LorieByrd.com

I Wish More Americans Knew as Much About the Way the Economy Works as My Kid

If you caught Rush Limbaugh on Jay Leno tonight you know that Rush gave a great little lesson on capitalism.  I don't have the transcript, but Leno was talking about excessive corporate compensation for those who don't "deserve" it, Wall Street, the bailouts, etc.  It is amazing to me that so many have bought into the idea that someone who earned their money legally should not be entitled to keep it if they are not "deserving."  The very thought is chilling.  I mean who is going to decide who is deserving?  How much of their money should they have taken from them, in taxes, forced government mandates, etc.?  Instead of school children singing praises to Obama they should be learning some basics about how the government and the economy work.

Tonight driving my nine-year-old daughter to a school event, we passed a new community center that has not opened yet.  We started talking about whether or not it might have a pool, or a gym or what else might be hidden behind the cool modern glass facade.  My daughter asked if it would cost a lot to go to it.  I told her since it is a community center (it is adjacent to a city park) that it would most likely be free, like the park is. 

My daughter told me it was not free -- that if the city built it then we all paid for it with our tax money.  I asked her how she knew that and she said last year her third grade teacher explained to the class that their families all paid her through their taxes and that when the teacher paid her taxes she was even paying part of her own salary.  I am thankful that my child is learning something so fundamental and valuable in her public school.  I was especially impressed that she took that lesson and applied it to the community center we were talking about.  I just wish the same thing could be said for all the schools in the country.

UPDATE:  Watch Rush's full interview with Leno here.  He gave a really good little primer on capitalism and it was well received. The audience was fired up and sounded like they agreed with Rush on most things.

UPDATE II:  In my latest column at American Issues Project I discuss some reasons people don't seem to understand the American economy better -- including the misinformation and spin they get on a day to day basis from politicians and the news media.  Read the column at AIP.

Part of the entry above is crossposted at Wizbang.

Unbelievable Indoctrination of Children to the Cult of Obama

If before the election we had warned that our children in our schools would be required to learn songs in praise of Barack Hussein Obama, we would have been called paranoid lunatics. Well, it has happened more than once already, but this latest case of Obamadoctrination takes the cake. Just watch the video. The kids are not singing the praises of this great country, or even the President. They are singing the praises of "mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama."

Michelle Malkin has lots of details. Be sure to read her post with updates.

Update: Worse than the fact that these kids are being told to praise "Barack Hussein Obama" or that all the time on this could have been spent learning math or science or reading or even a decent song, is this one line:

"He said red, yellow, black or white. All are equal in his sight."

Anyone who says those of us critical of this Obama worship are overreacting, read that one line that was taught to schoolchildren. I learned a remarkably similar song when I was a child, but it was in "Sunday" school in church, not in my elementary school -- "Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight. Jesus loves the little children of the world."

This creeps me out beyond belief. If my kids were in this school they would not have stayed there ten minutes after I found out about this. I wonder how those on the left would have reacted had a similar song, except with George Bush as the idol of worship, been taught to their kids in school. Rewind a few weeks and tell me again how those on the right overreacted to the news that Dear Leader was going to be addressing the nation's schoolchildren directly.

Update II: Pierre Legrand thinks back to the school speech and writes about a test posted at Smart Girl Nation that was given in one school which suggests the original content of the President's speech, before the uproar, was very different from what he said in the speech he ended up giving.

Update III: Bookworm makes an excellent point that as bad as this is, at least it is out in the open. For too many years indoctrination has gone on in the public schools where it was not so apparent.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

If before the election we had warned that our children in our schools would be required to learn songs in praise of Barack Hussein Obama, we would have been called paranoid lunatics. Well, it has happened more than once already, but this latest case of Obamadoctrination takes the cake. Just watch the video. The kids are not singing the praises of this great country, or even the President. They are singing the praises of "mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama."

Michelle Malkin has lots of details. Be sure to read her post with updates.

Update: Worse than the fact that these kids are being told to praise "Barack Hussein Obama" or that all the time on this could have been spent learning math or science or reading or even a decent song, is this one line:

"He said red, yellow, black or white. All are equal in his sight."

Anyone who says those of us critical of this Obama worship are overreacting, read that one line that was taught to schoolchildren. I learned a remarkably similar song when I was a child, but it was in "Sunday" school in church, not in my elementary school -- "Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight. Jesus loves the little children of the world."

This creeps me out beyond belief. If my kids were in this school they would not have stayed there ten minutes after I found out about this. I wonder how those on the left would have reacted had a similar song, except with George Bush as the idol of worship, been taught to their kids in school. Rewind a few weeks and tell me again how those on the right overreacted to the news that Dear Leader was going to be addressing the nation's schoolchildren directly.

