Saturday, September 19, 2009


The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) bills itself as "the nation's largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people." Its mission is typical leftist activism -- anything from advocating for a higher minimum wage and the type of home loans that precipitated the housing crisis to ballot initiatives and voter registration. We know that ACORN has also submitted fraudulent voter registration forms filled out by "Mickey Mouse" and other fictional characters. But, hey, "get out the vote" knows no bounds. Also, Barack Obama worked alongside ACORN during his own "community organizing" days.

This week, news broke that the Census Bureau, which had planned to partner with ACORN in next year's census, severed all ties with the organization. Then the U.S. House and Senate each voted to deny the group access to further federal housing funds (though who knows what will happen in Conference Committee). Even the Obama White House "distanced" itself from this taxpayer-funded organization.

So why all the fuss? If inquiring minds read only The New York Times, they might be in the same blissfully ignorant boat as ABC News anchor Charlie Gibson, who, when asked about the ACORN scandal, claimed, "I don't even know about it."

The story began when two young conservative activists, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, posed as a pimp and a prostitute seeking advice on obtaining a loan for a home to use as a brothel, evading income tax on the young woman's income and claiming as dependents underage El Salvadoran girls they wanted to employ. In five different ACORN offices (Baltimore, DC, New York, and San Diego and San Bernardino, California), workers bit on the story, hooker, line and sinker, freely giving pointers without so much as batting an eye on how to get illegal loans and evade taxes. The videos are posted on Andrew Breitbart' None showed concern for the obvious implication of child abuse.

The Times, however, with the motto "All the News That's Fit to Print," didn't find anything fit to print until days later, and then only with the laughable headline, "Conservatives Draw Blood From Acorn." As Charlie Gibson condescended, "[M]aybe this is just one you leave to the cables."

The truly unfortunate thing is that ACORN has received more than $50 million in taxpayer dollars since 1994 and was set to receive $8.5 billion in "stimulus" cash. Most Democrats are feverishly turning off the funding spigot before this scandal drags their own political skeletons out of the closet. For the record, however, seven senators voted to continue funding this criminal enterprise, and, not surprisingly, they're all Democrats: Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Dick Durbin (IL), Roland Burris (IL), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Bob Casey Jr. (PA), Patrick Leahy (VT) and self-proclaimed socialist independent Bernie Sanders (VT). In addition, 75 (yes, seventy-five) House Democrats voted to continue throwing our money at the group. Space doesn't permit us to list the names of these disgraceful twits, but has them for all to see.

One of the ACORN workers did tell O'Keefe, "Honesty is not going to get you the house." Perhaps she meant "House" with a capital "H." In any case, O'Keefe and Giles deserve a medal.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Dear Geico, thanks for telling me what you think of your Conservative clients...


Mr. Tony Nicely Chairman, President & CEO, Insurance Operations E-mail: 301-986-2462

Chris Tasher, GEICO Media Relations 301-986-3271 E-mail:

Greetings Tony and Chris:

As a loyal GEICO customer of 11 years, I am writing to express my displeasure with corporate decisions made in regard to pulling GEICO ads from the Glenn Beck show on Fox News Channel. I’d like to make it known that I’ve been very happy with GEICO throughout the course of our relationship but, as a person of principle, I regret to inform you that I have chosen to take my business elsewhere. GEICO needs to understand that the conservative and moderate voices in this country far outweigh those on the left end of the political spectrum. The only recourse I have in emphasizing my displeasure with these decisions is to redirect my spending toward companies that truly respect diversity of opinion from all sides in this country.

I have done my homework on this issue and understand the following:

The political organization “Color of Change” is the impetus behind the movement to withdraw advertising from Mr. Beck’s show. One of the founding members of “Color of Change” is civil rights attorney Van Jones who, in March 2009, was appointed to a role in President Obama’s administration as the Special Advisor on Green Jobs, often described as the “green-jobs czar.” Van Jones is a convicted felon as a result of his arrest during the Rodney King riots and a self-proclaimed communist. In 2005, he stated, “I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary…I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.”

“Color of Change” co-founder James Rucker has been very clear about his stated goal – to literally silence Glenn Beck’s voice. The exact quote is, “anyone who uses such a platform to spew such vitriol, whether Glenn Beck or anyone else, has no place on the air, and we at Color Of Change could use every resource available to us to remove corporate sponsorship from their platform."

Considering these facts, I am inclined to believe that the efforts by “Color of Change” are a direct assault against conservative free speech in America. They apparently have a history of lobbying directly against conservative causes. In this past election cycle, they petitioned the Congressional Black Caucus to refrain from hosting a Democratic presidential debate co-sponsored by Fox claiming “it consistently marginalizes…black leaders and the black community.” It is clear they are biased against Fox News. At the same time the political left is demonizing town hall protesters, the organization remains silent regarding many similar injustices taking place at this very time. Left-leaning radio talk show hosts like Mike Malloy are saying abhorrent things about Glenn Beck (hoping he will commit suicide on live TV, etc.) and Rush Limbaugh (hoping he will choke on his own fat). I don’t see them lobbying against those advertising on these types of shows. In Rucker’s own words, “anyone who uses such a platform to spew such vitriol, whether Glenn Beck or anyone else, has no place on the air.” It is clear that this statement only applies to conservatives attacking their sacred cows. Just to emphasize my point, where was their righteous indignation when President Bush was being labeled a Nazi or a racist post-Hurricane Katrina? It is clear they are only interested in quelling conservative speech that is offensive to their sensibilities.

