan Fischer on Wednesday night to discuss missile defence.

Mr Obama, who is due to meet the Russian president Dmitry Medvedev next week in New York, says he wants better ties with Russia so that the two former Cold War foes can co-operate on Afghanistan and reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation.

He may also have been reassured by Moscow's growing willingness to discuss further sanctions against Iran.

Obama is purposely and systematically dismantling America's defences around the world. He bows to Putin and abandons American allies in Eastern Europe as Iran draws ever closer to the Bomb.

What to do, what to do...

Project 21 Calls Out the One and his racebaiters

A message to Obama and all the other race-baiters seemingly doing their best to render the R-word meaningless.

Statement of Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli on Allegations of Racism Against Critics of Obama Policies

Washington, DC - This statement was issued today by Deneen Borelli of the national black leadership network Project 21:

"There they go again. Now Jimmy Carter has joined House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel, Texas Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, New York Governor David Paterson, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, the New York Times' Maureen Dowd and others on the left in claiming racism is behind criticism of President Obama's big-spending policies.

The public is outraged about the president's policies -- the spending, the budget, the deficit -- not his skin color.

President Obama was not elected only with black votes. Are those who cry 'racism' saying the American people suddenly woke up and said, 'oh, he's black so I don't like him anymore'? That makes no sense. The criticism of Obama's policies is about the policies -- the stimulus, the growth of government, cap-and-trade, the health care bills, the overspending.

It's easier for the left to play the race card than address the public's legitimate concerns, but what the left and the media are doing is damaging and dangerous.

It's damaging because when everything is racist, then nothing is. Those who cry racism without evidence will cause people to tune out in cases in which there is evidence.

It's dangerous also to send a message that racism is behind everything. What does that tell young black men and women? It tells them they will never get a fair shake and that white people who have never met them dislike them. With a message like that, its no surprise we're seeing apparently racial incidents like the widely-circulated video of a young white student being beaten up on a school bus by black students while other black students cheer. What message have those black students internalized from liberal leaders like Rangel, Johnson, Paterson, Matthews and Dowd and now former President Carter? That white people are their enemy.

If this continues -- if not already -- the left will literally have blood on its hands, and all because it was too dishonest and too cowardly to have a fair debate with the American people on policy." (Emphasis mine ~ Ed.)

Project 21, established in 1992, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org/).

In other news,

STLToday: A student was beaten aboard a bus on the way to school Monday, and a police spokesman said the beating could be racially motivated. The 17-year-old victim was white and the teen assailants were black. Police released a video of the beating, which shows the victim being punched repeatedly while other students on the bus gather to watch, some cheering. It doesn't appear that the victim did anything to provoke an attack and tried only to defend himself. Police said it all unfolded in a five-minute span.

Presenting President Barack Hussein Obama's ACORN Video of the Day, Fifth in a Seemingly Endless Series, San Diego Edition:

Stay tuned for more Criminality on Parade by Obama's Favorite Community Organizers!

Bonus: Down Memory Lane with Gateway Pundit

ACORN is the largest radical Leftist group in America today.This radical group worked closely with the Obama campaign during the election. But, the community organizing group was not open about this. The photo below was scrubbed from the ACORN website before the election:

(Caption: ACORN members meet with Illinois Senate candidate Barack Obama. Photo as printed in 2004 "Social Policy" article. ~ Ed.)

One of Barack Obama's first big "community organizer" jobs involved ACORN in 1992. Obama also trained ACORN employees. He represented ACORN in court. Obama worked with and protested with ACORN. His campaign donated $800,000 to ACORN in 2008 for voter registration efforts.

And, ACORN even canvassed for Obama last year.

Rush Limbaugh repeats himself for the Umpteenth time:

I have no quarrel with a president of any race. Obama is not black to me. He’s not half black, half white. He’s president of the United States, and as such, given his agenda, he poses a grave danger to the American I believe in. And that’s all that matters to me. I couldn’t care if he’s a hermaphrodite. I don’t care who he sleeps with. I don’t care where he eats. I don’t care what he eats. I don’t care how he drives. I don’t care about any of that. I don’t care about his haircut. I don’t care whether he’s getting gray. I don’t care about his tie. I don’t care about any of this. I care about his intent to remake this country into a country unlike any of us have ever seen. I have serious concerns about today’s media and their new standard, which is this: Any criticism of an African-American president’s policies or statements or misstatements is racist, and that’s it.