Update II: Pierre Legrand thinks back to the school speech and writes about a test posted at Smart Girl Nation that was given in one school which suggests the original content of the President's speech, before the uproar, was very different from what he said in the speech he ended up giving.

Update III: Bookworm makes an excellent point that as bad as this is, at least it is out in the open. For too many years indoctrination has gone on in the public schools where it was not so apparent.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

My New AIP Column: Deciphering the Economic News

The way the news media report issues relating to the economy greatly impacts the way people view the economic well being of the country.    That, in turn, influences their behavior.   If they see the economic situation as strong and sound, they are more likely to spend money on luxury items, take on additional debt, or even consider risking a career change.  If their impression of the economy is that it is struggling, or worse, they are less likely to take financial risk and may decide to save more of their money in case the economic bad news hits their household next.

For much of George W. Bush’s eight years in office there was a huge disconnect between what economic indicators showed and what the American public saw.   Some in the media report the numbers in a straightforward manner, but more often lately they spin them in accordance with their political biases.

Even when the unemployment numbers were good, many in the country believed, in spite of what they saw in their own lives and those of friends and family, that there must be many others out there struggling to find work.  The media spin on even very good jobs reports during that time was frequently negative.  When there was not a negative aspect to a specific report to be found, it could always be said calamity was surely just waiting around the corner.  

In 2005, Mithridate Ombud called it “yes, but” reporting, citing several examples from the New York Times.  All the good numbers (you know, the facts) were in the report, but they were tempered with heavy skepticism and an abundance of “buts” throughout the text.

Often throughout the Bush years, the news story itself would be positive, but a scary headline was attached to it.  Recently the reverse has been true.  It is amazing how even some of the most dreadful economic news can be spruced up with the help of a happy headline writer.

The blogger Anchoress proposed a rainy day game using the headlines and first sentences of economic reporting.  She wrote, “Simply pay attention to headlines and first lines of news stories about the economy (or the war, or anything!). It’s educational! Teach your children how to compare and contrast by studying how first lines can make economic news seem either positive or negative, for fun economic, polling and presidential impact!”

Those in the news media do not always provide an accurate picture of the American economy, but the spin politicians put on that news can be even more skewed.  When numbers such as unemployment figures, retail spending, and gross domestic product are released, many politicians spin them to best advance the policies they advocate. 

With all the ulterior motives and spin, it is often hard to get a good read on the nation’s true economic situation.  So what is the average person who has trouble deciphering all those numbers to do?  How will they know when we are truly experiencing recovery? 

If they look at their communities, they might not get an accurate picture.  Things are pretty bad all over, but in some areas of the country the recession has hit much harder than in others.  When recovery does come it will likely be uneven as well, taking place in some states much sooner than others and to different degrees.

So, if you can’t necessarily believe the media, or the politicians, or even your own eyes, what can you believe when it comes to information about the state of the economy?

Actually, you should listen to what the politicians are saying, and read what the media is reporting and pay attention to what is happening in the world around you in your community and beyond.  But do so with a critical eye and a healthy dose of skepticism. 

When listening to what the politicians have to say, take into account what they have at stake in the debate.  Be aware of where their loyalties lie and always independently confirm any information they provide. 

When reading, watching or listening to news reports, be sure to continue past the headline and first few sentences.  Pay attention to the facts being offered in the report, and try to ignore the editorial commentary.   

Observing firsthand what is taking place in your community, and with your family and friends, is in many ways the most important indicator of the state of the economy for you.  That is what is happening where you live and work so it most directly affects you.  Just be aware that things may be much different in other parts of the country.

Keep those tips in mind the next time you are reading about “green shoots” and whether or not we have dodged a double-dip recession.

 Originally posted at American Issues Project.

Tune in at Noon for Andrew Breitbart's Next Big Story

The blogosphere is abuzz with news of Andrew Breitbart's next big story set to break at noon today. For the best rundown, read all of Mike Flynn and John Nolte's "pre-game" report at BigGovernment.com. This story began at Big Hollywood with Patrick Courrielche's post about an NEA conference call back in August in which the artists on the call were encouraged to support many of President Obama's initiatives.

On Thursday August 6th, I was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts to attend a conference call scheduled for Monday August 10th hosted by the NEA, the White House Office of Public Engagement, and United We Serve. The call would include "a group of artists, producers, promoters, organizers, influencers, marketers, taste-makers, leaders or just plain cool people to join together and work together to promote a more civically engaged America and celebrate how the arts can be used for a positive change!"...

