District of Columbia

Change is happening

Flag this messageChange is happeningTuesday, April 28, 2009 8:38 AM
From: "David Plouffe, BarackObama.com" Add sender to ContactsTo: "engr.dr.samuel.adeniyi. ajanaku"
engr.dr.samuel.adeniyi. --

Tomorrow will mark the President's hundredth day in office. A lot of attention will be given to this largely symbolic day, and the truth is that what we do every day after it will be just as important -- if not more. But our accomplishments in this time have been remarkable, and they're having real effects on people and communities throughout the country.

You built the movement that made this possible, and it's up to you to show Americans that real change can happen when ordinary citizens work together.

Explore this interactive map to learn about the progress we've made in the last 100 days and the stories of real Americans whose lives have already been touched. Then spread the word by passing it along to your friends and family.

With the country in crisis, the President took office and acted quickly to restore confidence and stability to our economy. But just as important were the steps we've taken toward building a new foundation for our prosperity, so that we never go back to the system that led us to crisis in the first place.

In just one hundred days, we've made crucial investments to create jobs and improve education, energy, and health care. All of this is a down payment for a new economic vision -- one where skilled workers fuel our economy rather than debt and speculation; one where American leadership on clean energy fuels 21st century innovation; and one where families and businesses are no longer weighed down by crushing health care costs.

Delivering on the promise of change is the reason we built this movement. Now, President Obama is counting on all of us to build support for this foundation and create a lasting recovery for America.

Take a look now at these critical first steps we've taken together and pass it on for others to see:


This new direction would not have been possible without you. But our biggest tests are yet to come, and the future is ours to shape. Let's seize this moment together so history will show that, at this defining crossroads, a generation of Americans put their country on the path to long-term security and prosperity.

Thank you,

David Plouffe

Paid for by Organizing for America, a project of the Democratic National Committee -- 430 South Capitol Street SE, Washington, D.C. 20003. This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
This email was sent to: ajanakusamuel@yahoo.com

To unsubscribe, go to: http://my.barackobama.com/unsubscribe

Another Purported 'Conservative' Goes on Attack... on OTHER Conservatives

Apparently Ross Douthat's buddy Reihan Salam doesn't like former VP Dick Cheney. Salam's recent TheDailyBeast.com column calls Cheney "America's surliest pundit," and moans that the ex-vp hasn't "graciously kept his mouth shut" in retirement like Bush has. Like many of these circular firing squad leaders (think Douthat, Kathleen Parker, the McCain clan or David Frum) Salam is far more interested in shooting at folks on his own side than in trying to move ahead for the future of the conservative movement. It's obviously some sick bid to be "liked" by the Old Media establishment.

Salam charges that Cheney is too busy "mugging for the camera" and attacking Obama with his "macho snarl" to see that he should just go away. Blah, blah, blah, and such and so forth. In truth, Salam offers nothing worth debating and nearly everything he says in this screed is simply erroneous, so I won't bother with his self-hating blather against Cheney whose information is a must hear for any conservative looking to see where Obama is going wrong on homeland security and foreign policy.

But, the one issue that moves me to discuss Salam's carping is simply this: why should a former president or vice-president go off into the night never to talk in public again? Even more to the point, how often has it happened, anyway?

First of all let's dispense with Salam's idiotic contention that former vice presidents necessarily just fade away to the quite dignity of retirement. Of course, many VPs have subsequently gone on to run for president, so their keeping their mouths shut about policy past and present was simply not an option. But, we don't even have to wade through hundreds of years of history to look for outspoken VPs. We have one of recent vintage, the one just prior to Cheney, that has been taking global warming creating private jets all across the world to denounce those that took office after him. Everyone's favorite global warming snake-oil salesman, Al Core, has never shut his mouth from the second he steeped down. In fact, at an appearance in Tennessee in 2004 Gore unleashed one of his most famous tirades of all by screaming at the top of his lungs, "He betrayed this country, he played on our fears!!" (Click here for that hard to find audio)

Gore was and continues to be seen working up a faux lather in loud denouncements of Bush and Cheney. So I am wondering why Salam didn't seem to remember this wild-eyed version of "gracious silence" perpetrated by Al Gore when he was excoriating Cheney for his post-office punditry?

