Holder allows ACORN funding, despite ban

Current law prohibits the community organization ACORN and its associated groups from receiving any federal funds from any federal law currently on the books, (P.L 111-68 Sec. 163). However, the Eric Holder Justice Department has interpreted the law's phraseology in such a way that permits federal agencies to pay ACORN for "binding contractual obligations" the government made before the current prohibition was enacted. This interpretation may go a long way toward effectively neutralizing ACORN's funding prohibition, and it is a questionable interpretation at best.

The actual ban reads as follows: "None of the funds made available from this joint resolution or any other prior Act may be provided to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries or allied organizations." (Emphasis added.)

The Justice Department has decided that the phrase "provided to" is unclear and "has no established meaning in appropriations law." They cite terms more frequently used, such as "obligate" and "expend," that have widely accepted meaning in spending legislation. They go on to arduously defend their point by exhaustively listing the many definitions of "provide" given in Websters, Oxford and American Heritage dictionaries and even Roget's Thesaurus. Like Bill Clinton, they probably could have found as many definitions for the word "is..."

It would be interesting to learn who provided the legislative language for this amendment. Someone on Speaker Pelosi's staff, perhaps? It would also be interesting to know whether or not that person(s) had input from the Justice Department. Either way, it is reasonable to suspect that whoever wrote this legislation knew what they were doing, and that the key phrase "provided to" would cause problems in execution. The question is, why didn't the Republicans foresee that it might cause problems? Outmaneuvered again?

On the other hand, the Holder Justice Department could simply be flat wrong in its legal reasoning. Not too much of a stretch, considering that Holder decided to drop charges of voter intimidation against the clearly guilty Black Panthers, overruling his own legal staff in the process. It is amazing what this administration will do to protect its supporters.

The Justice Department also raised the ugly specter of opening the government up to liability for breaking "binding contracts," adding that the decision put them on much firmer Constitutional grounds by ensuring that this prohibition would not amount to a "bill of attainder." ACORN is already suing the government citing the Constitutional clause (Art. 1, Sec. 9, Para. 3), which prevents the legislature from singling out an individual or group for punishment without first ascertaining guilt by trial.

At first blush, this seems to be a valid concern. If ACORN engages in legitimate activity for which it is paid directly by the government, and has already made financial commitments in anticipation of reimbursement, then perhaps those obligations already made should be honored by the government. Also, it may be bad precedent to use the legislative process to "punish" ACORN for its misdeeds, if that is in fact what Congress is doing.

However, this begs the question. If ACORN has been engaging in massive, nationwide vote registration fraud, as it has; if it has been encouraging a shopping list of illegal activity through its "housing counseling," as every one of the O'Keefe and Giles tapes demonstrated it has, why hasn't the Holder Justice Department launched an investigation into the group? Why don't they settle the matter once and for all by ensuring ACORN's Constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial, thereby firmly establishing its guilt or innocence?

There is no legitimate reason for the Obama Justice Department not to investigate this clearly corrupt organization. But so far, they have refused to. The result is the unprecedented spectacle of a private citizen, Andrew Breitbart, demanding the Justice Department investigate ACORN, and threatening to expose even more damaging revelations about the group if they don't!

Furthermore, what legitimate business is ACORN conducting that requires binding prior commitments the government need reimburse? Is ACORN in the aircraft carrier building business or something?

Who knows? With this group and its 360 odd identified affiliates, it seems like almost anything is possible. Perhaps ACORN has been selected to manufacture the 2012 Pelosi GTxi SS/RT hybrid vehicle. (Okay, so we need a little comic relief.)

According to the Cato Institute, from 2003 to 2007 ACORN received almost $16 million from the government. This was broken down as follows:

• Housing counseling assistance - 62%


• Self-Help Homeownership - 7%


• Rural Housing and Economic Development - 2%


• Fair Housing Initiatives - 4%


• Community Development Block Grants - 26%

Sixty-two percent of payments go to "housing counseling assistance," while block grants provided 26 percent. "Housing counseling assistance" would come under the heading of continuing operations, requiring no commitments other than for normal operating costs. Block grants are awarded based on applications that grantees make for future plans, or for ongoing operations that may or may not be reimbursed depending upon whether or not they get the grant. I don't even know what "fair housing initiatives" and "self-help homeownership" are. And if by "economic development," they mean commitments to actual building projects, perhaps reimbursement could be justified, if this referred to a tangible fixed asset already under construction. But even if it does, this only represents two percent of government payments to ACORN. I suspect Justice was hoping to let them keep a lot more.

The larger question is this: should the government be obligated to spend money it has good reason to believe will be used for illegal purposes? If, for example, the U.S. Marshall's Service discovered that it was providing Witness Protection Program funds for "informant relocation" to a private contractor secretly working for the Mafia, wouldn't it stop immediately and move to shut down the entire organization? Wouldn't Congress demand funds be cut off immediately, instead of paying out "existing contracts" and worrying about "bills of attainder?" Of course it would.

Congress is not "punishing" ACORN here. Instead it is exercising rare good judgement in its oversight role by ensuring that it is not inadvertently spending taxpayer dollars in support of criminal activities. The prohibition against funding ACORN is perfectly legal and Constitutional for this reason, according to legal scholars.

ACORN, as has been discussed many times before, is a key player in the Cloward-Piven Strategy of Manufactured Crisis. As such its legitimate activities -- to the extent that it even engages in legitimate activities -- are used to facilitate and/or mask its destructive ones. In this regard it is similar to a Mafia organization.

The Mafia runs legitimate businesses to mask illegal ones and launder money. The fact that it owns legitimate businesses that have made "prior financial commitments" doesn't stop the FBI from shutting them down. Federal law enforcement regularly seizes Mafia business assets, legitimate and otherwise, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes. The same should be true for ACORN.