Backed by the full weight of President Barack Obama's call to service and the institutional weight of the NEA, the conference call was billed as an opportunity for those in the art community to inspire service in four key categories, and at the top of the list were "health care" and "energy and environment." The service was to be attached to the President's United We Serve campaign, a nationwide federal initiative to make service a way of life for all Americans.

It sounded, how should I phrase it...unusual, that the NEA would invite the art community to a meeting to discuss issues currently under vehement national debate. I decided to call in, and what I heard concerned me.

There is much more to the story than just that call though.

But, there is even a larger issue that hasn't yet received much attention in the press. Among the Obama Administration officials on the call were Buffy Wicks, Office of Public Engagement and the lead White House official on the President's Serve.Gov initiative to promote national service. Also on the call was Nell Abernathy, Director of Outreach for Serve.Gov. One of their main goals on the call, it seems, was to encourage artists to produce works that would reinforce the President's call for service; specifically through the Serve.Gov web-portal.

As Dana Loesch recently reported at Big Government, the Serve.Gov portal funnels citizens to volunteer or service projects connected with ACORN and other leftist groups. The taxpayer-funded website is evolving into a cyber-recruitment tool for the progressive movement.

So what did happen on that call? Was the NEA coordinating with the White House to push their agenda on a group of artists eager for and reliant upon the NEA for grants, or is the NEA telling the truth that this call "was not a means to promote any legislative agenda"?

Read the two posts linked above and for more background see the NEA entry at Media Mythbusters.

I agree with Patterico who this weekend wrote:

If I were a betting man, I'd be betting big that the upcoming bombshell will relate to the NEA. You read it here first.

But I think Breitbart's overarching target is even bigger than that: the national media as a whole. Just as the media was caught flatfooted by the ACORN scandal, so too will they be rocked back on their heels by the next bombshell.

If you follow all the links above and track the story as it has evolved, you will see that there was plenty of "there" there and there has been plenty of time for the national media to pick up on it. Yet most in the mainstream media ignored it. I don't think they are going to be able to ignore this one anymore. Tune in at noon.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

The blogosphere is abuzz with news of Andrew Breitbart's next big story set to break at noon today. For the best rundown, read all of Mike Flynn and John Nolte's "pre-game" report at BigGovernment.com. This story began at Big Hollywood with Patrick Courrielche's post about an NEA conference call back in August in which the artists on the call were encouraged to support many of President Obama's initiatives.

On Thursday August 6th, I was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts to attend a conference call scheduled for Monday August 10th hosted by the NEA, the White House Office of Public Engagement, and United We Serve. The call would include "a group of artists, producers, promoters, organizers, influencers, marketers, taste-makers, leaders or just plain cool people to join together and work together to promote a more civically engaged America and celebrate how the arts can be used for a positive change!"...

Backed by the full weight of President Barack Obama's call to service and the institutional weight of the NEA, the conference call was billed as an opportunity for those in the art community to inspire service in four key categories, and at the top of the list were "health care" and "energy and environment." The service was to be attached to the President's United We Serve campaign, a nationwide federal initiative to make service a way of life for all Americans.

It sounded, how should I phrase it...unusual, that the NEA would invite the art community to a meeting to discuss issues currently under vehement national debate. I decided to call in, and what I heard concerned me.

There is much more to the story than just that call though.

But, there is even a larger issue that hasn't yet received much attention in the press. Among the Obama Administration officials on the call were Buffy Wicks, Office of Public Engagement and the lead White House official on the President's Serve.Gov initiative to promote national service. Also on the call was Nell Abernathy, Director of Outreach for Serve.Gov. One of their main goals on the call, it seems, was to encourage artists to produce works that would reinforce the President's call for service; specifically through the Serve.Gov web-portal.

As Dana Loesch recently reported at Big Government, the Serve.Gov portal funnels citizens to volunteer or service projects connected with ACORN and other leftist groups. The taxpayer-funded website is evolving into a cyber-recruitment tool for the progressive movement.

So what did happen on that call? Was the NEA coordinating with the White House to push their agenda on a group of artists eager for and reliant upon the NEA for grants, or is the NEA telling the truth that this call "was not a means to promote any legislative agenda"?

Read the two posts linked above and for more background see the NEA entry at Media Mythbusters.

I agree with Patterico who this weekend wrote:

If I were a betting man, I'd be betting big that the upcoming bombshell will relate to the NEA. You read it here first.