Secondly, this supposed ungraciousness on the part of Cheney is an outright untruth. Cheney has not once been seen bellowing like a gored oxen at campaign rallies. He has not been waving his arms like a lunatic spewing hot air like some former vps we could mention (and just did). In reality, he has been engaged in calm, serious and logical discussions of policy. Cheney has been the very model of dignity and seriousness. Yet, here is Salam, slamming Cheney as if he has somehow been untoward while giving an unhinged nut like Gore a complete pass.

So, why is Salam attacking Cheney? What possible reason would a conservative have to attack Cheney instead of Obama?

We all know the answer to that, of course. Likely his goal is to spur CNN to invite him on TV instead of to advance the conservative cause. Like his fellows on the mushy, moderate side, our cause is secondary to his hoped for TV career. After all, just look at the venue in which Salam chose to attack Cheney. Does this guy think TheDailyBeast.com is the place to help conservatives rebuild? Of course it isn't. Salam's choice of this venue to attack what is supposed to be folks on his own side was chosen specifically to show off to the left that he could be the next Kathleen Parkeresque pundit. He wants lefties to know that he can be a self-immolator, too.

Well, Salam, old fellow, mission accomplished. I am sure that CNN's bookers are rushing to their PDAs to note your name for the next time they need a conservative that is more interested in slamming his own than those on the other side. I'm sure congratulatory fruit baskets from The New York Times and MSNBC are winding their way to your door as we speak. Hooray for you.

But please don't imagine you have any legitimate criticism of Dick Cheney. Your delusional self-aggrandizement does not equate to salient analysis.

(Al Gore audio file link fixed.)

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Just a Tiny Example of Government Waste

On April 22, the Associated Press published a short report about the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has decided to stop paying for employee subscriptions to newspapers and magazines "to save money."

Upon reading this, some may initially shake their heads in hearty agreement and congratulate Obama's DHS for trying to save money. I, on the other hand, see this as a perfect example of a typical waste of the taxpayer's money, though one finally rectified.

After all, what does this cancellation of subscriptions mean? It means government employees were getting FREE personal subscriptions to their favorite entertainment publications... well, free to themselves, anyway. We must realize that we the people have been saddled with the bill all along for who knows how many thousands of magazine and newspaper subscriptions for who knows how many years?

No one pays for any of my subscriptions but me. Why should I have to pay for the entertainment of some government perfunctory? If government placemen, jobbers, and seatfillers want subscriptions to their favorite newspaper or magazine, why shouldn't they pay for the thing themselves? Why should these greedy public employees expect the taxpayers to pay for their luxuries? They already get better retirement plans and health benefits than anyone in the private sector. Are we expected to pay these people's entertainment costs, too?

If the government wants to really save money, how about eliminating useless employees right along with those unnecessary, expensive, and over-indulgent subscriptions.

So, if DHS expects a pat on the back for saving money, I say they need a kick in the rear for paying for those subscriptions in the first place!

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

LATimes: Obama's New Muslim Appointment is Hope... for Egyptians?

Does Obama's Latest Appointee Support the Jihadist Muslim Brotherhood?

I will begin this right at the top by saying that I don't care a whit if the appointment of any American official brings hope to Egyptians. After all, an American official should be concerned with America's interests not Egypt's. Not that I am saying that American officials or appointments should necessarily have as a chief criteria for appointment an interest in the denigration of any foreign land, but that what's good for America should be any new official's chief concern.

However, apparently the L.A. Times thinks that it is germane to U.S. interests that Egyptians are "rejoicing" that President Obama has appointed a female American Muslim to his administration. In, "Muslim woman's appointment as Obama advisor draws cautious optimism" from April 22, Noha El-Hennawy is reporting from Cairo that Egyptians are happy with Obama's purported outreach to Muslims.