The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform published a paper last summer that both documented ACORN's widespread criminal activities, and determined that appropriate legal remedies for this criminal organization include applying the RICO statutes to seize their assets. Some of the illegal activities uncovered and listed in this report include:

• ACORN has evaded taxes, obstructed justice, engaged in self dealing, and aided and abetted a cover-up of the $948.607.50 embezzlement by Dale Rathke, the brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke. (Editor's note: Louisiana's Attorney General says the actual figure may be closer to $5 million.)


• ACORN has committed investment fraud, deprived the public of its right to honest services, and engaged in a racketeering enterprise affecting interstate commerce.


• ACORN has committed a conspiracy to defraud the United States by using taxpayer funds for partisan political activities.


• ACORN has submitted false filings to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Labor, in addition to violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).


• ACORN falsified and concealed facts concerning an illegal transaction between related parties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Meanwhile, the person who commissioned that ACORN report, Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) , has blasted the administration for ruling that ACORN could continue to receive funding. He said that Congress's intent was clear, calling Holder's decision "old-fashioned cronyism."

So why should the government be paying ACORN at all? It is an organization devoted to the systematic destruction of America. If anything, ACORN needs to be permanently dissolved, it's principals arrested and sentenced to long jail terms. Its assets need to be seized and surrendered to the Asset Forfeiture Fund. This organization needs to be unmercifully trounced into the dirt.

So what the Holder Justice Department has essentially done is present us with a Constitutional crisis. If the Constitution demands that an individual or organization be adjudicated guilty or innocent in a court of law before Congress can strip it of funding, then it is incumbent upon the Justice Department to investigate said organization and resolve the question. Yet Obama's Justice Department, under the incompetent, if not criminal, leadership of Eric Holder refuses to do so.

Let's make something else explicit also. The ACRON funding ban is attached to a Continuing Resolution, a law which allows the government to continue operations into the new fiscal year (started October 1, 2009) in lieu of appropriations bills that have yet to be passed, and is set to expire on December 18, 2009. Yes, that's 18 days from now.

The only way this ban can be made permanent is for language to be included in some newer legislation that doesn't expire. It is likely that the Democrats will fight it, too. As it stands, the Justice Department is quibbling over a ban enacted in September that covers a period of two months and eighteen days.

This is all consistent with the Manufactured Crisis Strategy, from giving foreign terrorists the legal protections of U.S. citizens, and trying them in a city where they are almost certain to get a mistrial, to demanding criminal investigations of CIA officers who believed they were operating under the force of law. From exonerating Black Panther thugs who engaged in voter intimidation, to protecting the criminal organization ACORN from even two months of economic sanctions. In short, doing everything possible to deliberately mess things up.

Congress must demand the FBI investigate the continuing criminal enterprise we all know by the acronym ACORN. While they are at it, they might request an investigation of political corruption within the Holder Justice Department. If Holder wants a Constitutional showdown to protect Obama's diseased, corrupt political allies, have at it.

Meanwhile, there is no legitimate reason for ACORN to continue receiving federal funds.

Notorious terrorist captured – SEAL captors arrested!

First we had Congressman John Murtha accusing US Marines of atrocities in Haditha, Iraq - a blatant lie based on false information supplied by the enemy. Those Marines had to face an arduous multi-year trial despite the obvious fabrication of evidence, and it is still not over for some. Next we have the Obama administration seeking to soothe Muslim fears about "backlash" after a Muslim Major commits the first successful act of terrorism on our soil since 9/11, while they withhold evidence about the case from Congress and do lmore to suppress than investigate the nature of the attack. Now we have the spectre of seeing three U.S. Navy SEALs arrested because the terrorist they captured claims he was punched!

Who is the enemy here? Four SEALs captured Ahmed Hashim Abed, codenamed "Objective Amber" on September 3rd. Abed was the ringleader of the group who ambushed four security contractors in Fallujah in 2004, and hung their burned bodies on a bridge. One of the four, Scott Helvenston, had been a Navy SEAL himself for twelve years.

But now Abed is claiming he got a bloody lip. Boo hoo! And the Navy is prosecuting! These people are insane! Give the SEALs a medal for a dangerous, thankless job well done, and suggest that Abed get on his knees and thank God he wasn't captured by someone else.

What I want to see is an investigation of the Navy legal team and the chain of command that ordered and condoned this arrest. This aggressive prosecution of battlefield events, where enemy terrorists are treated as "witnesses" to a "crime" has has always looked more like a deliberate strategy to hamstring warriors and thwart battlefield success rather than merely the misguided application of political correctness.

SEALs are not cops, and no military force operating on a battlefield should be forced to adopt law enforcement procedures for capturing terrorists. These are not purse-snatchers! If the military has adopted such mindless guidelines for handling enemy killers, then it is the military's policy that needs to be examined, not the actions of warriors in battle. And if this policy has filtered down from political leadership, as it probably has, then their fitness for office need to be seriously questioned.

At best these actions against military members should be considered vindictive prosecutions, but I believe something much more malevolent is at work. I believe the person or persons who promote such policies seek to sow doubt and demoralization, and bring unbearable stress on front line forces. They are covert agents, saboteurs working behind the lines to undermine battlefield effectiveness, and should be investigated as such.

When they are uncovered and exposed, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Treason in battle is worthy of execution. But it would be enough to see them stripped of rank and summarily dismissed - perhaps into the tender mercies of Fallujah's Ba'athists. I am sure they would get a warm welcome.

Outrage doesn't begin to describe this travesty.