But I think Breitbart's overarching target is even bigger than that: the national media as a whole. Just as the media was caught flatfooted by the ACORN scandal, so too will they be rocked back on their heels by the next bombshell.

If you follow all the links above and track the story as it has evolved, you will see that there was plenty of "there" there and there has been plenty of time for the national media to pick up on it. Yet most in the mainstream media ignored it. I don't think they are going to be able to ignore this one anymore. Tune in at noon.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

Another Distortion and Attempt to Defend ACORN by Attacking the Messenger

Geez, this one wasn't even thinly disguised. I don't know how often Media Matters does this kind of thing because I almost never read them, but I found a link to one of their posts at Digg and clicked on it because the title (Will Fox News hold Beck to its Dan Rather standard?) made me curious.

Here is the relevant part of the post by Jamison Foser:

Fox News' Glenn Beck recently aired a video indicating that an ACORN employee shot and killed her husband, without first bothering to verify whether the husband is, in fact, dead. He isn't. The video is, in other words, a fraud. But that didn't stop Beck from calling it evidence of "murder" and perhaps even "premeditated murder." Of a person who is still alive.

Sean Hannity aired it, too.

Here's a bunch of Fox News "reporters" who are outraged about the murder. Which didn't happen. Because the guy is still alive:

Got that? Beck was being deceptive because he said the guy was dead. And that the woman committed murder. Possibly premeditated murder! The problem is, I saw that segment of Beck and I remembered that after showing the video, Beck questioned whether or not the husband was even dead. Media Matters posted the video though, so I wondered if I had misunderstood what Beck had said. So I watched the following video posted by Foser at Media Matters: When I watched the video Media Matters ran I immediately knew what was up because they chopped Beck's commentary to bits and curiously left out the part of it that completely contradicts their claim. I looked for the Beck video at YouTube to make sure I was not misremembering his commentary and here is a transcript of what I found.

Glenn Beck: This is twisted, bizarre, macabre. I mean, is this theater? I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a jury. Um, but gosh even to me it seems like this is a potential admission of murder and the way she was describing doing some groundwork beforehand, you know so everyone in town knew exactly what was going on, a case might be made for premeditated murder. In fairness, I don't understand people who stay in abusive relationships. I don't. I get it. I get it. And maybe a jury might conclude that it was justifiable homicide. I don't know but we haven't been even able to confirm from the state of California whether Theresa's husband from ten years ago was killed. Or if he's dead. Or if she even had a husband. Did she make the story up? I don't know. Nobody is asking questions. See if the mainstream media will follow this one. This is shocking. It raises serious questions about what is going on inside of ACORN.

I italicized the portion of the commentary Media Matters provided to their readers in the mishmash video they put together. The parts they omitted are not italicized. I put in bold the part of Beck's comments that directly contradict Media Matters post. It is not like the comments were made in a different Beck show, or even in a different segment of Beck's show. They were part of the same paragraph if you look at the commentary in written transcript. And the pieces they chose to include in their video came from just before and right after the part where Beck questioned if the husband was dead. There is NO WAY that Media Matters could have seen Beck's commentary and not known he questioned whether or not the husband was even dead. No way. I would have argued that they could not have been any more deceitful in the way they presented the material, but I would have been wrong. The ridiculousness of the post continues.

After showing the video that is chopped off before Beck questions whether or not the husband is still alive (which obviously negates the basis of their attack on Beck), Foser posted a bunch of commentary from Fox News people regarding Dan Rather and the fake Bush memos. Then Foser asks:

Any chance we'll see this level of outrage directed at Glenn Beck for unquestioningly airing an apparently fraudulent tape in order to portray an ACORN employee as a murderer? Beck has, after all, been pretty clear that he is trying to bring ACORN down.

Again, watch the unedited video of Beck's segment, the one Media Matters didn't cut off in midstream, or read the transcript provided above. Beck asked plenty of questions, including whether or not the man was still alive. But Foser wrote "Any chance we'll see this level of outrage directed at Glenn Beck for unquestioningly airing an apparently fraudulent tape in order to portray an ACORN employee as a murderer?" Does he think his readers are not smart enough to go find the unedited video.

I know my readers understand the difference between the nature of the ACORN video and the Rathergate documents, but for those at Media Matters I'll explain. The ACORN video is real. Whether or not the woman was telling the truth when she claimed to have shot her husband has nothing to do with the authenticity of the video itself unless Foser is claiming James O'Keefe hired the woman to make up some lines and deliver them on camera. Or maybe if it was butchered the way Media Matters did Glenn Beck's commentary video. If neither of those things happened then how is the ACORN video "apparently fraudulent"? The woman may be a liar, but if she is indeed an employee of ACORN (which I don't believe has been disputed), she was caught on camera, in an ACORN office, giving advice to someone claiming to be a pimp trying to open a brothel of underage illegal immigrant girls about how to hide the true nature of his business in order and evade taxes and be eligible for assistance. Glenn Beck was shocked by the statements from the ACORN employee, in an ACORN office, and asked a series of questions, including one about her claims about shooting her husband.