Therefore the question: Can this nation really have an African-American president? Or will the fact that we have an African-American president so paralyze politically correct people in the media that the natural scrutiny and process through which all of our presidents are put through and vetted do not occur because of the fear in the State-Controlled Media of themselves being called racist and the desire to be able to call everyone else racist. In other words, we have a blank slate. We have a president here who is not scrutinized, who is not examined. There is no attempt to be suspicious of power anymore. So is it possible that we really have an African-American president? Or does having an African-American president paralyze the process by which people with that kind of power in our representative republic are kept, quote, unquote, honest?

This is a substantive challenge to the left's overuse of the racist epithet, which is rapidly wearing thin. Rush's question is simply this: whose side are you really on?

Via The Good Michelle:

It's getting hard to keep up with all the ongoing changes to Obamaspeak.

The good news is that even guys (Senatorial Persons?) like Russ Feingold are having trouble with the idea of a White House crawling with close advisers to The One who have At His Pleasure been afforded a pass from Congressional scrutiny.

Perhaps there is such a thing as a Democrat who still values the Constitution; a refreshing thought if true.

They are under investigation for voter fraud in 14 states and now are reeling under the multiple revelations of their criminal activities chronicled in the Giles-O'Keefe videos, including enablement of prostitution (ah, okay!), intimations of Democrat corruption (gee, you think?), advice on tax evasion, child slavery, intimidation, violence, murder, and more. First ACORN claimed the vids were racist, faked, tampered with, racistandfakedandtamperedwith, an isolated case, isolated cases, not reflective of the real ACORN, yada yada yada. Now this bit of patent ACORN bullshit*:

In a press release, ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis says, that as “a result of the indefensible action of a handful of our employees,” the group will immediately stop accepting anyone into ACORN office for service programs, will conduct in-service training of staff, and begin an audit “to review all of the systems and processes called into question by the videos,” to be conducted by the group’s Independent Advisory Council.

The Council includes many prominent Democrats, including the man who helped President Obama Transition Team, John Podesta, President and CEO of the Center for American Progress; former Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend; Andrew Stern, International President of the Service Employees International Union; and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros.

But of course. This is all over the net so might as well run with it:

A Soros hack, an SEIU thug, someone who pleaded to lying to the FBI, and a Kennedy.

Further proof that they just don't get it: they've been busted, and it ain't going away. Not any more. Independant Advisory Council my ass*; this is just the latest and limpest attempt to keep dictating events on their terms, and it won't work. All it does is show that they still think they can run their con game and get away with it.

The problem for ACORN is that this isn't just another one of their shakedowns of a local bank or weak-kneed corporate board willing to pay the Danegeld. This is an awakened American taxpayer they're messing with, and that is a whole different animal.

Also making the rounds, some genuine red meat:




Meanwhile, here is BigGovernment.com's front page as they release the latest damning video:



Remember: OBAMA IS ACORN. ACORN IS OBAMA.

*Disallowed under the new House Rules, section 370.

As I have said many times before, the only way the left can possibly get normal folks to buy their radical bullshit is to lie, as Obama has done to get to the White House. The only way that works, of course, is to police the dialogue, so they also resort to censorship. I've experienced it at the personal level, when various idiots have informed me that I may not use a certain word or phrase, even express certain ideas, in discussing politics, a futile demand as they have invariably discovered. On the other hand, they always demand the right to unfettered free speech in their own interests. Examples include Peter Stark, who several times called Bush a liar on the House floor; John Murtha, who regularly slandered the military and lied about the situation in Iraq, whatever it was at the moment; Hillary Clinton, who, lacking even the courage to say it straight up to his face, implied that General Petraeus was a liar; the list goes on.

This is known as hypocrisy; idiots can look that word up in a big book called a "dictionary."

This mindset also manifests in how the Obama Democrats label every disastrous legislative volley, which are unfailingly titled to communicate the exact opposite of their easily predictable consequences.

That hypocrisy is also on display in all its glory with the childish and censorious revisions to section 370 of the House Rules and Manual, this just two days after almost 2 million marched on Washington to protest their criminally corrupt federal government.