I'm sure this administration will applaud the Navy's efforts to achieve justice for poor Abed, since they are all about applying law enforcement standards and extending US citizens' civil rights to foreign terrorists. With their superior global awareness, they will surely want these SEALs given a fair trial in an appropriate setting. To demonstrate their evenhandedness to the terrorists, they'll probably choose GITMO.

This subversive element within our government, this leftist, anti-American cabal destroying our country from within needs to go! Right now!

Questioning Conspiracy

As long as we are facing facts, it is time to confront a long-held, dangerous delusion of the American psyche.

The vast majority of people who have read my series on the Cloward Piven Strategy, including Monday’s post, Cloward Piven Government, have taken the lessons to heart and are justifiably alarmed by their conclusions. Yet, despite the exhaustive wealth of evidence, despite overwhelming documentation embedded within these and others’ essays, some people choose to dismiss the frightening conclusions by taking the easy way out and ridicule them as “conspiracy theories.”

To these people, I have to say, “You don’t know what you don’t know.” The “dismissal by conspiracy theory” argument is the product of a lazy, cowardly mind, unwilling to risk a peek, instead reacting instinctively out of subliminal fear to facts that threaten comforting rationalizations.

The communist method is and always has been conspiracy. Since the Soviet military adopted Sun Tzu’s Art of War as their guiding philosophy, they have almost always utilized the effective tools of slow subversion as a critical component of their overall offensives. One of the foremost experts on Soviet methods even called the Soviet Union the “Counterintelligence State,” based on the idea that the entire society was dedicated in one form or another to “Dezinformatsia.”

The public relations campaign launched against Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s was in fact a full-scale assault led by American communists to discredit the notion of communist conspiracy, which at the time was very widely believed to be occurring. It was an intimidation campaign based on Alinsky’s rule #5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon...”

The effectiveness of this campaign lives with us today as people almost universally shy away from any notion even hinting at that awful word “conspiracy” when it comes to leftists. For example, this manufactured ignorance is so widespread that many people conflate the 1947 House Un-American Activities Committee’s (HUAC) investigations of the film industry with “McCarthyism” when McCarthy hadn’t even been elected Senator.

McCarthy’s 1950s investigations focused on communist infiltration of the Army, especially the Army facility at Monmouth, New Jersey, where atomic spy Julius Rosenberg had worked. Three years after McCarthy had been railroaded for his efforts, that facility quietly closed because of this internal security threat it. Did you know that? Why not?

As commentator Chuck Morse wrote in 2003:

The substantial power the left wielded over our government and media was on full display in the concerted campaign to stop McCarthy, who, in hindsight, has been vindicated of all charges. Politicians who would henceforth be more circumspect when investigating communist or any other subversive element in government heard the lesson of McCarthy's downfall loud and clear. Average citizens, at least subliminally conscious of the auto da fe McCarthy had been put through, would also learn to curb their criticism of the left as well.

The left ridicules notions of communist conspiracy and we buy it. In the same breath they aggressively promote the notion of “CIA” or “Vast Right-Wing” conspiracy as though it’s a given, and we buy that too! But if one is possible, so must be the other. Our illogical reasoning is the result of years of popular culture conditioning, not fact. The difference is, with communists, subversive conspiracy is doctrine. With us, it is an alien notion, born witness by the scorn with which counterintelligence and clandestine activities are treated even within the military establishment.

Fast forward.

Cloward and Piven were not merely two lone sociology professors conspiring on teacher salaries to bring down America. They were prominent socialists and lifelong members of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the largest and oldest worldwide socialist organization. Therein lay their strength, both in recruitment and resources. The leftist Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) held seminars for activists on how to use the CPS. Cloward and Piven’s Nation article was reprinted a record 30,000 times.

These folks were not alone. And they only added to the plethora of anti-American strategies being used, building on the already utilized Alinsky method. Also, we have been infiltrated since the 1930s by the KGB and their sister agencies in other communist countries whose goal has not merely been to obtain military secrets, but much more to create a subversive infrastructure in this country. The IPS, mentioned above, is largely a KGB front. All of its principals are American communists, who, by definition, work for the communist international, still run by the KGB despite the alleged "fall" of communism.

All these groups, the think tanks, the DSA, ACORN, ACLU, the National Lawyers Guild, the Communist Party and all their offshoots are led by people who know each other, have worked in the "movement" for years, and share the same goals, often trading places in the various organizations. It is well organized, powerful, and even deadly when necessary. Connections to foreign intelligence agencies like the KGB are well hidden, but very likely much closer than even a lot of people in the movement realize (those, like many prominent Democrats, are the useful idiots).

Finally, it doesn't take much for a conspiracy to work when you give participants a vested interest. That was an overtly stated component of the CPS. Cloward and Piven said:

First, this plan promises immediate economic benefits. This is a point of some importance because, whereas America's poor have not been moved in any number by radical political ideologies, they have sometimes been moved by their economic interests.

So they were able to mobilize armies of poor people simply because those people saw a paycheck in the form of welfare benefits. ACORN attracted homebuyers in droves by showing them how to get 5% or even zero down payment mortgages, with the implicit promise -- borne out later in some cases -- that they wouldn’t have to pay anything. Countrywide Financial, the "Friends of Angelo" bank, had a direct working relationship with ACORN and by 2006 were holding $600 billion in high risk mortgage investments.

Most communist conspiracies work because, as Whittaker Chambers explained, most people aren't communist and don't even know they are promoting communist causes. They merely work in their own interest, whether that be to obtain a mortgage, get welfare income, or save a tree.