Is the argument that everything is cool if the woman was lying about killing her husband? I have heard that one floating around -- that if the woman's husband is not dead then the tapes are fake or fraudulent or irrelevant. I would argue that it is much worse if ACORN hired a woman who would lie to people coming into their office about killing her husband, than if they hired a woman who (possibly in self defense) shot and killed her husband.

Regarding the Dan Rather comparison -- do I really, seriously, have to explain how that is different from supposedly seasoned professionals at CBS news and 60 Minutes putting on the air documents that were supposedly 30 years old, but were obviously produced with a relatively recent version of a Word processing program (superscript and all)? I won't get into all the ways CBS failed to do due diligence on the documents that were so obviously inauthentic, but it is interesting that those on the left are comparing the ACORN video to the Rathergate docs in an effort to save ACORN's bacon, or to save their President who has a history with ACORN. To me it sounds like desperate, grabbing at straws, how the heck are we gonna spin this one, crazy talk.

For those who would like to see the unedited version of Beck's commentary in full, here is the video:

Geez, this one wasn't even thinly disguised. I don't know how often Media Matters does this kind of thing because I almost never read them, but I found a link to one of their posts at Digg and clicked on it because the title (Will Fox News hold Beck to its Dan Rather standard?) made me curious.

Here is the relevant part of the post by Jamison Foser:

Fox News' Glenn Beck recently aired a video indicating that an ACORN employee shot and killed her husband, without first bothering to verify whether the husband is, in fact, dead. He isn't. The video is, in other words, a fraud. But that didn't stop Beck from calling it evidence of "murder" and perhaps even "premeditated murder." Of a person who is still alive.

Sean Hannity aired it, too.

Here's a bunch of Fox News "reporters" who are outraged about the murder. Which didn't happen. Because the guy is still alive:

Got that? Beck was being deceptive because he said the guy was dead. And that the woman committed murder. Possibly premeditated murder! The problem is, I saw that segment of Beck and I remembered that after showing the video, Beck questioned whether or not the husband was even dead. Media Matters posted the video though, so I wondered if I had misunderstood what Beck had said. So I watched the following video posted by Foser at Media Matters: When I watched the video Media Matters ran I immediately knew what was up because they chopped Beck's commentary to bits and curiously left out the part of it that completely contradicts their claim. I looked for the Beck video at YouTube to make sure I was not misremembering his commentary and here is a transcript of what I found.

Glenn Beck: This is twisted, bizarre, macabre. I mean, is this theater? I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a jury. Um, but gosh even to me it seems like this is a potential admission of murder and the way she was describing doing some groundwork beforehand, you know so everyone in town knew exactly what was going on, a case might be made for premeditated murder. In fairness, I don't understand people who stay in abusive relationships. I don't. I get it. I get it. And maybe a jury might conclude that it was justifiable homicide. I don't know but we haven't been even able to confirm from the state of California whether Theresa's husband from ten years ago was killed. Or if he's dead. Or if she even had a husband. Did she make the story up? I don't know. Nobody is asking questions. See if the mainstream media will follow this one. This is shocking. It raises serious questions about what is going on inside of ACORN.

I italicized the portion of the commentary Media Matters provided to their readers in the mishmash video they put together. The parts they omitted are not italicized. I put in bold the part of Beck's comments that directly contradict Media Matters post. It is not like the comments were made in a different Beck show, or even in a different segment of Beck's show. They were part of the same paragraph if you look at the commentary in written transcript. And the pieces they chose to include in their video came from just before and right after the part where Beck questioned if the husband was dead. There is NO WAY that Media Matters could have seen Beck's commentary and not known he questioned whether or not the husband was even dead. No way. I would have argued that they could not have been any more deceitful in the way they presented the material, but I would have been wrong. The ridiculousness of the post continues.

After showing the video that is chopped off before Beck questions whether or not the husband is still alive (which obviously negates the basis of their attack on Beck), Foser posted a bunch of commentary from Fox News people regarding Dan Rather and the fake Bush memos. Then Foser asks:

Any chance we'll see this level of outrage directed at Glenn Beck for unquestioningly airing an apparently fraudulent tape in order to portray an ACORN employee as a murderer? Beck has, after all, been pretty clear that he is trying to bring ACORN down.