Obama has appointed Dalia Mogahed to his Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Mogahed is a senior analyst and executive director for the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. She is hailed by the left-wing media as a "moderate" voice on relations between the U.S. and Islam.

The Times quotes Mogahed's views on the change that she wants to see in U.S./Muslim relations:

"My work focuses on studying Muslims, the way they think and their views," Mogahed was quoted as saying on the website of the Saudi-owned Al Arabiya satellite news channel. "Then I should tell the president about their problems and needs, especially that lately Muslims have been perceived as a source of problems and as incapable of taking part in solving international problems and that they should work on themselves. Now we want to say that Muslims are capable of providing solutions."

Unfortunately, this is all meaningless rhetoric because no such "solutions" have been forthcoming from any corner of Islam despite Mogahed's airy claims that they are.

But, there is reason to understand why Arabs might look upon Mogahed's appointment as a boon to their cause. Mogahed is part of an organization that is a supporter of engagement with the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, a group whose stated purpose is to destroy the west. The Muslim Brotherhood sees its mission as, "a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

As Jihadwatch reports:

Mogahed, along with John Esposito, cooked the results of a Gallup survey of Muslims to increase the number of "moderates."

Mogahed was also a member of U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project, which called for engagement with Muslim Brotherhood.

No wonder Muslims are excited over the appointment.

But, even with her obvious sympathies with foreign causes, some Muslims are saying it isn't good enough.

"I wish your loyalty was to your Islam first, Egypt second and your Arabism third and then to anything else," wrote a reader identifying himself as the Tiger of Arabs. "I am afraid that they might make a fool out of you and use you as a cover for policies that don't serve Egypt and the Arab and Muslim world."

If this isn't proof that there are no helpful "solutions" from the Muslim world, what is?

What this appointment shows is that Obama's appeasement to this nation's enemies goes on unabated. This appointment also seems to fit in with a long record of appointments Obama has made of people with radical, anti-American ties.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Is Obama Warming to Colombia Free Trade?

Congressional Quarterly has a short piece on team Obama's sudden revisiting of three free trade agreements that have been languishing in Congress for quite some time, all three efforts that the Bush Administration began but was unable to settle.

One is a trade agreement with South Korea, the second is a Panama trade agreement and the third the Colombia Free Trade pact. It is the later that I find the most interesting and the most hopeful.

I find it interesting because the Democrats have been adamantly against this agreement with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe for several years now. The Democrats base their claim against supporting the agreement upon the long, bleak history of government violence against union organizers there.

For decades union organizers in Colombia have been assassinated by shadowy government kill squads and anti-union activists. Unions in the United States have used this as a basis to claim that Colombia is not a legitimate member of the international community and is not worthy of our trust by cementing a trade agreement with her. In 2008, John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO gave the union line against Colombia that is echoed by the Democratic Party.

"In Colombia, joining a union or advocating for workers' rights can be a de facto death sentence," he said. "The human-rights atrocities against union activists and supporters are not isolated, rogue events; they are committed largely by the armed forces and paramilitary organizations with ties to elected officials close to President [Alvaro] Uribe."

As I wrote in May of 2008, Sweeney's stance is easy to agree with if Colombia had never made an effort to change its ways. But, what makes Sweeney's position incorrect is that Colombia has come a long, long way towards cleaning up its criminal history.

Writing for the New York Post in April of 2008, Michael Fumento effectively demolished the union stance against Colombia.

Yes, Colombia has a high murder rate. With much of the country still in the control of vicious leftist narco-terrorists (supported by Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez), you’d expect a high murder rate among any one group - from union members to midgets. That said, last year’s 17,198 homicides (among 45 million people) was a drop of 40 percent from the 28,837 in 2002.

Deaths among Colombia’s union members plummeted even farther - from a high of 275 in 1996 to only 39 last year. That’s a drop of 86 percent in a decade.

And that’s 39 killings (a figure the AFL-CIO itself cited last month) out of about 800,000 union workers - or about five murders per 100,000 union members. How does that constitute “a de facto death sentence” - when the murder rate for the population as a whole is about eight times higher?