Cloward-Piven Government

Correction: I attributed a quote in this article to Barney Frank that "the middle class will be too distracted to fight." That was an error. Barney Frank never made that statement. The correct quote was “You don’t have to be worried about what the Middle Class is going to do. Things are so bad they have to put food on the table, get clothes on their kids, get them to school..." The statement was made in hearings with Obama economic advisor Robert Reich, where Reich proposed that stimulus dollars not go to "high skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers..." but to low income groups. Rangel wanted assurances that would happen and asked if it could not be set up to happen automatically. So the dollars would not necessarily go where they could be put to most productive use, but to those groups who comprise a large part of the Democrat base. I apologize for the error. The quote has been removed.



Cloward Piven Government

Casualties mount in Afghanistan as we fight an increasingly brazen Taliban, while President Obama continues to ignore the pleas of our military commanders for more troops. At the same time, he parties with Obama fundraiser and supporter Jodie Evans, the terrorist-sympathizing co-founder of Code Pink, who just returned from Afghanistan after a visit with the Taliban. She brought him a package of materials. Was she acting as conduit for the Taliban, like Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin, who brought a letter to Obama from the Palestinian terrorist group, Hamas?

A lone Muslim terrorist guns down 13 American service members and wounds forty others in the worst domestic terrorist attack since 9-11 and the President of the United States says we shouldn’t “jump to conclusions.” The Director of Homeland Security meanwhile, directs her attention to reassuring Muslims that there won’t be a “backlash” while utterly ignoring her responsibility to protect this nation, and the Army Chief of Staff considers these killings a cost of achieving “diversity” he is willing to pay.

When Attorney General Eric Holder announced last week that the government would try admitted 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a NY civilian court, constitutional scholars, defense analysts, intelligence experts and many citizens were stunned. The precedents and possibilities are horrifying. In the same breath Holder refused to provide names of Justice Department lawyers facing potential conflicts of interest who formerly worked in Holder’s law firm on behalf of Guantanamo terrorist detainees.

When the brave and clever initiative of two twenty-something kids demonstrate the community organization ACORN’s degenerate, corrupt nature, we watch the spectacle of ACORN suing these kids while law enforcement stands idly by. Meanwhile the Democrat-controlled Congress removes federal funding for ACORN in the about-to-expire continuing resolution, but tries to sneak it back in new legislation.

Saturday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid bought off support of two “wavering” Democrat Senators to achieve cloture on the Senate’s massive, unread and unanalyzed, 2,074 page version of healthcare legislation that expanded upon the Senate Finance Committee bill, also passed out of committee without substantive review. This will compete with the House’s massive, unanalyzed and unread 1,990 page health bill, passed with a five vote margin on November 7th. And while everyone was focused on health legislation, backdoor censorship passed under the misnamed “Hate Crimes” bill. Incapable of passing as a standalone, the Dems tacked it onto defense authorization legislation.

Meanwhile, Senator Barbara Boxer’s economy crushing global warming tax bill moved out of her Environment and Public Works committee on November 5 after she violated committee rules by holding a vote with no Republicans present. While all the news outlets are now pronouncing “Cap and Trade” dead until next year, the New York Times reports there is already another plan in the works. Look for a surprise vote in December.

The media rejoiced at positive third quarter 2009 GDP growth – entirely fueled by the temporary “Cash for Clunkers” and first-time homebuyer credit programs – but at the same time, unemployment raced past 10 percent. With many unemployed leaving the labor force entirely, the true rate may be actually closer to 20%.

The “Stimulus” plan has proven a complete failure in creating promised private sector jobs. The only jobs it has created are in the public sector, and a lot of these are fraudulent. Many of us knew this would happen. Indeed, despite the administration’s claim that “most economists” agreed with the stimulus plan, the truth is that most did not. One well-known economist dubbed it “Mugabe Economics.”

Despite this, Democrats in Congress and the White House are discussing a second stimulus bill, adding yet more billions to what is already the highest deficit in post WW II history – at 11% of GDP, almost twice the previous record – while President Obama observes without irony that “people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession…” if we keep on piling up federal debt. All this is reported without comment by the mass media.

A million or more people gathered at the Washington, DC Mall on September 12, 2009. Many of these people were middle-aged or elderly. For most this was the first public demonstration they had ever attended. It was an unprecedented spontaneous outpouring of concern over this President and Congress’s reckless policies, expressed by people who one year ago didn’t know each other, had never heard of “community organizing” and had no need to. While Democrat “paid volunteer” SEIU union thugs roved town hall meetings over the summer beating up protesters, the President’s allies dismiss the 9/12 gathering as “Astroturf.”

We stand aghast at these and other astonishing statements, delivered offhandedly by the leader of the free world or his proxies, as we collectively reel from the successive body blows his initiatives are delivering to our economy and morale. We marvel at the appointment of “czars” each more radical than the next, whose unspeakable agendas are ignored by the press.

Entrepreneurs and businesses sit on their hands, not because there is no business opportunity, but because they, like practically everyone else in this country, are increasingly uncertain about our future. With anxiety bordering on sickness, we ask ourselves “what on earth is going on?”

It is time to cast aside all remaining doubt.

In September of last year, American Thinker published Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis. Part of a series, it connected then presidential candidate Barack Obama to individuals and organizations practicing a malevolent strategy for sabotaging our society. Since then the story of that strategy has found its way across the blogosphere, onto the airwaves of radio stations across the country, the Glenn Beck television show, Bill O’Reilly and now Mark Levin.

The methodology is known as the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and we can all be grateful to David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks for originally exposing and explaining it to us. He describes 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.

Richard Cloward and Frances Piven were husband and wife, two lifelong members of Democratic Socialists of America and taught sociology at Columbia University (Piven later went on to City University of New York). In a May, 1966 Nation magazine article titled “The Weight of the Poor,” they outlined their strategy, proposing to use grassroots radical organizations to push ever more strident demands for public services at all levels of government.

The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces … for major economic reform at the national level."