I appreciate the fact that you have not removed your advertising from Fox News as a whole. I understand that the advertising revenue has simply been diverted from the Glenn Beck show. But, from my perspective, this undermines the basic tenants of free speech. Granted, the comment Glenn Beck made was controversial and possibly unwise. But if you are withdrawing your ads from Glenn Beck, you should also be withdrawing ads from MSNBC altogether. That network is bereft with hate speech against conservatives. I will keep abreast of this situation and, at some point in the future if I read that GEICO has reconsidered their position on this matter, I will potentially reinstate my account.

Thanks for your time and attention to this note.


Wednesday, August 19, 2009


Oh stop it. Not one more word.

Stop trying to project your own racism upon us.

YOU, in fact, are the real racists.

Historically, your Party’s racism and atrocities are undeniable. Yours was the Party of Slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, and opposition to every piece of civil rights legislation the GOP tried to pass. The KKK is the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party . . . .YOUR Party.

But even today, your racism continues. Oh sure, you smile and say how much you support blacks and how many wonderful, “articulate” blacks you admire, but beneath that lie is a contempt you show with your every action.

It is YOUR boot on the throat of every person whom you’ve made into a government dependent.

The black family, once the equal in cohesion to the white family, is now rent asunder. Welfare rules you created and touted as humane for 40 years have driven black men and black women apart. Most black children now grow up without a dad in the home. The blood of the black family is on YOUR hands.

It is YOUR abortion mills that are bringing about a slow genocide of blacks in America.

Those are YOUR abortion mills, which are carrying on the work of YOUR hero, Margaret Sanger . . . the feminist, eugenicist, and nazi darling . . . you know, the one who wanted to make sure the word didn’t get out about her plan to “exterminate the negro.”

It is YOUR people who say that the drop in crime in the 90s was brought about by the abortion of what YOU called would-be criminal black babies.

It is you who think so little of black people that you constantly tell them, in word and in deed, that they are not able to compete on a level playing field. It is you who seek to drive this message home every chance you get. It is you who uses this lie to keep them on a plantation of government dependence and electoral vassalage.

All we want blacks to do is build familes, get rich, and participate in the building of a civil society . . . .just like what we want for everyone else. And you call US the racists?

Oh, and let’s go back in time, shall we?

The Republican Party fought—and its people died—to end Slavery.

Then, we fought and died to end segregation, and to bring voting and other civil rights to all the freed slaves.

Died? Yes, died. We died because YOU created the KKK to kill Republicans and blacks, and to take away the gains we were trying to make.

And you did a damn good job of it, too. You drove us out of the South.

We fought for civil rights for 100 years. You opposed our every effort.

You opposed our attempts to end segregation. You filibustered our civil rights bills. You even fought against us when we proposed anti-lynching legislation.

Your officials turned fire hoses on people marching for freedom. Your governors stood in the doorways of schools to prevent little black girls and boys from entering.

It was a REPUBLICAN president who had to send the National Guard — the National Guard! — just so that these children could go to school.

Civil Rights did not become possible because you started supporting it. Civil rights became possible because you stopped standing in the way of it.

More of our politicians supported Civil Rights legislation than yours did. Yours filibustered it (Al Gore Sr, uber racist)! It finally made it through because of the tireless efforts of the Republican minority leader.

Oh what, now you want to tell me that it was only the SOUTHERN Democrats who were the racists? Okay fine. Half of your party were slaveholding, segregationist, KKK-creating, Jim Crow upholding opposers of civil rights.

Gee, only half? You must be very proud.

Guess what, NONE of my party ever was. We didn’t stop fighting for civil rights until civil rights legislation was finally passed.

You wanna tell me that only half your party was bad? Fine. That half of your party controlled your attitude towards race from the foundations of this nation all the way up until the 1960s. That half of your party WAS the problem. Without them, we would have done away with segregation and poll taxes and lynchings 140 years ago.

Oh, and let’s look at the South. When Democrats controlled the South, it was a bastion of segregation. Now, Republicans control the South . . . and look! We didn’t bring back segregation and literacy tests for voting. It may not be perfect yet, but it’s not the segregated place you made it anymore.

You have the nerve to call me a racist? To call us racists? Why? Because I am a Republican? You have a lot of nerve. Or is it because I have white skin?

You’d better not be saying that, because that’s called blood guilt. That says that I’m guilty by nothing more than my biology. That idea was very popular in Germany in the 1930s, but I have to say, we don’t much appreciate it now.

Oh, and funny thing, that idea was also popular among YOUR ideological forebears for almost two centuries. Interesting that you’re pushing a similar notion here in 2009.

My ideological forebears fought and died to put an end to the injustices YOUR ideological forebears wrought. I am proud to follow in their tradition. I have NOTHING to be ashamed of.

For what your ideological forebears did . . . and for what you’re doing today . . . you might want to think about feeling a bit of shame yourself.

You are still capable of feeling shame, aren’t you?

Tuesday, August 18, 2009


That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual's use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;
That liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;
That the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;
That when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;
That the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;
That the genius of the Constitution - the division of powers - is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government;
That the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;
That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation, that when it takes from one to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;
That we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies
That the forces of Islamo-facism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;
That the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistence with this menace; and
That American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?