As I said then, why are we still punishing Colombia for a vast improvement over the horrid conditions that sparked our ire on human rights in the 1990s? Should we not reward Colombia's efforts?

On top of that, we have for decades looked away as China maintains its status as the worst human rights violator in history, we've never said a word as China continues without apology or improvement for its murderous oppression of its own citizenry, yet we continue to punish a nation that truly has worked hard to improve its own troubles?

Naturally, the real reason that the unions here in the U.S. are against free trade pacts with anyone is because it cuts into their cushy existence. Unions hate trade pacts and are inherent protectionists. This is really the only reason the Democrats have opposed the Colombia agreement. Unions control the Democrats and the unions are against trade. Its really quite that simple.

Yet, I am hopeful about this because the Obama administration is making noise about restarting this agreement with Colombia (and Panama and So. Korea). These are good moves if pursued to an equitable agreement.

We desperately need to support our friends in Central and South America and Uribe is a worthy friend to cultivate.

If Obama gets this done, I for one will applaud his efforts. Let us hope that this is not just another cynical show of lipservice like so much of what Obama has done thus far in the White House.

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

7 Senate Republicans Reply to DHS 'Rightwing Extremists' Scaremongering

Seven Republican Senators have this week signed a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano asking for the proof upon which the Department of Homeland Security based its outrageously accusatory report on so-called rightwing extremism in the Untied States.

The seven scold the DHS and the Obama administration for its over-broad generalizations that seem to assume that nearly half the electorate is prone to becoming terrorists merely because they hold right of center political views.

The letter alludes to the central point in this whole episode: that the U.S. government has now determined that the traditional American beliefs of small government and adherence to the Constitution is now suddenly a determinant in forming citizens into homegrown terrorist groups. After 200 years, all of a sudden believing in run-of-the-mill American beliefs makes you a terrorist! These seven Senators want to know why.

Text of the Letter:

Dear Secretary Napolitano,

We write today regarding the release of the Department of homeland Security (DHS) report entitled "Rightwing Extremism Current Economic and Policial Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" and prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch of the Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division.

While we agree that extremists of all varieties represent a potential threat to the United States, we are troubled by some of the statements included as fact in the report titled above.

First, your report states that "rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat." Using the DHS rationale, do you also believe that weapons familiarity and tactical training means local, state, and federal law enforcement personnel, and members of the National Guard, are also being recruited? To suggest that a soldier returning from a combat tour is more prone to join an extremist group is unconscionable and insulting to our brave men and women who risk their lives protecting our freedom.

Second, the report states that the millions of Americans who believe in the Second Amendment are a potential threat to our national security. Why? Do you have statistics to prove that the law-abiding Americans who purchase a legal product are being recruited by so-called hate groups? If so, please present us with DHS's independent data.

Third, the report identifies those individuals who believe in such issues as pro-life legislation, limited government, legal versus illegal immigration and limited federal government as potential terrorist threats. We can assure you that these beliefs are held by citizens of all races, party affiliations and sex, and should not be listed as a factor in determining potential terror threats. A better way to describe them is as citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.

Also, you listed those who bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India as being potential rightwing extremists. We would suggest that the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs in the manufacturing industry to foreign countries are no potential terror threats, but rather, honest Americans worried about feeding their families and earning a paycheck. Once again, to classify Americans who have lost their jobs as potential terror threats does a disservice to millions of Americans.

In closing, we support the mission of the DHS in protecting our country from terror attacks and are proud of the many DHS employees who make it possible, in conjunction with our state and local law enforcement. We ask that DHS not use this report as a basis to unfairly target millions of Americans because of their beliefs and the rights afforded to them in the Constitution, and that you provide us with the data that supports the claims listed in the report titled above.


David Vitter (R, Louis.)
Sam Brownback (R, Kansas)
Jim Demint (R, So Car.)
Tom Cobrun (R, Oklahoma)
Richard Burr (R, No. Car.)
Lisa Murkowski (R, Alaska)
James Inhofe (R, Oklahoma)

Let's hope that far more than a mere seven Congressmen find this "report" more than a little distasteful.