They implemented the Strategy by creating a succession of radical organizations but most notably the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), with the help of veteran organizer Wade Rathke. Their crowning achievement was the “Motor Voter” act, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993 with Cloward and Piven standing behind him (shown on the left, Cloward in grey, piven in green).

As we now know, ACORN was one of the chief drivers of high-risk mortgage lending that eventually led to the financial crisis. But the Motor Voter law was another component of the strategy. It created vast opportunities for fraud in our electoral system which ACORN then exploited.

ACORN’s vote registration scandals throughout the U.S. are predictable fallout.

The Motor Voter law also opened another vulnerability in the system: the registration of vast numbers of illegal aliens, who then vote reliably Democrat. Herein lies the real reason Democrats are so anxious for open borders, security be damned.

It should be clear to anyone with a mind and two eyes that this president and this Congress do not have our interests at heart. They are implementing this strategy on an unprecedented scale by flooding America with a tidal wave of poisonous initiatives, orders, regulations and laws. As Obama advisor Rahm Emmanuel said, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.”

The real goal of “healthcare” legislation, the real goal of “cap and trade,” the real goal of “stimulus” is to rip the guts out of our private economy and transfer wide swaths of it over to government control. Do not be deluded by the propaganda. These initiatives are vehicles for change. They are not goals in and of themselves, except in their ability to deliver power, and will make matters much worse, for that is their design.

This time, in addition to overwhelming the government with demands for services, Obama and the Democrats are overwhelming political opposition to their plans with a flood of apocalyptic legislation. Their ultimate goal is to leave us so discouraged, demoralized and exhausted that we throw our hands up in defeat.

It is time acknowledge that these people are our enemies. They don’t use guns, yet, but they are just as dangerous, determined and duplicitous as the communists we faced in the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam and bush wars across the globe, and the Nazis we faced in World War II.

It is high time we overcome the denial, and fully digest and internalize this fact, with all its ugly ramifications. These people are stealing this country while we stand and watch. They have violated countless laws, and could be prosecuted, had we the political power. Not only are their policies unconstitutional, but deliberately so – the goal being to make the Constitution irrelevant, we could make them live up to their oath of office, had we the political power. Their spending is off the charts and will drive us into hyperinflation, but could be rescinded, had we the political power. These policies are toxic, but could be stopped and reversed, had we the political power. Their ideologies are poisonous, but could be exposed for what they are, with long jail sentences as an object lesson, had we the political power.

Every single citizen who cares about this country should be spending every minute of his/her spare time lobbying, organizing, writing and planning. Fight every initiative they launch. It is all destructive. If we are to root out this evil, it is critical that in 2010 we win competent, principled leaders willing to defend our constitution and our country. Otherwise the malevolent cabal that occupies the seat of government today will become too entrenched.

After that all bets are off.

Businessman and Examiner.com columnist Jim Simpson is a former White House staff economist and budget analyst. His writings have been published in American Thinker, Washington Times, WorldNet Daily, FrontPage Magazine, DefenseWatch, Soldier of Fortune and others.

On the precipice – Healthcare disaster looming

By James Simpson

This Congress is beneath contempt. What they are poised to pass today – yes I know this is just a procedural vote, but everything turns on it – is an abomination. Since Lincoln and Landrieu have been bought off it is now sure to pass. Landrieu cost the taxpayer $100 million. I wonder what we paid Lincoln to betray us. This bill will not merely ruin our healthcare system; it will impose economy crushing taxes, pushing our already tottering economy ever closer to the abyss.

No surprise there. Candidate Obama said that since we are only 4 percent of the world population, we cannot go on consuming 25 percent of the world’s resources. It’s not fair. In his worldview we should only be consuming, what, 4 percent? In his mind we are confiscating resources and need to give them back.

How stupid can a person be? It is not a zero sum game! We don’t consume 25 percent of the world’s resources; we trade 25 percent of the world’s resources, (if that figure is even correct. I suspect it is high. But some on the left claim 40, 50, even 75 percent – they are delusional.) In any event, the world should be glad we are here, for we are the world’s consumer market. We support the world economy. Without that support the world will plunge into a depression that will make 1933 look like a walk in the park! A good, brief explanation of why that is, here.

As it is, taxes proposed to pay for this bill will be onerous, but at $849 billion over ten years, the bill radically underestimates cost. The Senate Budget Committee estimated the true cost at $2.5 trillion. But even this is a vast underestimate because they implicitly assume the legislation will remain unchanged. This will not happen. It has never, ever happened! After the bill passes, Congress will add all kinds of bells and whistles, and will add more “fixes” as the problems created by this piece of crap begin to manifest themselves. So think of the Senate Budget Committee’s $2.5 trillion 10 year cost as a bare bones, no further changes, minimum.

Medicare provides a good example. From a modest $16 billion spending in its first year, Medicare increased 231% over the next nine years, an average annual program growth of 12.72%. This is after correcting for inflation! I do not believe this new bill even factors in inflation over the 10 year period. If you look at Medicare from its first year to the tenth w/o correcting for inflation, it grew 434% or 18.24% per year! These data are derived from program outlay figures provided by the White House Office of Management and Budget - unassailable.

Here is another way to look at it. Medicare and Medicaid together cost $656 billion in 2008, the last year for which actual data are available. The total number of people enrolled in these two programs is about 88 million people – yes that’s right folks we are paying medical bills for approximately thirty percent of the population already! This comes out to about $7,500 per enrollee per year.

This bill is going to generously allow us to pay for 47 million more. Forget about denying illegals, they will be covered when this legislation finally passes. Don’t believe a word about “cost savings.” It is not going to happen, even if they do start euthanizing granny. Medicare and Medicaid currently squeeze everything they can out of the medical profession and their cost cutting measures are already creating supply shortages. So consider $7,500 a reasonable estimate of per capita cost. Assuming this same average cost for all these new folks gets us an annual price tag of about $350 billion, ($7,500 x 47 million) or a ten year cost of $3.5 trillion.