Again, watch the unedited video of Beck's segment, the one Media Matters didn't cut off in midstream, or read the transcript provided above. Beck asked plenty of questions, including whether or not the man was still alive. But Foser wrote "Any chance we'll see this level of outrage directed at Glenn Beck for unquestioningly airing an apparently fraudulent tape in order to portray an ACORN employee as a murderer?" Does he think his readers are not smart enough to go find the unedited video.

I know my readers understand the difference between the nature of the ACORN video and the Rathergate documents, but for those at Media Matters I'll explain. The ACORN video is real. Whether or not the woman was telling the truth when she claimed to have shot her husband has nothing to do with the authenticity of the video itself unless Foser is claiming James O'Keefe hired the woman to make up some lines and deliver them on camera. Or maybe if it was butchered the way Media Matters did Glenn Beck's commentary video. If neither of those things happened then how is the ACORN video "apparently fraudulent"? The woman may be a liar, but if she is indeed an employee of ACORN (which I don't believe has been disputed), she was caught on camera, in an ACORN office, giving advice to someone claiming to be a pimp trying to open a brothel of underage illegal immigrant girls about how to hide the true nature of his business in order and evade taxes and be eligible for assistance. Glenn Beck was shocked by the statements from the ACORN employee, in an ACORN office, and asked a series of questions, including one about her claims about shooting her husband.

Is the argument that everything is cool if the woman was lying about killing her husband? I have heard that one floating around -- that if the woman's husband is not dead then the tapes are fake or fraudulent or irrelevant. I would argue that it is much worse if ACORN hired a woman who would lie to people coming into their office about killing her husband, than if they hired a woman who (possibly in self defense) shot and killed her husband.

Regarding the Dan Rather comparison -- do I really, seriously, have to explain how that is different from supposedly seasoned professionals at CBS news and 60 Minutes putting on the air documents that were supposedly 30 years old, but were obviously produced with a relatively recent version of a Word processing program (superscript and all)? I won't get into all the ways CBS failed to do due diligence on the documents that were so obviously inauthentic, but it is interesting that those on the left are comparing the ACORN video to the Rathergate docs in an effort to save ACORN's bacon, or to save their President who has a history with ACORN. To me it sounds like desperate, grabbing at straws, how the heck are we gonna spin this one, crazy talk.

For those who would like to see the unedited version of Beck's commentary in full, here is the video:

I Wish I Could Vote for Matt Burden

This is the best news I have heard in a long time. Matt Burden, of milblog Blackfive fame, is one of my favorite people. He is passionate about his country's future, but is also always thoughtful and reasonable. He is entering a new phase of service now.

For more than 20 years, I've served my country, fighting to protect and preserve the American freedoms, rights, and values that make this country great, first as an Airborne Soldier - and then as one of the leaders of the Internet political revolution that has held arrogant and corrupt leaders accountable from city halls all the way to Washington D.C.

After much thought and one helluva exploratory committee, the green light is on and I'm ready - I have decided to run for office. I will change Illinois' political landscape and culture of corruption. But I can't do it without your help.

Please help Matt. He is one of the good guys. He has shown his commitment to his country time and time again, and soon, hopefully, he will be allowed to show that commitment through service to his congressional district. Matt is asking for a mere $10 to help him in his run. If you can, please send some love his way.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

This is the best news I have heard in a long time. Matt Burden, of milblog Blackfive fame, is one of my favorite people. He is passionate about his country's future, but is also always thoughtful and reasonable. He is entering a new phase of service now.

For more than 20 years, I've served my country, fighting to protect and preserve the American freedoms, rights, and values that make this country great, first as an Airborne Soldier - and then as one of the leaders of the Internet political revolution that has held arrogant and corrupt leaders accountable from city halls all the way to Washington D.C.

After much thought and one helluva exploratory committee, the green light is on and I'm ready - I have decided to run for office. I will change Illinois' political landscape and culture of corruption. But I can't do it without your help.

Please help Matt. He is one of the good guys. He has shown his commitment to his country time and time again, and soon, hopefully, he will be allowed to show that commitment through service to his congressional district. Matt is asking for a mere $10 to help him in his run. If you can, please send some love his way.

Crossposted at Wizbang.

My New AIP Column: Why Every Citizen Should Care About the ACORN Scandal

Recent reports of criminal activity in the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) are serious and should be of interest to every American citizen, their congressional representatives and the media.  The series of undercover videos made in several ACORN offices across the country by James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, while certainly the most sensational evidence of ACORN wrong doing, are far from the first.