(A pdf file of the letter can be downloaded here)

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

On Tea Parties


Wednesday, 15 April 2009.

As Americans, it is our birthright to offer dissent. Our freedom to stand firm and question our government is what continues to make our nation exceptional. The fact I stand – without fear of reprisal - just outside the White House gates to participate in today’s protest is a testament to the power and blessings that we enjoy as Americans.

Our power is guaranteed in our Constitution, which announced to the world that this nation, and its people, which are exceptional – for it is “we the people” who possessed the power to form this “more perfect union.” It was our Founders who first brought about change. This change has been renewed by every American who exercises their power at the ballot box.

In November, our nation chose a new president from two major candidates who promised their own visions of change during these times of economic crisis. Like many Americans, and a majority of my home state, I made my choice for the Republican candidate. A majority of other Americans, including some people attending today’s tea parties, made a different choice.

I mention this because today’s action is not Republican or Democratic. It is not Red or Blue. It is not Conservative, Libertarian or Liberal. It is American. In fact, it is the most American thing any of us can do.

We must challenge our representatives to act on our behalf instead of acting on the behalf of special interests, lobbyists or labor bosses.

We must challenge them to articulate their ideas for fixing our economy and creating jobs.

We must challenge them by demanding details instead of rhetoric and rallies which belong on the campaign trail and not in the halls of government.

Regardless of your politics; regardless of whether you were opposed or supportive of the policies of the last administration; regardless of your opposition or support of the current administration, today is the day that we use our power, stand firm and say to this government: “Enough!”

We say “enough” to runaway spending, “enough” to increasing the deficit.

We say “enough” to increasing taxes, “enough” to policies which steal the future from our children and grandchildren in order to pay back your political allies.

We say “enough” to elected leaders from both parties who choose to be rubber stamps instead of advocates for their constituents.

We say “enough” to those who do not show leadership but instead blame their predecessors for their problems.

We say “enough” to shirking your duties as our elected representatives and ramming through legislation that no one has read.

In the media and on the Internet, there are many who have asked what the point of today’s action is; do we really think we can make a difference?

We can only look to the future for the answer to the latter question, for it is what we do in the days and months to follow – when we become active in our communities – which will determine the level of our success. To the former, we come together to in order engage our leaders and, with our combined power, enable them to once again claim, on our behalf, the mantle of leadership which they have vacated.

Today, we begin to hold this government accountable.

Today, we begin to cast off our common apathy and replace it with action.

Today, we begin to show our fellow Americans that it is acceptable to publicly voice their concerns and opposition to the policies of the current government without fear of the criticisms and accusations offered by the government and its supporters in the public and punditry.

In November, the nation chose “change.” Today, we say “enough.” And to those who choose not to listen to the words we speak today, I have this warning: when it comes time again to “change,” we will likely decide that we’ve had “enough” of you.

<strong>Crossposted at:</strong><strong><a href="http://ryanjames.us/?p=1198" target="_blank">K. Ryan James blog</a><a href="http://thenextright.com/kryanjames/on-tea-parties" target="_blank">The Next Right</a><a href="http://kryanjames.blogtownhall.com/2009/04/15/on_tea_parties.thtml" target="_blank">Townhall</a><a href="http://www.yrnetwork.com/blogs/1255/Kenneth-Ryan-James.aspx#article475" target="_blank">YR Network</a><a href="http://rebuildtheparty.ning.com/profiles/blogs/on-tea-parties" target="_blank">Rebuild the Party</a><a href="http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/profiles/blogs/on-tea-parties" target="_blank">Smart Girl Politics</a></strong>

Americans Support Conscience Protection: Is Anybody in Washington Listening?

New polling data released yesterday shows the majority of the American public supports a Bush Administration regulation protecting the conscience rights of health care providers, including doctors and nurses, who object to participating in controversial procedures such as abortion and sterilization.