Now, Congress has never in the history of major legislation, ever left it alone once passed. It will explode just like Medicare and Medicaid have throughout their entire existence – and Congress gave us the exact same phony promises back when these programs were first proposed. So take the $35o billion and multiply it by, oh pick any number... say 3, which gives you an average annual cost of $1 trillion once the program has been up and running for a while, and you are probably closer to a realistic cost figure.

This bill is a five-alarm fire that will consume our nation if it passes.

Businessman and Examiner.com columnist Jim Simpson is a former White House staff economist and budget analyst. His writings have been published in American Thinker, Washington Times, WorldNet Daily, FrontPage Magazine, DefenseWatch, Soldier of Fortune and others. You may read more of his articles on his blog, Truth and Consequences.

No Political Purge

There has been a story flying around the internet in recent days that the Obama administration intends to purge Republicans from the bureaucracy by using a new federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) rule requiring that all applicants for career civil service jobs who held political jobs "within the past five years" be approved by OPM. The assertion is that “past five years” can only refer to Bush appointees, and that OPM’s memo authorizes the agency to ferret out Republican civil service hires and find some bureaucratic pretext to kick them out.

A close reading of the OPM memo and statements by Elaine Kaplan, OPM General Counsel, provide reassurance that, however the Obama administration plans to handle Republicans working in the bureaucracy, this OPM rule is not intended to affect them.

OPM has long had the authority to evaluate political appointees' fitness for career civil service jobs, and as the memo pointed out, currently vets certain political appointees seeking career service during presidential election years only. The memo explains their intention to extend this vetting procedure in the future to all new applicants having held political appointments within five years from the time of their application.

This idea did not originate with the Obama administration. According to General Counsel Kaplan, discussions about this proposal were the result of longstanding criticisms from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Senior Executive Association and others, about how political appointees often avoid the competitive employment process, thereby denying the position in question to possibly better qualified applicants. The proposal was developed by the Center for Merit Systems Accountability, an office within OPM that has studied and advised on such issues since OPM was created.

The controversy appears to have come originally from Instapundit, was picked up by Redstate, and Rush Limbaugh commented on it, identifying Redstate and Instapundit as the source. Media Matters for America, the widely recognized Soros-funded shill for all things Democrat, pounced on Rush immediately for "falsely hyping" OPM's power to fire political appointees.

The memo states:

Beginning January 1, 2010, agencies must seek prior approval from OPM before they can appoint a current or recent political appointee to a competitive or non-political excepted service position at any level under the provisions of title 5 United States Code. OPM will review these proposed appointments to ensure they comply with merit system principles and applicable civil service laws.

The confusion stems from the requirement that this rule cover:

The appointment of a current political Schedule A or Schedule C Executive Branch employee who held the position within the last five years to a competitive or non-political excepted service position...(Emphsasis added)

OPM stressed that this rule does not apply to current employees who have already been accepted into the civil service. It will only affect new hires going forward from January 1st. So OPM will not be going back and examining the credentials of current civil service employees who were at one time political appointees. This seems clear from the memo.

However, a question remains. What happens if a current civil service employee who was political within the past five years applies for a new job within the civilian service?

For example, if someone had been a political appointee under George W. Bush, and had switched to a career federal job, say three years ago, what would happen if he/she applied for a new position within the bureaucracy, e.g. moving from a field managerial position to a higher level position in headquarters, or to a completely different position in another agency? Would these new rules then apply, or would the person be treated as any other employee with in the civil service and simply evaluated by the hiring agency on his/her merits?

The memo is silent on this question, and as written could be interpreted to include such people. In any event it is certainly easy to envision the hyper-political Obama administration interpreting it this way. All the memo says is that anyone seeking civil service employment who held a political appointment within the past five years must receive OPM approval.

This was the concern Rush had - a legitimate question completely overlooked by the hyperventilators at Media Matters. In fact, according to OPM the same concern was raised by a federal agency.

The Center for Merit Systems Accountability, which developed the rule in the first place, responded directly to this question:

The policy announced last week simply does not apply to a former political appointee who was hired for a career federal job and applies for a different federal job at the same or another agency. For example, a Bush appointee from 2005 who was hired by HHS as a GS-14 career federal employee in 2007 can apply for another federal job at the VA and the VA’s selection of that person will NOT be reviewed by OPM under the new policy.

As is commonly done, OPM is going to be sending out a “Q and A” to Federal agencies that will address this and other related implementation issues that were not spelled out in detail in the Director’s memorandum. The Q & A will go out in December, before the January 1 start date for the new policy.

Kaplan stated flatly, "If a current career Federal employee applies for a new career Federal job in the same or another agency, we would not review the matter even if that person was a political appointee within the past five years..."

So while Rush raised a legitimate concern, OPM has provided reassurances that the memo simply lacked clarification on that point.

Meanwhile, in addition to their ad hominem attack and hyperbolic language, Media Matters cursory read of the memo misinterpreted its purpose too. The rule was not created to prevent politicals from “burrowing in” to the bureaucracy, as Media Matters asserts. It was created to make all applicants subject to the same standards. Nonetheless, they were correct in concluding that Republicans weren’t targeted. Who would have thought? Apparently even a blind pig ...

This administration has plenty wrong with it and is rapidly moving to expand its power and influence in an unprecedented fashion. It is critical however, to separate fact from fancy, and not immediately see evil with every initiative coming out of the federal government. The OPM memo addresses a longstanding problem within government and represents a reasonable approach to resolving it.

This article appeared originally in American Thinker.