Bloggers like Michelle Malkin and Jim Hoft have been tracking instances of ACORN problems for years, many related to voter registration fraud.  In Florida, Indiana, Wisconsin and elsewhere tens of thousands of bad voter applications were submitted by ACORN in the last election – “tying up election officials and jeopardizing the voting rights of untold victims whose identities may have been stolen.” 

Other illegal activity has been perpetrated and prosecuted as well.  No matter how many instances of submitting bogus voter registration forms and other improper or illegal activity have been shown, the mainstream media have been remarkably uninterested.  Not only had the organization continued to receive millions in public funding, but was eligible to receive billions of stimulus money.

The undercover video investigation by O’Keefe and Giles finally forced the Congress to reconsider ACORN funding and even appears to have prompted some official investigations into the operations of the group.  If not for publicity on the internet, conservative talk radio and Fox News those in the mainstream media would likely have continued to ignore wrongdoing by ACORN.  In fact, some network television and major national newspapers did not give the story any coverage until the Senate voted to cut off funding.  ABC News lead anchor Charles Gibson said he didn’t even know anything about the video investigation story until well after it had been covered by Fox News and was all over talk radio and the internet.

Citizens should be troubled that the major news organizations in the country seemed so determined to ignore the story.  They should be particularly concerned because they have a very real interest in what was going on at ACORN.  Millions of taxpayer dollars have gone to the organization and those taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being spent.  Likewise, those in Congress with the responsibility of over-seeing those funds should be concerned about the type of activity that was being funded. 

The American taxpayer was let down multiple times.  They were let down by their representatives in Congress who ignored and/or made excuses for the group and they were let down by most in the news media who ignored or minimized some very serious problems within the group.  I can’t help but wonder if not for the sensational nature of the undercover video operation if Congress and the media would ever have adequately addressed ACORN’s problems.  They have ignored them for so long, I don’t know that anything short of ACORN workers on camera helping to facilitate a child prostitution operation would have raised an eyebrow from them.  

Another reason citizens should be concerned about the ACORN operation is that they were on track to help conduct the next U.S. Census.  Census numbers, of course, affect the way congressional districts are drawn.  Thankfully another result of O’Keefe and Giles’ investigation is that the Census Bureau has severed ties with ACORN.

ACORN has played a large role in past elections and when campaigning, President Obama, who has a long history with the group, promised them a seat at the table if elected. As Michelle Malkin described it, “Obama's political DNA is encoded with the ACORN agenda.”  Considering that strong connection there is no way to know just how involved ACORN might have been in shaping public policy over the course of the Obama administration if not for the work done by O’Keefe and Giles.

Those defending the group, like ACORN chief executive Bertha Lewis, claim the problems found at various offices across the country are isolated cases of rogue employees.  As Mary Katharine Ham put it, “I love how Bertha Lewis thinks it's exculpatory that only a handful of ACORN offices blithely help pimps and child prostitution.”  The same was the case with the many incidents of voter registration fraud found in ACORN offices around the country. 

Congressman Mark Foley was just one out of hundreds of congressmen, and one out of millions of Republicans, yet in 2006 the exposure of his inappropriate sexually suggestive instant messages to pages was offered as proof that Republicans were steeped in a culture of corruption. Those in the media heavily covered the story and helped build that culture of corruption storyline which played a large role in the huge losses experienced by the GOP in that election. Yet in the case of improper and even illegal activity in multiple offices of ACORN, they saw no reason to connect the dots and consider the cumulative nature of the evidence.

Citizens should be very concerned and troubled by what went on at ACORN, but they should be even more so by the way that activity was enabled by Congress and the media over a period of years. 

Originally posted at American Issues Project.

Want to know how successful the 9/12 protests were? Just check a liberal blog.

The post below is what I found on the front of Daily Kos today.  If you want to see just how confused, upset and downright afraid liberals are of the tea party movement, look no farther. 

Sunday Talk - The Land of Make-Believe

by Silly Rabbit

Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 02:14:36 AM PDT

Thousands of millions of teabaggers descended on Washington, DC yesterday.

Some of them, no doubt, were hoping [in vain] to catch a glimpse of their newest hero/mancrush — Joe "NOES" Wilson.

Others were looking to relive the glory of 9/12s past.

But many (read: most) went just because they're so madly in love with America.

Real America... not Africa-America

Predictable as heck and by the book.

Using the name "teabaggers" in an attempt to diminish the tea party movement?  Check.  Trying to downplay the number of protesters by mocking them as "thousands of millions"?  Check.  Saying tea party protesters are racist?  Check.