The poll found overwhelming support for a patient’s right to seek care from a doctor who agrees with them on sensitive moral issues surrounding their health. But the apparent divide between Washington and the American people on this important issue couldn’t be greater. The Obama Administration wants to rescind federal regulations known as "conscience protections." Today is the final day to register a comment (click here to leave yours).

The poll, which surveyed 800 American adults of both political parties and independents (39% Democrats, 33% Republican, and 22% Independent), found 87% of Americans believe it is important to “make sure that health care professionals are not forced to participate in procedures and practices to which they have moral objections.” The results held true across the ideological and partisan lines, as 78% of Americans describing themselves as “pro-choice” supported health care provider conscience protections.

While the United States has a long tradition of protecting individual conscience rights stretching from the First Amendment to laws protecting conscientious objectors in time of war, Americans’ views on health care provider conscience rights are as much rooted in self-interest as they are in altruism towards doctors: 88% of Americans surveyed said it is important to them that they hold a similar set of morals as their doctors, nurses, and other health care providers.

Without strong protection of conscience rights for health care providers, Americans know their health care—both in access to and quality of care—will suffer, as faith-based doctors and other professionals leave the profession rather than be forced to violate their conscience.

Thorny issues of morality and ethics abound in health care, ranging from the beginning of life (abortion, in vitro fertilization, etc) to the end of life (physician-assisted suicide, advance directives, etc). Patients have a right to see a doctor of their choosing, without fear of government intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship. Patients and their families have the right to have tough conversations about, for example, life support for themselves or their loved one, with a medical professional that shares their beliefs surrounding end-of-life care. The farther government intrudes in these deeply personal issues by compelling doctors to violate their conscience, the more budgets and balance sheets will replace compassion and caring.

Failure to protect conscience rights for health care providers will have a direct, negative effect on patients’ ability to get the care they need. For example, Catholic hospitals alone make up about 20% of all hospitals in the country and serve over 5.5 million patients a year. If these institutions’ conscience rights are not protected, they could be forced to shut their doors or reduce services. Undoubtedly, poor and rural patients served by these institutions will suffer the most in such a scenario.

In spite of this, the Obama Administration and Congress seem intent on rolling back conscience protections in health care. After less than two months in office, the Obama Administration proposed to eliminate the conscience protection regulation. Last Friday, the Senate rejected an amendment that would have included conscience protections in President Obama’s $634 billion “down payment” for health care reform. The amendment, offered by Senator Tom Coburn, himself a doctor, would have prohibited government coercion of patients to enroll in specific health insurance plans or to see pre-selected health care providers. Given the chance, the Senate said “no” to giving patients freedom to choose a doctor that shares their beliefs on important moral and ethical issues.

While the American people strongly support conscience rights and freedom of choice in health care, Congress and the Obama Administration are moving rapidly in the opposite direction: toward increased government intrusion into Americans’ most private and personal health care decisions.

The public has until midnight tonight to let the Department of Health and Human Services know its support of conscience rights in the health care work place. Visit ADoctorsRight.com to register your comment with HHS today.

ACORN/NY Times/Obama Campaign Story: Some Details Not as Reported

My exclusive interview with ACORN whistleblower Anita Moncrief

On April 4 I wrote about the testimony of Heather Heidelbaugh who appeared before Congress to speak about the various shady, if not criminal, actions perpetrated by ACORN (the Association of Community Activists for Reform Now) and its Project Vote offshoot over the last few years -- and especially during the late campaign for the White House. There was vote fraud and financial misdealings galore and it was all perpetrated by a group intimately tied to presidential candidate Barack Obama. Not only that, but it seemed the Old Media was trying to cover it up.

That testimony has been the talk of the country since the end of March. But, as the story has progressed, some of the details that have been accepted as fact have turned out not to be true. It's high time some of these misconceptions be cleared up.

There are fallacies about this case both big and small knocking about the pundocracy. TV pundit Bill O'Reilly, for instance, recently wrote an Op Ed with the misinformation that ACORN whistleblower Anita Moncreif had testified before Congress. Moncrief, however, did not testify before Congress (her information had merely been read into the record by Heidelbaugh).