Businessman and Examiner.com columnist Jim Simpson is a former White House staff economist and budget analyst. His writings have been published in American Thinker, Washington Times, Worldnet Daily, FrontPage Magazine, DefenseWatch, Truth and Consequences.Soldier of Fortune and others. You may read more of his articles on his blog,

Nidal Hasan, the Muslim U.S. Army Major accused of the mass killings at Fort Hood, is listed as participant in the George Washington Universit

Nidal Hasan, the Muslim U.S. Army Major accused of the mass killings at Fort Hood, is listed as participant in the George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute's (HSPI) Presidential Transition Task Force Report. While this is not entirely surprising, given Hasan's former position in the Army, it raises significant questions about White House reluctance to release relevant records allegedly in its possession.

The HSPI is not a governmental organization, and was not directly tied to the Obama administration's transition team. Rather, in its own words, it is a "nonpartisan 'think and do' tank whose mission is to build bridges between theory and practice to advance homeland security through an interdisciplinary approach..." HSPI has already issued a statement on Hasan's participation in the task force as follows:

Read more...

Gay Pro-Hillary Blog Outs Bush's Trip to Ft. Hood

Bet you didn't know George W. and Laura Bush paid a secret visit to the wounded and aggrieved families at Fort Hood, did you? They did. The day after it happened. And stayed for hours.

Fox News reported this briefly. AP covered it with this cursory report:

The Bushes made their private visit to Fort Hood's Darnall Army Medical Center on Friday night. Bush spokesman David Sherzer said in an e-mail that the couple thanked Fort Hood's military leaders and hospital staff for the "amazing care they are providing."

No one else did... almost no one. Hillbuzz, a Chicago-based gay political site set up last year to support the presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton, wrote a "Thank You" to former President George W. Bush and his wife for their visit to the troops. It is inspiring - the kind of thing we should see much more often, frankly. I recommend you read it. Unlike the contempt and dismissive hatred from the leftist sages of the hypocritical Fourth Estate.

It was all the more amazing considering the legacy of this group. For example, they went to Tallahassee, Florida in 2000:

...screaming and yelling like crazy people, demanding justice and fairness and the unalienable right for all votes to count... Oh, how we RAILED against Bush in 2000...

And spouted all the routine Leftist tripe throughout his presidency:

...how we RAILED against the surge in support Bush received post-9/11 when he went to Ground Zero and stood there with his bullhorn in the ruins on that hideous day...

We were convinced that ANYONE who was president would have done what Bush did, and would have set that right tone of leadership in the wake of that disaster. President Gore, President Perot, President Nader, you name it. ANYONE, we assumed, would have filled that role perfectly...

There was a spell when we refused to even refer to Bush as the president, instead calling him “Dracula”...

But these guys had their moment of truth:

The VJs at Sidetrack [their gay bar hangout] whipped up compilation tapes of Bush tripping on stairs, flubbing lines in his speeches, dropping things, taking a wrong turn and trying to open a locked door, etc. All the things that any one of us does in the course of a week, or a day, but are mercifully never recorded doing ... And the nastiness and hate that welled up in the crowd and lasered in on Bush was palpable and frightening, if not particularly shocking, considering where we were...

It was ugly, in a world where not a frosted-tipped hair’s ever out of place and awning over youth and beauty is the order of the day; it was cruel and clumsy here sensitivity and nuanced expression are normally prized; it was unbridled and irrational hellfire...

Hello pot? This is kettle, welcome to fabulous — and to the Jekyl meets Hyde cocktail of Bush hate and showtunes at Sidetrack on a Monday in Boystown, where we very much realized we didn’t know where we belong anymore.

Because, as the Bush Administration ends, so too ends our days of believing Democrats are always good, Republicans are always evil, and gay men have a monopoly (or even firm handle) on what’s witty and clever...

One of the reasons it’s been so hard to put together our thoughts on Bush as he leaves office is because, honestly, we feel badly about the way we’ve treated him, about the things we’ve said about him, all these years.

Because George W. Bush is a decent man with a servant’s heart who did the best damn job he could. He kept us safe for seven years. He stood up to the bullies and terrorists and scoundrels of the world and said with Texas gumption and flare that America under his watch would kowtow to NO ONE.

Wow!

And, after Clinton suspended her presidential bid in June, we all found ourselves in uncharted territory because we never believed Obama would be a good president, we still don’t trust him, and decided to support a Republican for the first time in our lives. If we thought the hatred and nastiness aimed at us during the primaries when we supported Hillary over Obama was bad, we certainly didn’t know what we were getting ourselves into when we backed McCain/Palin.

But, in a strange and sick way, all the hate flung at us by the Obama trolls just emboldened us more. Everyone who told us to shut up just made us want to write and post more. It was hard to be a Democrat supporting a Republican. We alienated a lot of lifelong partisan friends, and struggled to break free of that partisan thinking ourselves. It was tough, but we knew in our heart what we were doing was right. We believed in McCain/Palin, and saw them as the next best ticket for America, after Clinton was out of the race.

And so we worked as hard for them as we did for Hillary Clinton — and in the process, we acquired a new respect for and understanding of Republicans we never had before. Never again will we walk through life with partisan blinders on. Never again will we call Republicans ugly names or automatically hate people just because they have an (R) after their name. Never again will we sit back while good, qualified, hard-working female candidates of either party are ripped apart by the media (in the form of vile pigs like Russert, Olbermann, or Matthews).

Vile pigs... and coming from some of their own! Ouch. Ironically, their tribute to outgoing President George W. Bush quoted above is one of the most moving, maybe the most moving tribute I have ever read to the man. I don't agree with everything said, but that is to be expected.