The Politico:

Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:
• refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
• refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
• refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
• refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”

Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:
• call the President a “liar.”
• call the President a “hypocrite.”
• describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”

In essence, the Democrats will no longer tolerate the truth. They have addressed every possible honest and legitimate criticism of Obama by pre-emptively censoring its reference, at least any they could think of, knowing the guy as they do (In fact, they have done the country a huge service by cataloguing everything Obama is, even while declaring it against the rules of the House. I just wonder about the "sexual misconduct on the President’s part" thingy: do they know something we don't yet?).

Democrats are cloaking this behind feigned outrage over Joe Wilson's entirely reasonable and unassailable call-out that Obama was lying during his address to the Joint Session, calling it an affront to the dignity of the House. This from a body whose past and present members include Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Pat Leahy, John Conyers, Maxine Waters, William Jefferson, Charles Rangel, Charles Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Cynthia McKinney, et al. And this from a gang that gleefully cheers as the State Media slanders their opponents in a blizzard of lies and mischaracterizations.

Now, the kneejerk idiot reaction will be to point to their favorite Republican targets, but only the left are perpetually engaged in censorship of the political dialogue to their own advantage - "Overseas Contingent Operations", anyone? "Man-Caused Disaster", anyone? These new House Rules, anyone? Only the left constantly try to enforce a double standard on others' behavior while allowing their own to run amok - Nancy Pelosi's "swastika" charges, anyone? Van Jones' radical anti-Americanism, anyone? Only the left sees The People as an evil, undisciplined mass to be ignored at best and policed into silence at worst - "Localization" in radio, anyone? Only the left wants to assert statist controls on every sector of American enterprise - Obama's Czars, anyone? Only the left aspires to rob Americans of the freedoms proscribed and guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - Obama's concept of "Negative Rights", anyone? McCain-Feingold, anyone (that's right: McCain)? Only the left would choose as their presidential candidate a man who can in no way be honest about his real agenda - Barack Hussein Obama, anyone? And only the left would allow the subversion of their party by a radical criminal organization aiming to burn the Constitution and exert fascist controls over the entire country, in the name of Power Above All Else - the Democrats, anyone?

This censorship of House speech does not change the legitimacy of Wilson's shot across Obama's bow, or any other legitimate charges against Obama; it never will. Which is why The People carry on against the left's best efforts to shut down whatever opposition their dwindling power can affect.

Part 1
Prostitution (ah, okay!), corrupt Democrats, tax evasion, child slavery, violence, murder, and more:

Remember: OBAMA IS ACORN. ACORN IS OBAMA.

Confederate Yankee points to The Radio Patriot's Andrea Shea King, who reports on the latest video showing Obama's ACORN engaged in gross criminality, plus a whole lot more:

"THE WHOLE THING IS COMING UNDONE. BRACE YOURSELVES"

Glenn Beck just wrapped up what had to be the most compelling radio I've heard... and lately, most of his shows have been pretty compelling.

Whew, where to start? Well, how about this: you should make it a point to do two things today: watch his TV show at 5 ET this afternoon on Fox News, and hit the Big Government website an hour earlier at 4 ET.

Here's what you'll find - the latest video sting of ACORN. This one in a San Bernardino ACORN office where the employee can't talk fast enough about the connections they have to politicians (naming them by name) and even an admission of murder.

Scott Baker of Breitbart TV's The B-Cast was on during Glenn's final segment, connecting the dots between POTUS advisor Valerie Jarrett and Obama's past, including his grandparents, his mother, and Franklin Davis Marshall who played an influential role in his life.

This is stuff you can't make up.

Yesterday I came across a detailed expose about Valerie Jarrett, who as we are learning, has and is playing a major role in this presidency. She is Obama's brain. She's also Michelle's brain too.

A must read. It's 7 pages printed out, but you can find it online at FrontPageMag.

As Glenn Beck put it today, "The whole thing is coming undone. Brace yourselves."

The whole stinking despicable lot of them are now out in the sunlight for all Americans to see: The radical left, ACORN and the rest of Obama's machine; Soros, the SEIU, the State Media; all of them.

Breitbart on the ObamaACORN scandals: "This is the Great Society's Abu Ghraib."

Finally, Americans are going straight at the enemy.