They have to mock and exaggerate and call names because if they look at the crowds honestly they'll have to cry.

Here is what I don't think you'll be seeing on the front page of the liberal blogs:

 

Or this:

Or this one:

Update:  Here is a handy, dandy chart to help those struggling to understand what the pictures above mean.

Update II:  More from Melissa Clouthier on liberal reaction to the 9/12 protests.  Rick Moran on how the dispute over numbers is meant to mask the history being made.

Update III:  No number of pictures, even those appearing in the Obama loving media, even those showing crowds that appear every bit as large as those at O's inauguration, will convince some people.  I really hope they continue to live in denial.  It will make the November 2010 election results even more of a shock.

Update IV:  Check out the entry currently posted at Wikipedia for the 9/12 march on DC:

Taxpayer March on Washington

Main article: Taxpayer March on Washington

On September 12, 2009, over 75,000 Tea Party protesters gathered in Washington, D.C. to march from Freedom Plaza to the United States Capitol.^[62][63]. While hundreds of thousands of people indicated that they planned to attend^[64], and as many as 30,000 registered in advance ^[65], actual turnout was estimated by many as far less^[66][67][68]. DC Park Police reportedly called an estimate of 30,000 "generous".^[69]

Never Forget -- Eight Years Later

"The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge structures collapsing, have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet, unyielding anger. These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed; our country is strong. A great people has been moved to defend a great nation. Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve."

        - President George W. Bush, September 11, 2001 Address to the Nation

In the past Republicans have been criticized by Democrats anytime they reminded the country of the attacks of September 11.  It is not possible to honor the sacrifice of those who ran into the buildings when everyone else was running out, unless we remember, and remind the country, of  what happened that day.

It is important not only to remember those who lost their lives on that day, but to remember the kind of insanity and hatred that led the hijackers to murder. 

"The people who did this to us are monsters; the people who cheered them have hate-sickened minds. One reason they can cheer is that they know we would never do to them what their heroes did to us, even though we could, a thousand times worse. They know that when we hunt down the monsters, we will try hard not to harm the innocent. Those are the handcuffs we willingly wear, because for all our flaws, we are a decent people." -- Dave Barry.

Whether criticized for it or not, I think it is also important that we remember what it felt like on that day. I was watching the Today Show and saw the second plane hit the tower in real time. I remember shock, disbelief, and sadness, but most of all a vulnerability that did not exist on September 10. That feeling stayed with me for quite some time. I had felt it to a much lesser extent when the WTC was bombed years earlier, but 9/11/01 was, obviously, on a level never before seen in our nation's history. When I heard the announcement that the Pentagon had been hit as well, and then saw video of the gaping hole, my only thought was "we have been attacked and we are at war."

That feeling has faded a good deal over the years since there have been no new attacks on our soil, but we must remember that there are still people in this world who would like nothing better than to see a repeat of 2001. President Bush said "these acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve." I fear the American resolve has been dented a bit. Hopefully taking time today to remember the events of September 11, 2001 will help firm up that resolve.

Over the past few years I have done several 9/11 tributes and memorials -- the preceding two paragraphs were repeated from something I wrote last year on 9/11. Here are links to some of those posts:  September 11, 2008, September 11, 2007, September 11, 2006

Update: Links to some of the 9/11 memorials post today: Radio Patriot, the Anchoress, Gerald Vanderleun, Bookworm Room, Don Surber, Blackfive, Noisy Room, Ace, Pierre LeGrand, Ed Morrisey, Uncle Jimbo , Melissa Clouthier and Spirit of America. Also be sure to read Allahpundit's Twitter feed today (just keep scrolling down until you get to the beginning then work your way back up) -- the horror of the day told in 140 character bites. It is very powerful. Also don't miss Chris Muir at Day by Day.

A commenter, Paul in Houston, pointed me to this column from Leonard Pitts from just after 9/11. It reminded me what I felt on that day.

Pushing the Limits on Health Care Reform

My latest column is up at American Issues Project.  Here's an excerpt:

Part of the Department of Education’s suggested lesson plan to go along with President Obama’s speech to school children this week was for teachers to ask students, “Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials… Why is what they say important?”

A better question might have been, “Why is it important that elected officials listen to the people they represent? Why is what the people say important?”

So much of the President’s current problem with his approval ratings can be traced back to these simple questions. Whether it be the stimulus package, the bailouts and control over private industries, a growing deficit or the health care debate, many Americans believe those in power don’t care what they think or what they have to say.