To support Hillary requires a belief in leftist ideals, and it is almost seen as a duty by gays to sign onto that agenda and all the venom and personal attacks that go with it. But I suspect that Hillbuzz's days as liberals are numbered. It appears this epiphany helped these people discover that -- like most of us who have seen through the left's misinformed ideology and intimidation tactics -- perhaps they weren't so liberal after all.

Read their FAQS. Great answers you won't hear from most liberals, like:

Q: How can you support both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin at the same time?

A: And we say back, how can you have two favorite teachers in different subjects…or like two different football teams…or drink Coke and Pepsi? Last time we checked, this is still America, and it does not have to always be an Us v. Them world, no matter what the MSM and Liberals try to convince you.

By their own admission, these people remain "lifelong democrats." But their willingness to see through their own dogmatic partisanship and proudly recognize some of the good things George W. Bush did as president marks them as rare liberals indeed - both intellectually principled and courageous.

Keep speaking truth to power, Hillbuzz.


Bush and firefighter Bob Beckwith (AP Photo by Doug Mills)

Lou Dobbs Calls it Quits

CNN newsman Lou Dobbs, an increasingly strident voice against the epidemic of illegal immigration had his last show on CNN last night. Although this has apparently been in the works for a while, he tendered his resignation suddenly, only telling his staff that afternoon. Watch his excellent resignation announcement here.

MSNBC, quoted Jonathan Klein, the president of CNN/U.S. as saying “Lou has now decided to carry the banner of advocacy journalism elsewhere.” That's funny. CNN never heard of "advocacy journalism" before? What is it that they do?

Dobbs added that he wanted:

to contribute positively to the understanding of the great issues of our day ... in the most honest and direct language possible.

Good!

Dobbs listed all the issues he thought critical to our time, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy, illegal immigration, and so forth. But more importantly:

...each of those issues is in my opinion informed by our capacity to demonstrate strong resilience of our now weakened capitalist economy and demonstrate the political will to overcome the lack of true representation in Washington DC. I believe these to be profoundly critically important issues…And as for the important work of restoring inspiration to our great free society and our market economy, I will strive as well to be a leader in that national conversation...

So Lou recognizes the broader picture that our entire country, our government, our very way of life, is threatened. As go those bedrock issues, so goes everything else. With the exception of the radio talk show hosts we know and love, practically no one in this country, certainly few among the political class, are doing much of anything to defend the concepts of freedom and free market which were the foundation of our greatness and our wealth.

According to the AP Dobbs said some leaders in media, politics and business "have been urging me to go beyond my role here at CNN and to engage in constructive problem-solving." If such options include running for the U.S. House of Representatives, or even better, the Senate, he will find enthusiastic support here. That tepid body is screaming for someone willing to lead on the critical issues of our day. Let's pray the GOP doesn't miss an opportunity to encourage him.

Not surprisingly, at Dobbs' announcement, all the illegal immigration advocates were out in force declaring victory. The home page of one particular site, Bastadobbs.com, shouted: "We did it!" Go to their "Who We Are" page to see all the radical affiliated sites. The only ones I didn't see up there were National Council of La Raza (NCLR), MALDEF and MEChA.

But that doesn't mean they weren't active in opposing Dobbs. On their website NCLR proudly proclaims participation in a boycott against Dobbs' CNN advertizers.

The National Council of La Raza is one of the most radical illegal immigration proponents out there. In a fashion very similar to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), they disguise underhanded Alinsky tactics with slick PR, which has managed to co-opt some gullible -- or maybe just self-serving -- GOP Senators (like Lindsay Graham and John McCain) into supporting their agenda.

They ardently claim for example, to only be interested in legal immigration. But they were a very big partner with George Soros, ACORN, MALDEF and MEChA in the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, who together lobbied hard for the Amnesty bill that fortunately went down in flames two years ago.

A 2007 article in Truth & Consequences exposed the radical nature of this organization. For example, regarding California's Proposition 187 barring illegal immigration, former NLCR President Raul Yzaguirre called supporters "bigots and xenophobes." He dismissed Republican efforts to court the Hispanic vote by saying "a knife in the back is deadly even if it's delivered with a smile." This despite the fact that NCLR gets annual appropriations from the federal government to assist them in their activities and enjoys bi-partisan support. So much for moderation and honesty, or gratitude for that matter.

NCLR can further be considered a player in the Crisis Strategy promoted by ACORN, Soros, and our wonderful President. This aspect of the group was described in a 2007 article that appeared in American Thinker.

Hate Speech is OK if You're a Democrat

MALDEF, The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, has a whole page of videos and articles attacking Dobbs and challenging his assertions. MALDEF also supported the horrendous Hate Crimes Legislation, that unfortunately was just signed into law, in addition to being at the forefront of defending illegal immigrants.

But ad hominem attacks are par for the course in the rare instances public figures stand on principle these days. In Dobbs' case that included an actual attack, in the form of gunshots fired at his house following a deluge of threatening phone calls.

Domestic terrorists? Janet Napolitano, where are you? Oh, that's right, it's not terrorism when the Left issues threats and fires shots at offending conservatives - a regular feature of the past few election cycles by the way. It is only terrorism when grandmothers parade in front of the Capitol, demanding the Congress act responsibly.

In a way it is discouraging that Dobbs is leaving CNN, for he represented a reed of hope that CNN might retain a shred of integrity in its reporting. More likely they made the working atmosphere too unpleasant for him to continue. Such is the way of the open-minded liberal.

Dobbs spent thirty years at CNN. Let's hope this move helps him to become a more effective agent of influence for America. There are too many agents of influence in this country that want to see America fail. Our President is one of them. Tough roads ahead.

Godspeed, Lou Dobbs.

Lou Dobbs Photo: AP File

FASCISM poster HT: Anti-Idiotarian Rotweiller