Additionally on his show "The O'Reilly Factor," O'Reilly played audio from New York Times reporter Stephanie Strom that made it seem as if the only reason that the Times scrubbed further ACORN stories was because of ACORN's connection with Barack Obama. In fact, the case is probably much more complicated than that, though the Obama angle is certainly a part of it all.

O'Reilly also got the facts wrong on the position that whistleblower Marcel Reid has with ACORN. Actually Reid is not just an "ACORN employee," but is current chair of the D.C. board of ACORN and remains so at least until the election on April 19th. Reid is one of the members of the group of ACORN executives attempting to look into the various criminal activities of some of ACORNs members.

This story is also seems to be a bit more involved than just Old Media bias angle that has been flogged up to now.

I had a conversation with ACORN whistleblower Anita Moncrief, one of the principal players in this drama, on Sunday, April 5, during which she expressed a desire to get some of these facts straightened out. Not only that, but the story she had to tell revealed a much deeper and complicated saga than the simple O'Reilly media bias narrative.

Mrs. Moncrief is a former ACORN employee out of the Washington D.C. office who was the Development Associate for Project Vote and ACORN political operations. After seeing the troubles spawned by ACORN, she became a whistleblower. She came to frustration with the progressive cause in which she still passionately believes after seeing up close and personal all the corruption in which ACORN (and the Service Employees International Union - SEIU) is mired.

One of my questions was about her, personally. Was she a shill for the right as some have accused her of being? Mrs. Moncrief answered definitively that she is still "the most liberal person in the world." Moncrief says she is a believer in gay rights and that when Nancy Pelosi was sworn in as the first female Speaker of the House, she "was crying" because "it was just that big" to her. Moncrief insists that she has never lost her hopes for progressive causes. She also says that she does not consider herself a tool of the right, "I think I'm just disillusioned with the left."

So, why was she speaking out against organizations with whose goals she agrees? It's about principle, she says. Mrs. Moncrief feels that if her side wins by cheating, then it is no win at all. So, she wants the true, albeit sordid, tale of ACORNs financial misdeeds and unprincipled machinations revealed for everyone to see. She wants correction, not destruction.

One of the things that Moncrief wanted cleared up right away was that she had no desire to attack New York Times writer Stephanie Strom. She considers Strom a friend and a victim in this tale. She told me, "it was never a contentious relationship. I'm not after Stephanie Strom." Moncrief further points out that Bill O'Reilly only played part of the tape on which Strom revealed that her Times bosses had killed any further ACORN stories.

On April 3, Moncrief played the entire message for writer Mike Gaynor and he posted the full transcript at that time.

"Here is the part that is missing. It was cut right after the 'stand down' part. I have been working to make sure that audio will be available soon. Thanks in advance for your time.

"'Ah, we're running a story tonight for tomorrow that, ah, pretty well lays out the partisanship problems that Project Vote may have, ah, based on a report that I got. So, ah, they think that going to do, — that's going to be the story about the partisanship issue, and so they want me to hold off on coming to Washington."

That story, by Ms. Strom, is titled "Acorn Report Raises Issues of Illegality" and was published on October 21, 2008.

In our interview, Moncrief explained further:

The article she is referring to was the last one she wrote on ACORN in which they report that ACORN's own lawyer Beth Kingsley released that Project Vote and ACORN were basically shared staff, the same things... so they couldn't tell whether the money that was being spent for the C3 was actually being used for C4 activities. And of course she mentioned that the Obama campaign denied all ties with ACORN. At the time she had the information, she had the donor list, she had the donor list since August and she had got evidence from myself and other whistleblowers that there had been a meeting that had taken place between the Obama camp and ACORN. None of that stuff was printed. But we actually have emails, the emails were given to the O'Reilly Factor but they weren't mentioned. But we have emails that start in July of '08 and go all the way up until November. Because even after Stephanie and I stopped communicating about ACORN we were still talking.

The ACORN/New York Times connection seems to run deeper than just a desire to help out the Obama campaign by killing further ACORN stories. Moncrief informed me of some rather cozy financial ties between the Times, the Forest City Ratner corporation and ACORN that she discovered from the inside.

I do feel that The New York Times was complicit in all of this. It wasn't just in killing the Obama story, they killed several stories in relation to ACORN. Including one where the Forest City Ratner owned by Bruce Ratner, the same people that own 48% of the Times' building, gave ACORN a 1.5 million dollar loan. This was interesting because that's news in New York City, there's been a lot of contention over the Atlantic Yards deal where they're bringing the Nets to Brooklyn?

Moncrief speculates that another reason that the Times suddenly ceased writing stories that might embarrass ACORN is that one of its leading investors and partners had suddenly become close associates financially with ACORN. This situation occurred because ACORN had done an about face on Ratner's sports deal and was rewareded by that generous "loan."

ACORN has also been known to be helping Forest City Ratner to get federal stimulus money since the $1.5 million kickback "loan" that Ratner gave to the community organizers. Sadly, at the same time Forest City Ratner was giving ACORN that princely sum, they were laying off workers claiming they were about to go bankrupt.

Even when the Times was publishing ACORN stories, Moncrief believes that they were written in such a way as to abjure the organization itself from any blame, pointing all fingers at the Rathke family -- ACORN's founders.

ACORN Chicago is also hip deep in this thickening mess. A few years ago it was discovered that ACORN leader Wade Rathke's brother had been stealing money from the organization. The Rathkes tried to cover up the embezzlement of perhaps as much as $5 million. A group of ACORN board members from around the country, later dubbed the "ACORN eight," banded together to begin court proceedings to try and find out what happened to all that money and who covered it all up and how it as done.

But the Chicago branch of ACORN saw an opportunity, says Moncrief. During the ensuing confusion inside ACORN, a coup of sorts was spearheaded by Madeline Talbot, Obama's ACORN mentor, a long-time ACORN boss in the Chicago offices.

In 2008, March 2008, she took over the Chicago office, locked ACORN out and changed it to an organization called Action Now which has the same address as the old Chicago ACORN. ACORN was able to get back their telephone number but that was about it. And that was her way of distancing herself from ACORN right before the scandal broke.

There's evidence that Chicago folks knew of Rathke's embezzlement, Moncrief told me. "They talked about it between SEIU, ACORN Housing and ACORN how best to handle it in the election year," she explained. "So, there was basically a coup, it was not an uncovering of an embezzlement. The embezzlement was known within private circles for years. I knew about it and they considered me to be a low-level employee as they liked to say."

Finally, Moncrief told me she is disgusted that there are so many connections between ACORN and the SEIU in Obama's administration. "It's an obvious payoff," she told me alluding to the fact that Obama included so many of them in his new administration.

So, it turns out that this is a tale of deep financial misdeeds, political machinations free of any principle, and incestuous relationships between government and these supposed community organizers. Unfortunately, it seems that many of these troubling connections are not being revealed to the public as this story is being reported.

Anita Moncrief finished our interview with a shake of her head. "So, it's a very interesting story and I think it's a little bit more complex than when people get involved with their different agendas it becomes 'New York Times controls Barack Story' or 'Obama is involved with this' and it's really much deeper than that."

Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!

Conservatives for Educational Reform: Paving the Way to a Righter Day!

Are you concerned about the current state of our education system? How about the next generation of graduating seniors? Or your own children or grandchildren? Me too!

 I'm a Conservative Christian 5th grade teacher, mother of 2, doctoral student (Effects of Parental Involvement on Academic Intrinsic Motivation of Students), and author who wants to see a major reform in our education system - a return to ethics, morality, integrity, and values based on the principles on which our country was founded. Please visit my website so your voice can help ours grow stronger. No matter whether you're a teacher, a student, a parent, or a concerned citizen, your experiences, knowledge, and advice can help us all in this concerted effort. Thank you for your time.

Conservatives for Educational Reform: Paving the Way to a Righter Day!

Too Blessed to be Stressed,



Syndicate content